Eso’s Chronicles 145
Rending the False Flag Asunder
A Force Majeure Project of theFuture (4)
© Eso A.B.



A Painted Grasshopper / Copyright Cynthia Roderick

What was once whole has now been rent asunder, and the cloth of the flag that once showed a landscape whole, may now show that same canvas back to back (one behind the other), or one right side up, the other right side down. The source for the image (written by this author) comes from the New Testament (Matthew 21:51), where it is written that at the time of death of Jesus, “Suddenly, the curtain (a flag) in the sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom, the earth shook, rocks were split open….”

Dramatic as the image may be, it follows after the fact, after the death of Jesus. The rending of the false flag does not precede Jesus’ death or initiate further events.

Why the rending of the curtain after the death, why not the rending of it before? If the rending had occurred before the death, it could then and now be interpreted as a warning to desist from going ahead with whatever plans may have been afoot at the time. With the rending of the curtain following the death, it becomes an aftershock at best, and a tragicomic confirmation at worst, and nothing more.

To put it yet another way: if an event occurs after a notably significant event, it is a mere spectacle and a fantasized addition, just as the death of Jesus is a fantasized and rewrite of the deaths of Basil the Physician http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_the_Physician  and Polycarp of Smyrna http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/martyrdompolycarp-lake.html kaleidoscoped into one story.

While Judas betrays Jesus for reasons that one has to imagine (and many have tried), Polycarp is betrayed by a servant of his own household under torture by the Romans. Everyone understands that torture is used to extract information that will betray an individual or an activity. Also, while the name of Judas is an invention to associate the betrayer with Jews, the man who tells the police of Polycarp’s hiding place is a young slave from “his (Polycarp’s) own house”. There is no suggestion that the slave is or has connection with Jews.
 

The story of Bishop Polycarp (as told at the link) is told as if it happens many years after the crucifixion. This is to be expected, especially when the story is a post factum story. At the same time the story of Polycarp shows signs of being edited after the original has been used as material for a fantasized story. If we go to “The Alexiad” (Penguin Books, p. 496 ff) by Anna Comnena, daughter of the Byzantine king Alexius I, and reread the story of Basil, which in my opinion is the original event on which the Passion of Jesus is based, we discover that the instrument of death is not a cross, but a fiercely burning fire in a large pit. In the retold story of Polycarp, the pit reappears in a dream as a burning pillow, which Polycarp interprets as predicting that he will suffer death by burning, In the New Testament the same fire appears as a bonfire in the courtyard of the high priest.
 

The above version of the story radically differs from the story told in the West. The princes of the West will not acknowledge that the story told by the princes of the church is of force majeure proportions, though they go along with the redefinition of it as a Passion Story, behind which is hid the death of the Savior of Humankind.
  

What is interesting about the teachings of Jesus Christ in the New Testament is that in ways it differs very little from the teachings of Basil the Bogomil (http://basilthebogomil.blogspot.com), but that the real difference lies in subtle insertions of words or parables that turn the emphasis from Jesus’ life as an Act, into Jesus’s  life as not going beyond talk or the Word. Moreover, while there are long passages where one can discern little difference between the Words of Jesus and that of Basil (the main difference is of course the change in name from John Basil to Jesus), it is left to the ‘apostles’ to suggest a ‘different’ meaning in their premeditated letters. These reveal that the story is being shifted in favor of secular powers: government and Caesar. The most distinct shift appears in the Letter of Paul to the Romans (Romans 13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+13&version=NKJV ). Another shift occurs in the parable that emphasizes the importance of “money” or “coin”, re: “the parable about bags of gold (Matthew 25:14-30)”.
 

Thus, it came about that the life of humankind in wood and field, where it practiced subsistence economies, its life became a race in the hamster  cage https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QD9Kau5bf8 , and an example of futile resistance against obviously evil men, who even manage the describe the resistance as “evil” and intimate that a bite or two on their skin by a brutalized hamster is akin to a “terrorist attack” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf06WJQ4FnE .
 

The murder of Basil, a force majeure event, was followed by many centuries of official attempts to erase the story. The erasure of the teachings of Basil The Bogomil and the replacement of the same with the teachings of Jesus Christ is what turns the story into a False Flag hid behind the name of a “Passion Story”.
 

In the West, the Passion Story is described as a story of The Savior or The Shepherd saving a herd of sheep lost in a wood filled with snakes tempting to lead aimlessly Wandering Pilgrims to honeypots of “lust”.  John Bunyan’s “Pilgrim’s Progress” (1678) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pilgrim's_Progress  is a marvelous depiction of what 560 years Christians who had forgot or hid the force majeure moment believed the story to be.

The censure of “lust” continues to our day, because lust is ubiquitous to all men and women, and by censuring and condemning it, one may pretend to be morally righteous (denial of sexual lust results in sexual possessiveness), while being financially greedy and exploitative of others is something that is swept under the rug. The censure against lust is well illustrated by the fact that one will be hard put to discover on Google the story (perhaps apocryphal) of Mary Nightingale (or was it Mary Seacole), who offered their breasts to one or more wounded soldier at the hospitals they served as nurses. Surely one will never discover the hush-hush story of a Nursing Home Aide fondling genitals of Seniors in order to bring home a better wage.

It was through a force majeure 560 years before Bunyan’s “Pilgrim’s Progress” that the early leaders of proto-urban communities the world over,  lost control to individuals who presumed that gathering in communities was as natural to humankind as it was for bees and ants to spontaneously hive into new communities.

The liberal and unhesitating application of violence forced a community to abandon an ancient belief that a community may happen and survive only through an act of self-sacrifice. The belief was abandoned and condemned as a theory of community formation by murder. The new theory that was forced upon the community and its “old leaders” by the “new leaders” killed the old self-sacrificial kings, and replaced them with a leadership of princes and boyars presumed to have been born of a natural community (which, nevertheless, continued to hold to the theory that leadership became one as a hereditary inheritance). Some stated the new belief in terms of natural selection and “Survival of the fittest”, and blamed scientist Charles Darwin if questioned about the simple mindedness of the theory.

The “good news” (you may now make money as a human right!) communities—no longer subjected to the charisma of bonding by self-sacrificial death—no longer felt any restraints when it came to accumulating commodities. It unleashed what we know today as ‘liberal capitalism’ and a political system described as ‘democracy’ born of an inherent (God given) Promise (as Bunyan’s Pilgrim called it) of Utopia http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/people/bunyan-john.html . Today, 895 years after the death of Basil The Bogomil, with the consequences of the evolution of ‘liberal capitalism’ clear, we see communities the world over breaking down.
 

The Utopian ‘new leaders’, who refuse to self-sacrifice themselves, gather their various tribes into gangs of warriors http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-03-09/cia-head-sworn-draft-constitution-without-bill-rights against humankind at large, and prepare the ground for a caste system similar to the one that  prevailed in ‘old’ India. In spite of the obviousness of social break-down, the leading intellectuals continue to propound communities as a ‘natural’ outcome of being born human. Thus, Stonehenge, the ancient temple in Britain is proposed even today (2013-3-09) to have started as a conventional burial ground, albeit for elites, in ancient times http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/mar/09/archaeology-stonehenge-bones-burial-ground . Behold the community as a gathering of the dead.
 

One objection raised to my interpretation of Western or Catholic Christianity as a False Flag operation initiated by Western Princes is that the False Flag has taken nearly a thousand years to capture the world. As I mentioned in the previous blog (143), the fall of the sacred king was not immediate, and even today there are many nations where the office of ‘king’ and ‘queen’ remain in a ceremonial sense.
 

The last mention of the king as a sacred king in the West is from Roman times, where the last emperor considered to be a God was Romulus Augustus, who was deposed in +476 by a German king Odoacer http://www.ancient.eu.com/Roman_Empire/ . However, I follow Anatoly Fomenko and am in agreement with him that the Roman Empire never existed, but was stolen from the Byzantines (along with Christianity), and was set up as a fictional False Flag history. This causes me to reflect on any objections to such an interpretation as a denial that a reconsideration of chronology as told in the West must be one of the major intellectual projects of the future.

The contesting of wills with the Western windmills fanning up a dust storm of lies is, no doubt, a quixotic endeavor. I find it interesting, however, and engaging. The lies of the academic blowhards, too, are entertaining—if only because history always comes with unexpected political twists and turns and causes us to think of the twists and turns in our own lives. My personal interest in breaking a spear or propeller or two is that I like to think of ‘life’ making at least ‘some sense’.

Having been forced to accept the coup d’état against the rule of Basil The Bogomil (or Physician) by Western secular and spiritual princes as their founding platform, and having spun there from an incredible and ever evolving canvas of stories, which present history as one continuous catastrophe, the Dead End is all too obvious in the wish that the smoke blowing out of the chimney at the Sistine Chapel in Rome be always black. Whether the ‘new’ Pope comes from Argentina or is a local clown from Italy, or an Italian Berlusconi with its crankshaft being oiled by a young prostitute, the coup d’état is ending with in a spectacle that entertains with death upon death the world over, and the ‘new’ Pope presenting God as a never ending Word, but never daring to Act as Basil did.

Eso’s Chronicles 144
The Earthquake of San Francisco and

Force Majeure in Latvia as A Screwy Political Act (3)
© Eso A.B.

Autumn foliage

Before the reader goes to read the rest of this blog, I suggest he-she reads the following on the “Force majeure programme in Riga 2014” The header and lead state:

“Rīga 2014 programme Force Majeure / Author: RĪGA 2014 04.08.2011.”

 

That said, the text tells us that:

“In its programme [2014], Riga focuses on culture as the spiritual and intellectual dimension of mankind, manifesting itself through any form of human activity, and expanding the understanding of culture through liaisons with other spheres of life. It is a liaison between generations, traditions and the digital world, it means overcoming historically established barriers.”

 

In short, the note of bombast is due to the fact that in 2014 Riga plays the role of the European capital of culture (ECOC). How can we possibly do without references to “the spiritual and intellectual dimension of humankind”?

Some time ago, I started a series of blogs which I hoped to use to argue that Riga, Latvia, develop a program through which it promotes itself as a replacement of Brussels, the current Capital City of the European Union. Vulgar as it may sound, I was motivated by the perception that Mr. von Rompuy, President of the European Council, had turned Brussels into a cork up the EU’s arse. I ended the series, when it became obvious that the average citizen of Latvia (let alone Europe), no matter how much horse meat they had consumed would not be able to muster a fart big enough to expell a cork blessed bt NATO.

 

One reason my arguments lacked volume was that there are actually two governments of Riga: a) the municipal government and b) the national government, the latter having established Riga as the capital city of Latvia as far back as 1918.
 

Another reason to let go was that the state government of Latvia and the municipal government of Riga are presently engaged in a civil war over who is to have control over Riga. To the extent the battle is a battle between two ethnic groups, the Latvians and the Russians, the former of who are 40% (= 263,200) of Riga’s 658,000 population, while the Russians are 46% (= 302,680), other ethic minorities making up the remaining 14% (= 92,120) inhabitants; this according to the 2011 census.
 

While the “Author” (of the programme) does not immediately reveal who it represents (the state or municipal government), a search discovers that: “The Rīga 2014 foundation was established by the city of Rīga to provide for the development and running of the culture events of Rīga as the European Capital of Culture … ”
 

To clarify what the organizers of the Riga Capital of Culture Committee mean by the term force majeure:
 

“For the title of its 2014 programme, Riga has chosen a term commonly used in law – force majeure – which signifies an mighty force, both unexpected and foreseeable (my bolded italics) …
 

If we open the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_majeure we learn that force majeure “...is a common clause in contracts that essentially frees both parties from liability or obligation when an extraordinary event or circumstance beyond the control of the parties….” occurs.
 

Riga Capital of Culture Foundation elaborates that force majeure is a  “mighty force”: “… accumulated through global and individual obstructions and problems.” (My bolded italics.)
 

Having discovered the legal meaning and use of force majeure, we now have to discover what is ‘unexpected’ and ‘foreseeable’ about it? Since catastrophic hazards of nature are rare in Riga, the only “unexpected” event is likely to be a ‘political’ one. While political upsets are frequent in an inherently unstable ‘democratic’ order, Latvia has participated in only one event that may be considered to have the significance of a force majeure. This ‘one event’ consists however of a number of interrelated events. Re:
 

1917, March. Beginning of the Russian Revolution. The force majeure goal of the Revolution is to establish International Socialism as opposition to Global Liberal Capitalism. The ultimate goal of Global Liberal Capitalism and International Socialism is to defeat one another and the victor becoming thereafter the sole governmening system on the planet. A month after the outbreak of the Revolution, Tsar Nicholas abdicates. By November 1917, the Bolsheviks unseat the Provisional Government of Russia, and the Soviet government becomes the only government in Russia and its former territories.
 

1917, July, Riga, Latvia. The Latvian Social Democrats in Riga, controlled by the Bolsheviks, establish Iskolat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iskolat . Iskolat is the acronym for “the Executive Committee of the Soviet Workers, Soldiers, and the Landless in Latvia”. German forces, ensconced on the left or west bank of the River Daugava, soon thereafter attack Riga, and  Iskolat is forced to retreat east, ultimately escaping into Russia proper, where in March 1918 it disbands. On December 16, 1917, Russia and Germany agree to an armistice http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/armistice_russogerman.htm . The armistice is signed
 

1918, 3 March at Brest-Litovsk  http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/brestlitovsk.htm . As a result of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty, Russia is to cede many of the lands on her Western borders, including the territory of Latvia. The treaty in and of itself, continues as part of the series of events begun with the force majeure that begun with the Revolution, and ought not to be viewed as a separate event. The Treaty was dictated for the most part by the German Kaiser, and was backed by the Central Powers, who, in spite of viewing the Treaty as detrimental to their short term interests in the war,  saw the Treaty as furthering the long term the interests of Western liberalism. The Treaty ultimately cost Russia most of her Western territories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk .
 

18 November, 1918, the Latvian Peoples Council proclaims Latvia’s independence http://latvianhistory.wordpress.com/2010/11/17/18-november-the-latvian-independence-day/ . The proclamation does not result in immediate independence, but is followed by a period of instability and continued armed conflict. The Latvian Social Democrats are reluctant to join, because their sympathies are with the Bolsheviks and in the establishment of International Socialism as permanent opposition to Liberal Capitalism. Nevertheless, the Latvian Social democrats agree to the November 18 declaration, but with the qualification that as far as they were concerned, independent Latvia is for the party an instrument, but not an exclusive goal.
 

1918, 17 December, Latvian Socialists proclaim with the political, economic, and military backing of Lenin and his Bolshevik government the Latvian Socialist Soviet Republic. This act is meant to counter the November 18 proclamation of the Latvian Peoples Council.
 

1919 an attack of combined German and Latvian forces drives the Latvian Socialist Soviet government to Latvia’s easternmost regions. In 1920—with the help of Polish forces—rightist forces of Latvia drive the Soviets from Latvia. As a consequence, the Latvian government has no Socialist representation to this day.
 

These events, except for the event of 1989 (collapse of the Soviet Union), end the force majeure effort by Lenin. Unfortunately for the Soviets, the West survives the struggle between itself and the reestablished East, whereas the East again loses its footing. In Latvia the fall of the Soviet Union is celebrated by adopting and projecting a kind of mindless hubris over the ability of the West to celebrate centuries of murder and suffering of humankind by finding the heights of expression in Pop Art. Its media celebrate a conceit that history serves best when forgotten or purposely misrepresented . There is nary a thought here that denial of economic equality might serve as heat serves a cobra in producing deadly poison.
 

Given that in the text quoted above, the organizers of the Riga 2014 Cultural event have put ‘unexpected’ next to ‘foreseeable’, one is tempted to imagine the two words are related to each other as closely as  ‘unknown’ is to ‘known’. It is like a dream before awakening from it all wet. Fortunately for the dreamer, the mystery is solved by the explanation that such wetness is “…accumulated through global and individual obstructions and problems”. It is like discovering that all one needs to solve the problem of absence of imagination is a suppository.
 

A citizen of the world, who has bought into the “globalization” ideology of the liberal capitalist world order, might see the word ‘individual’ in personal terms. He-she might wonder whether “individual obstruction” is sourced in them? Even so, it is unlikely that anyone reading this, and thinking of coming to Riga in 2014 will ‘unexpectedly’ and spontaneously admit themselves obstructionists. As to ‘individual problems’, who can say that he-she is free of them?
 

This leaves us seeking ‘unexpected and foreseeable’ situations significant enough to call for force majeure action—from a global perspective. If we discover such, we will not escape thinking of force majeure as involving political risks of global proportions. Moreover, since the “Riga 2014 Cultural Capital of Europe” has a legal standing, it is the party which writes the contract or, to put it another way, defines the function of the Cultural event.
 

This is how the Foundation sees its function:
 

“A significant role in Riga 2014 programme will be played by the Mobile Centres in Riga’s suburbs and Latvian towns. It means that in 2014, Riga plans to decentralise its programme by carrying out various cultural events outside its cultural centre, reaching Sigulda, its official partner town, Cēsis, Liepāja or any other city or town open for cultural cooperation. The European Capital of Culture status for Riga must be beneficial to the entire nation, and Riga sees itself as sort of a gate to Latvia – many professionals of culture have already been involved in preparing applications for the ECOC status of Riga, Cēsis and Liepāja, thus demonstrating the mobility of Latvian artists.”
 

The implicit/ explicit definition of the function of Riga as a Capital of Culture may not be all that significant to a visitor to Riga, but to a Latvian citizen it is a rather amazing document.
 

• The second sentence, re: “It means that IN 2014, Riga plans to decentralize its programme…” should read: “It means that BY 2014.…” In other words, Riga has usurped the benefits meant to be “beneficial to the entire nation” for itself for over twenty years (since renewed independence).

• “…Riga sees itself as sort of a gate to Latvia… ” should read: “Riga, which  has placed itself as a city outside of Latvia, is considering reintegrating itself as part of the country to receive cudos from the EU….”

• “… The European Capital of Culture [ECOC] status for Riga must be beneficial to the entire nation…” is an assertion post factum, because by its own admission, Riga has here to now had a centralized programme….”

• When we come to the following fragment in the last sentence: “…many professionals of culture have already been involved in preparing applications for the ECOC status of Riga, Cēsis and Liepāja, thus demonstrating the mobility of Latvian artists,” we are at first mesmerized, then shocked by its audacity to describe artists as “professionals of culture”. If one googles for the meaning of the term http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100210203325AAIXuaX , one finds no understanding of it on the web. True, it may be a term understood by the Riga bureaucrats, but it is unlikely to be understood by artists in the rest of Latvia, whether professionals or amateurs, since by definition, they have not been part of Riga by Riga’s own admission.

Such audacious presumption forces us to question the municipal government and its Council Of Culture. However, wait!  Who are the members of this Foundation?

Interestingly, all of the names of the Supervision Council of the Foundation are Latvian names, that is, the Council consists solely of the 40% of the inhabitants of Riga who are of Latvian ‘ethnicity’. The only name of Russian descent (of the 46% of Riga population) is that of the mayor of Riga, Nils Ušakovs, who leads the list of thirteen other names.
 

The exclusionism is apparently an unwitting continuation of the exclusion that began with the exclusion of socialists ninety-five years ago. It encapsules the continued unwitting identification of the Latvian cause with then emergent proto-Nazism, even though the hay-days of German Nazism are sixty-five years behind us. I write this, fully aware that the fascist and liberal capitalist nature of the Latvian government today is a term that does not apply to all Latvians, but only to those living in Riga, who define contemporary humankind as being of an “urban” nature.
 

Under the subhead “Road Map”, at the link to Riga 2014 ECOC, we read:
 

“The greater part of mankind lives in cities….  A city is not only made up of buildings and carriageways…. Cities are like living organisms that can grow dynamically and aggressively…. They can be led by the dynamics of the explosive development of generic cities … grounded in the pragmatism of capitalism. Or, it might be the global city … in which the local is found in constant interaction with the global. It may be assumed that a city grows by itself.”
 

In other words, cities, too (inclusive of Riga), may be like Nazi armies on a warpath for ‘Lebensraum’.  Interestingly, Latvians of countryside origin tend to bypass Riga by going direct to its airport, then flying to lands far abroad, while Riga attracts (in a move of expansionary inversion) an increasing number of rich Russians and Chinese.

If Riga ever becomes Europe’s Capital of Culture and Politics (ECOC&P), it will be,  because its Russian and Chinese http://www.kasjauns.lv/lv/zinas/66822/riga-nodibinata-pirma-latvijas-kiniesu-asociacija speaking immigrants will have learned to outwit the Latvian government and appear with Latvian names. In the future Mrs. Nadja Simjanova and Mr. Chan Chunyin will execute an Eastern style personal force majeure by applying for their Latvian passports as Nadīne Simsone and Kārlis Kārkliņš—no matter how many backward summersaults the Latvian Parliament in Riga flips in protest.

Eso’s Chronicles 143
The Earthquake of San Francisco as A Political Act (2)
© Eso A.B.

Looking At You!

Needless to say, the ‘political act’ has, in this instance, the aura of hope and prayer about it. It comes with no certainty it will ever occur.

 

Perhaps ‘the act’ will not turn out to be the Golden Gate Bridge crashing into the San Francisco Bay, or Mt. Fuji having a fiery blow out over Tokyo. One can in fact make a case for the Fukushima event, which is a consequence of a comvergence of acts by nature and humans: a convergence caused tsunamis, nuclear meltdown, human negligence, and hubris of the modern age. To the extent that the Japanese government continues to hide the real damage behind white sheets of purity, yet it is public knowledge that three of the six nuclear reactors suffered meltdowns, we can liken this to an unacknowledged seppuku by a modern government (Japanese) standing the Japanese people in for humankind. The catastrophe comes in a package neatly wrapped in white cloth. No one is likely to think that it contains a plastic bag of human blood.

The so-called “9/11 spectacle” predated the above actual or fancied catastrophes. However, 9/11--as the first event of a potential series, and because it was discovered (?) by the intelligence services before its execution took place--was seized and reengineered to suit the wealthy supporters of government who form the ‘deep government’ that underlies government as an institution. The reengineering, as we now know, consisted of a response that would react to ‘the act’ by declaring war “on terrorism”. The response would be of force majeure proportions http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-moral-decoding-of-9-11-beyond-the-u-s-criminal-state-the-grand-plan-for-a-new-world-order/5323300#_edn14 .

                                                                                                               

The force majeure following 9/11 was registered on public’s consciousness through an immediate declaration of war by the U.S. and NATO on Afghanistan. It would be followed, later, by war on Iraq, Libya, Mali, Syria, and places hid from the public eye. These as if justified acts of catastrophe had for their underlying goal the destruction of Russia, which the West had failed at since the Viking incursions, and which had culminated in the French led Fourth Crusade (1204) against Constantinople.

While the Crusade against Constantinople and Eastern Christianity was not the initial  act (for the original see my http://jesusthebogomil.blogspot.com ), and was preceded by a cluster of acts, the ‘1204 event’ was not unlike 9/11. While the killing of Basil in 1118 was a force majeure act that removed from the scene a defining political element (the body of the sacred king) which was akin to the disembowelment of a preexisting political system, the purpose of the ‘1204 event’ was to transfer the centre of power from the East to West in Toto. Ever since that time, this is where power has remained.

The political system that the force majeure act of 1204 instated came to be called by the name we know it today, ‘liberal capitalism’, aka ‘privatization’ of the planet.

Because the 9/11 event was an act of force majeure proportions, and because it was planned as an act of reinforcement to a system that had survived by a series of earlier elite-made catastrophes (WW1, WW2 among others), there was a sense of de ja vu about it. It is as if we have seen this objet d’art before—if not as an identical copy, then as a genre of media projecting and glorifying flatulence of mind, re “Pop Art” or what some philosophers have called ‘the Spectacle’. The hedonistic elements implicit in the latter have expanded their influence to where the mindset of 13-year old boys becomes bold enough to try fuck 15-year old girls deprived of any sense of public culture. How is a liberal capitalist government, a control freak in its heart of heart, to deal with this situation?

Enfants terribles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'enfant_terrible of liberal capitalism, in the guise of President Bush and his Vice President Dick Cheney, must have had a feeling that things have gone far enough, and that a runaway hedonistic civilization has to be somehow be brought back under control. They were moved to prove once more that ‘government’ is, after all, more powerful than ‘art’. While the last word is not in as to all the details of 9/11 (some claim its ‘engine’ to have been a nuclear device), we know that initially the spectacle was ‘imagined’ by non-American and non-European ‘artists’ able to go beyond the imaginations of ‘pop artists’ proper (wrapping buildings a la Christo and Jeanne-Claude was as far as these had got http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasometer_Oberhausen ), thus giving Vice President Cheney the opportunity to put the finishing touches on 9/11 by ordering war games in the sky http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2004/080904wargamescover.htm  on the morning that the attack on the WTC was scheduled to take place.

The thrust of my argument is that the coming of the ‘9/11 event’ was known and that the ‘deep government’ such the Bilderberg Group http://www.infowars.com/infowars-exclusive-david-icke-on-how-bilderberg-elites-control-society/ perceived its opportunity and struck.

……………………..

The dumbing down of humankind, a process that has, by now, lasted at least eight hundred and five years, re from 1204, one of the first force majeur events, to 2001, a major second force majeure event, must be by any standart considered a success.

Actually, the ‘dumbing down’ is older than that. One of the first dates and places for its actual beginning is 1118 CE in Constantinople, now Istanbul in Turkey; a second date of note is 1215 CE and takes place at Runnymede in England. Not surprisingly, the names of the two kings who suffered the humiliation of violent separation from their people had similar names.

The Byzantine sacred king was known as Basil, while the king in the second instance was the sacred king John of England  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John,_King_of_England . As the link notes, king John, a descendant of William the Conqueror, was excommunicated by Rome. This is nearly all the officially recorded information that we have on the displacement of old Christianity and economic order by what was to become known as liberal capitalism and its early ‘pop’ version of religion first housed at Avignon.

As in any good story, there is no shortage of unofficial information, which, given writers who have managed to escape being ‘dumbed down’, can produce other endings than those given heretonow. For example, the wreck of the White Ship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Ship , which caused the drowning of the heir designate of England William Adelin. While never proven, there is a suggestion that the wreck might have occurred due to an act of sabotage by non-Catholic Christians of the Byzantine Empire. For sure, the ship left the harbor without receiving the blessings of the Catholic clergy and most of those aboard were perhaps deliberately inebriated at the time the anchor was hauled. Perhaps equally deliberately the ship soon struck a submerged rock and sank with most aboard.

The ascent of Catholicism may be viewed (with prejudice) in the context of the attempt in our day to ‘globalize’ the political and economic system of our planet by the descendants of those who caused so much anarchy that followed the seizure of England from the real and true forebears of king John by the Norman invaders. The latter sere were descendants of the Viking marauders, who went up the Seine river  and downriver of the Dnepr and Volga, bringing with them not only trade in furs, wax, and slaves, but a culture of profit making, if not by peaceful trade, then by outright thievery and violence.

Tragically, the above dates (1118 & 1215) may be seen not simply as tragedies affecting two kings, but as tragedies that struck and affected the fate, governments, and times of humankind led by leaders who were in effect heirs to a right wing (and Viking) Liberal Revolution. One will benefit from reading the article on the Magna Carta at Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta . It includes the following:

“Magna Carta was the first document forced onto a King of England by a group of his subjects, the feudal barons, in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their privileges. It was preceded and directly influenced by the Charter of Liberties in 1100, in which King Henry I had specified [no doubt as a result of coercion] particular areas wherein his powers would be limited.” My bold face and italics of the word ‘forced’ to point out the paucity of references to what was a dispute of monumental proportions, but with hardly a direct reference of it left in our day.

One may also discover the rise of liberal capitalism in a third king. This is the French Louis XVI, who was decapitated by a guillotine in 1793. What is astonishing is that according to eye witnesses, many of the crowd who witnessed the king’s guillotining, despite many screaming “Vive la Republique”, dipped their handkerchiefs http://digital.csic.es/bitstream/10261/32188/3/FSI%20main%20text.doc in the king’s blood. There can be little doubt that the act meant to secure a sacred relic and for the person involved, because though the office of the king had become greatly besmirched, the common man continued to remember his sacred mission.

In spite of the dramatic events, a little reflection shows that the French Revolution was the consequence of a long period of governing systems condoning legalized theft, which fact also unleashed the Russian Revolution a century later. As noted, the cause of these anarchistic eruptions was the victory and instatement of a liberal capitalist ‘robber culture’ (eventually camouflaged behind such words as ‘competition’, ‘invention’, ‘creativeness’, and even ‘democracy’).

Today the alternative to a martyr king is a liverless ‘philosopher king’ or university academic. Men who once were princes and cardinals, advisors to the king, come in our day reincarnated as scholastics retooled into professors, who—much as they may try—cannot rediscover their roots. As close to the Real story as their fictionalized stories may on occasion come, they miss the connection for the lack of a conjunction. A good example is the philosopher Slavoj Žižek, who often comes remarkably close to identifying the problem, but nevertheless misses hitting the nail on the head. This is particularly true when it comes to perceiving the political role of the sacred king. Žižek’s identification with liberalism, especially its human rights aspect, is so deeply seated that he refuses to make any political connection with its opposition, the community.

Writes Žižek:

“The deepest identification that holds a community together is not so much an identification with the Law that regulates its ‘normal’ everyday rhythms, but rather identification with the specific form of transgression of the Law, of its suspension (in psychoanalytic terms, with the specific form of enjoyment.”*

Žižek goes to identify the ‘specific form of enjoyment’ with the Ku Klux Klan’s ‘nightly terror’ manifest in the lynching of helpless blacks. In short, instead of accepting a sacred king’s self-sacrifice as “…the specific form of transgression of the Law” (of ordinary and natural Real), Žižek cannot accept this without inserting a clause that makes the community a consequence of “solidarity-in-guilt” due to a common transgression. For Žižek my need to have my own room and my solidarity with its other occupants (be they brother scouts, sorority sisters, or wife and children)  makes for a Nazi community; a community that at some point in its existence will face such stresses that it will seek among its own a scapegoat to collectively murder.

For Žižek, the ‘stresses’ that arise in a ‘for profit’ liberal capitalist community may not be solved by a sacred self-sacrificial king, but the king necessarily fails and needs to be (will be) murdered, thus, perpetuating the mystery of why the problem has no solution. Even though Žižek knows of the topological circle, his identification and acceptance of the Christian False Flag story of the creation of Jesus Christ, keeps him --along with the Politburo—stuck in the door of the Vatican. Writes Žižek in a lament over nationalism:

“…the recourse to nationalism itself emerged in order to protect us from the traumatic disorientation from the loss of the ground under our feet by the disintegration of the social order, of the Lacanian ‘big Other’ epitomized  by Really Existing Socialism.”**

But what if ‘Really Existing Socialism’ does not exist and the only suitable economy for humankind is a Subsistence Economy? What if the charisma of the sacred king cannot be replaced by any kind of other political system or democracy without betraying it to liberal capitalism?

 

* Slavoj Žižek, “The universal exception”, Continuum, p 28.

** Ibid., p 30.

 

Eso’s Chronicles 142
The Earthquake of San Francisco as A Political Act (1)
© Eso A.B

Shades in the mirror of a liberal political universe

There will be those who insist that what I call the ‘slide of San Francisco into the Pacific’ falls under the category of ‘an Act of God’ and will NOT BE a political act.

Though the event (whenever it happens) will be dramatic enough to be called an ‘Act of God’, I insist that it will be a uniquely American “political act” that—now that it has begun with a vaguely intuited ‘happening’ somewhere ‘out there’—it will reverberate to the farthest reaches of our planet and maybe even kill us.

Like all expectations which anticipate the End of the World, the slide of San Francisco into the ocean http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/ has taken a long time to develop and has a long history.

The earliest recorded event of ‘the End’ is that of “the worship of the golden calf” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_calf  and, the best I know where to place it,  is in the ancient Jewish empire of Khazaria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chasaren.jpg, aka the Khazarian Khaganate, an empire that stretched from the east coast of the Black Sea to the West coast of the Aral Sea, and about equal distance from Kiev in the north to the borders of Armenia.

 

Because the modern state of Israel has political reasons to identify with a fictitious land, the so-called ‘Ancient Israel’ located north of Ancient Egypt, and similar political reasons for identifying with the area apply to the nations of the West, this ancient empire (of a Turkic people) is today casually passed over, if not outright ignored.

However, being ignored does not mean eliminated. Rather, being ignored causes the object to become an “unknown known”, as Donald Rumsfeld, the former American Secretary of Defense, tried to explain the attack on WTC towers, when explaining to news media why President Bush declared a ‘Crusade’ against terrorism.

Because ‘unknown’ Khazaria continues to remind itself to us through the ‘holy writ’ known as the Bible and the mysterious writers who presumed themselves to be wise, and whose presumption inspired the emergence the Commandment “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13), it ought not be surprising that the Khazars also brought into being a  nonviolent civilization. The full meaning of “Thou shalt not kill”, however, emerges only in Matthew 5:21: “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, ‘Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment’.” Today this is interpreted as a blanket condemnation of taking human life.

A more critical reflection on “Thou shalt not kill”, however, reveals it to be a Commandment that applies only to those who have no authority to kill, but does not apply to those who have the authority and who have the courage to stand judgment. These latter were once upon a time known as the holy kings, those who paid for their authority with self-sacrificial death (but failing it were garroted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrote ).

 

The holy kings accepted their role as transgressors of the Commandment and did not fear death for themselves, because they were convinced that the death they realized on themselves and meted out to others  was justified by the fact that it created and maintained a community. The basis for their conviction was the perception that a community was an exceptional institution and would not exist without such a sacrifice.

It was the universalization of the Commandment through the written law (entertained by Western boyars and princes), that destroyed the tradition of Eastern Christianity and instituted what we know as Western neo-liberalism, i.e.: a force majeure that is as ‘natural’ as an Act of God, but invariably favors the ruling party or the party that unseats it from power by means of a civil war. Universalization of force majeure as a ‘natural’ Act is the essence of neo-Christianity, also known as Catholicism, because it can be instituted (over a holy king) only by a pretense to religion. This necessarily makes neo-Christianity a False Flag event.

The universalizers carry forth their pretense under a umbra of absolute nonviolence and by insisting ‘blood guilt’ to be unredeemable under any circumstances. It is, thus, that modern government has made itself the killer of ALL life, human and animal, excluding the wealthy and the ruling elite who remain the universalizers and False Flag carriers.

Yet Numbers 35:33 explains: “So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.”

If we take and put the writings mentioned above end to end, we arrive at the conclusion that it is wrong to kill, and why those who kill must be killed in return, and why those who follow in yet another turn of killing must also be killed. In other words, the killing can stop only if one takes it upon himself to kill himself. Because taking one’s life is such an awesome act, it used to be called a ‘sacrificial’ act.

In order to deny a sacrificial act its effectiveness, the governments of today call it ‘a suicide’, and elevate “human rights” above all other rights, and make murder, too, a human right—especially when it concerns those sitting in government.

Such simplistic or closed circuit reasoning constitutes the rule of law in our day, and is the reason why communities are collapsing the world over. It exempts murderous statesmen from the death penalty—unless even more violent statesmen can gather political points with an desensitized public by killing murderous statesmen in a phony self-righteous act, because the latter have less military power than they do. The most recent examples of such murders of murderers are the attacks and murders executed by U.S. Presidents and leaders of NATO nations on Iraq and Libya, and celebrating their military victories by murdering the captured leaders guilty of unredeemed murders of their own.

By these lights, the leaders of the West and the leaders under their sway, have discarded and trampled into the mud the Commandment “Thou shalt not kill”. Now, go blow your whistles, boys, all you want; we will simply shut down the speakers and whisper “terrorists” in mikes of our own!

One ‘boy’ piped: “Unfortunately, all our efforts to explain to the Americans that European missile shield in its current form is aimed against Russia, its nuclear capabilities and undermines world’s nuclear balance have been in vain. Our arguments have been heard neither in America nor in NATO,” Medvedev said. http://rt.com/politics/medvedev-us-defense-cuba-333/

Go, whistle some more, Medved!

Once exceptionalism is exercised only in matters relevant to government and its small circle of oligarch supporters, but not to society as a whole, irresponsibility become a matter of course in a long string of cases. Without a doubt, community will break down. This is where the Civil War stage begins. As noted in my blogs 20 and 21 (“The Despair of Stalin”) at http://jesusthebogomil.blogspot.com , the Civil War did once already begin under the guise of the Russian Revolution (1917), but miscarried, because Lenin and Stalin for all their unhappiness failed to destroy the force majeure instituted by the neo-Christian False Flag Act of 1118, but remained under it. Indeed, the bureaucracy organized by the Bolsheviks was essentially imitative of that of the West.

As far as the humankind of billions is concerned, it is powerless to effectively change governments and their preoccupations, because it does not have enough power in its hands to kill the universalizing governors. Even if every inhabitant of the planet were armed, the absence of a sense of community (due to the removal of bonding charisma by governments many centuries ago) prevents humankind from organizing into disciplined unit or a solidarity such as government has organized its bureaucracy into.

This is where the earthquake of San Francisco enters into the picture. 

Given that the public is unable to introduce major changes in ‘modern democratic’ government, which has declared itself and its oligarch controlled financial institutions as “too big to fail” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_big_to_fail , an outside event must insert itself and is eagerly and with endless patience awaited to do so.

In cultural terms the waiting is nothing new, and was expressed long ago by Samuel Beckett’s play “Waiting for Godot” (1948), described by some as the 20^th century’s best known play. While Vladimir or Estragon, the play’s main protagonists, wait and while their time by looking into an empty shoe and a hat, the play ‘plays’. At last, they are visited by Pozzo, an oligarch, who drives a slave named Lucky, but neither turns out to be Godot or God (with or as) a dot—as this member of the audience once believed.

No doubt, Beckett’s play and the failure of the “too important to fail” is tedium arriving with the regularity of unrequested ‘spam’ from the internet. The correctness of this analysis was recently ‘proven’ by the welcome the Russian people extended to exploding meteriorite http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBvotWfR3j4 , and with what patience the inhabitants of Tokyo sit on top of a volcano, and the San Franciscans twiddle their thumbs sitting over the San Andreas fault in California.

 

Eso's Chronicles resumes

Eso’s Chronicles 141

Latvian as ‘rough speak’ and ‘tough love’

The natural environment of Democracy is the wood,
all other democracies are mke-believe

One of the most pleasant word in Latvian today is “čaviņa” (chavinya), an endearment derived from the Italian word “ciao”. Many of young Latvians use the word when chatting on the internet or mobile telephone.

The attached link, in which economics Professor Keith Chen from Yale University points out the subtle differences between the English language that has no future tense and languages that do have it, and which differences may or may not make you wealthier than your neighbor, is well worth for a Latvian to read and reflect on.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21518574

Here is why. Prof Chen divides the world's languages into two groups, depending on how they treat the concept of time. Chen argues that if one’s language separates the future and the present in its grammar and leads the user to slightly disassociate the future from the present, the “…speakers of languages which only use the present tense when dealing with the future are likely to save more money than those who speak languages which require the use a future tense, he argues….”

Of course, the Professor has many critics, and some of this is reflected in the BBC article. I will leave it to some Latvian grammarian to explain the nuances of the Latvian language with regard to future and present tenses. What concerns me, is a theme that I have often referred to: the NEAR TOTAL LOSS of the endearing word in Latvian, and the ‘stiffening’, nay even tendency to brutalize the Latvian psyche as a consequence.

I am referring to the facility of the Latvian language of another day to ubiquitously use terms of endearment for even the most roughest and sometimes most unpleasant of words, such as ‘akmentinjsh’ (akmentiņš--stone), ‘suhdinjsh’ (sūdiņš—excrement), etc. Indeed, the Latvian language can endear every word. The use of the endearment in places that culturally may be deemed inappropriate places is therefore interpreted as potentially of a sarcastic or ironic inflection.

The endearing word was a feature of Latvian as an oral language, and went pretty much out of use with the arrival of the written word, especially with news reporting, where ‘realism’ is deemed paramount and subjective thought almost indecent.

One may further argue, that, well, that is ‘too bad’, but that is how things are and one must accept this. Maybe so. Nevertheless, it may also be argued that ‘realism’ that excludes endearing sentiments is a cancerous growth. We can observe this ‘cancer’ in the politician activated disputes over the use of Latvian at the exclusion of other languages as somehow a matter of a ‘superior patriotism’, when in fact it exhibits woeful knowledge about the nature of the culture among the forebears of the Latvian people as recently as a hundred years and less ago. In other words, culturally speaking, the Latvian politicians betray their culture and forebears.

At the very least, the same politicians could allocate greater funds to the study of the Latvian language at the appropriate institutions. Else, as we see, a Professor of Chinese descent at Yale University in America indirectly knows more about the Latvian language than a self-enclosed group of Latvian ‘realists’, known as the ‘Saeima’, arguably a fascist collective of politicians, do. Do these politicians really believe that their ‘realism’ will really make Latvians materially better off and more survival prone?