Eso’s Chronicles 159
“The Capitalist ‘For Life’ Politburo” (4)
© Eso A.B.

The European elites, having formed a European Union along the lines of the English Magna Charta on behalf of English Lords and Princes, have been creepily crawling in their long tradition of unilataralist ways over the people and nations of Europe for many years, even centuries.

One does not have to look far to see how the cream has been skimmed off the top of the labours of the people of Europe, at the same time as the Europeans have been exposed to a steady stream of neo-liberalist adverts of how “good” the skim milk that the political centrifuge sends to the jar for lesser gravity products is http://creamseparatorgallery.webs.com/photos/1labelsep.jpg .

The model of ‘parliamentary democracy’ has served the European elites well in spite of the French, Russian, and German Revolutions signalling warnings that the model(s) on which European society was being formed suffered from great shortcomings.

One of the reasons why the ‘model’ of parliamentary democracy has served the elites so well is because in spite of a number of deadly political upheavals, even in the face of seeming populist victories, the ultimate victor has remained the elite. In war the political elites almost never die. Why is this?

I have argued that the reasons are social separation as strict and severe as in the Indian caste system. The separation, preceded by biology driven altruism, may have evolved step by step and not necessarily in the same sequence in all species.

A. The earliest step toward inequality is theft. Theft is one of the most common traits among adult animals, say, birds, who have no compunctions about picking off the seed right in front of the beak of their neighbours. Of course, the birds do not call this ‘theft’, but merely ‘taking what the other has not yet taken’. The first sign of altruism and differentiating between theft and giving probably begins with the ‘gift’, observed in birds feeding their young. Among animals, the mother offers the young suck of her very body by way of transforming designated parts of the body into milk producing glands. At a later stage, the father may also join in feeding the young by sharing with the mother and the young in a recently killed gazelle. Later yet, comes the mating ritual, in which the male partner may court the female with a gift of food. The question of who gives the ‘gift’ first, the male or female, is a tricky one. While the above suggests it is the female, the behaviour of some spiders suggests otherwise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuptial_gift_(animal_behavior) .

B. The second step is a conscious attempt to reverse biology initiated altruism. Such is the institution of taxation. Taxation began with the imposition of a tax system on the European nomads, the Evenks of Tartaria. The early tax was in animal pelts. The taxes probably began as a result of the Viking invaders threatening and pressuring local rulers along the river basins of the Volga, Don, Dniepr, and other rivers. The rulers were then forced to pressure and repress the people of the societies they led in their capacity as ‘sacred’ (self-sacrificing; God ordained) kings.

Taxation resulted in a top-down rule even in societies where such a rule did not exist previously and was fiercely resisted. For reasons of obvious advantages it brought to the elites, the system spread quickly and introduced altogether different societal and political parameters.

C. In order to decrease the inborn (biological and genetic)—and permanent (until perhaps genetic engineering in the offing today)—opposition to taxation, the elites needed to change the religion that underlay the egalitarian social ways that prevailed among the people of the wood and the savannah.

D. ‘Religion’ of the people of the pre-taxation days had little resemblance to the ‘religion’ of our time. The ‘religion’ of the Evenks was only incidentally imbedded with moral teachings or illustrated by some particular story of origin, but came with the mother’s “coo” and lullaby. In short, religion was imbedded in the language of the people, not in the names of Gods and tribal totems. These latter may be anthropological fixtures, but have little to do with ‘religion’ in a theological sense.

E. While I have no knowledge of the Evenk language, it appears to have left its influence far and wide. Many words that suggest movement, such as avant (garde), avec, advance, and personal and place names such as Ivan, Vanka, Lithuv(enian)anka, Latv(ian)anka, etc. are derived from the name of this Tartary tribe. Of course, over time, local idiom blended the pronunciation of the word to its own ways. 

The ‘religion’ of these ancient people is closely related to what our dictionaries today pejoratively define as the ‘diminutive’ http://thesaurus.com/browse/diminutive Wilfully associated by grammarians with ‘small’ and ‘tiny’—as a result of the above mentioned change of memes in religion and theology—the ‘good news’ of the new civilization (neo-Christian) arising under the tutelage of taxation was the arrival of our present mesmerizing capitalist economic system.

Neo-Christianity through its emphasis on bodily resurrection (as opposed to the earlier meme http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meme   that emphasized spiritually and psychically transmitted transmigration of souls), brought with it a heretofore unknown acknowledgement (by the superego http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id,_ego_and_super-ego ) of the fear of death. This fear in due course closed off access to leadership by example, the example including self-sacrifice unto death in the creation, forming, and maintenance of a cultural community.

By closing off thought about self-sacrifice unto death by the leadership, we close off thought about any ‘the third way’ solution to our current political impasse.

Informative link: Capitalism hits the fan by Richard Wolff

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HTkEBIoxBA

 

Eso’s Chronicles 158
The Perpetual “ ‘In Life’ Politburo” (3)
© Eso A.B.

I sat up and listened, took note, and pulled the siggee at the foot of the video back 3 x (to 4:27) to hear the former Reagan administration budget director David Stockman say: “[The Fed is] the Monetary Politburo of the Western World” http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-04-13/entire-economy-ponzi-scheme . Unfortunately, the phrase was soon edited out. Still, the censors kept in enough phrases to make it worth listening to, such as “This [the budget] is a Giant Ponzi Scheme (of the Federal Reserve)….(at 2:27)”, and “the Fed is injecting the heroin….” (at 4:37) , and….

So, who am I to say that the Western scheme (they call it ‘civilization’) is imploding and the sound of a major ‘thud’ is but moments away, when I really think that the scheme is imploding; yet, in spite of what I think, I am not sure that I think so?

“Ah…”, you may reply, “I understand your gobbledygook, because, look! …how normal everything appears. Not a leaf or blade of grass is stirring. The air smells as fresh as if a cloud of O3 just went by.”

I, too, understand what you mean. I am, afterall, conversing with myself. Indeed, ‘normality’ reminds me of a German folksong my nanny taught me when I was a small boy, had hurt myself, and was crying.

The nanny sang: “Kommt ein Vogel geflogen, setzt Sich nieder auf mein Fuss, hat ein Zetterl im Schnabel von der Mutter ein Gruss!” http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kommt_ein_Vogel_geflogen (A little bird comes flying and alights on my foot; it has a letter in its beak with greetings from mother.)

After the song, I had a few hiccups and ran on. I knew that by Friday father would be home with a pay check, and he would take me to the toy store and buy me the ball that I had seen in the window when passing by.

Today, however, I hear behind me the footsteps of the Bilderberg Group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group , and see them carrying sacks filled with trillions of dollars in off shore money. If the sacks contain money worth real assets, the Bilderbergs will not catch up with me. However, because the trillions are in fiat currency, and within the next few steps is likely to go “Poof!”, they are likely to overtake me.

Since in my youth I lived for a time on a farm, and got to like the idea of being able to harvest my own potatoes, in my fantasy, I was always able to escape the Bilderbergs and run for my potato patch, where the stems and leaves of the plants were thick enough to cover and hide me if I lay between the furrows. However, with the trillions of the Bilderberg money turning into thin air, they may overtake me yet and rush by me with a funerary dirge on their lips.

I am saved from a premature death by the insights of my favourite on-the- cusp-of-centuries philosopher, Slavoy Žižek. Well grounded in the history of philosophy and an enviable memory, Žižek writes of the profound humiliation suffered by post-enlightenment humankind when it was overtaken and humiliated by the cognitive sciences http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cognitive%20science . Explains Žižek: “Strictly correlative to the humiliation of ‘man’ is the exponential growth of humankind’s technological domination over nature in modernity.”

What Žižek means by ‘humiliation’ is the discovery that the human mind and body conforms to the rules of technology (the body performs much like a machine and thinks much like a digital computer) and we cannot escape as in former days into believing ourselves to be supernatural beings, say, an icon on the walls of a countryside basilica; or as W.B. Yeats said it in his poem “Sailing to Byzantium” http://www.online-literature.com/frost/781/ : “Once out of nature I shall never take / My bodily form from any natural thing, / But such a form as Grecian goldsmiths make / Of hammered gold and gold enamelling….” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP9FGGMZpYM

To be ‘in nature’ or ‘out of nature’ is such a common experience in our time that our world comes bifurcated, and it does not appear that we know how to bring the two forks of the one road together again.

Those of us who feel particularly ‘humiliated’ have attached ourselves to the ‘in nature’ or cognitive sciences (led by the Word) as the way of escaping shame and recovering our pride. It is this element of the psyche, which beginning with the steam engine created industrial society and all that comes with it. This development was natural, once the ‘out of nature’ psyche (the irretrievable Act) was not only repressed and humiliated in turn, but was, in fact, ‘successfully’ killed. The ‘success’ of the murder is, however, based on the presumption that being ‘in nature’ means life in nature only—as if only the self-consciousness of the living (in leadership circles) matters. This exclusivity of life ‘in life’ enabled Stalin and Hitler to kill without guilt all those who were of ‘in life’, and were deemed harmful by them. They kept alive only those creatures, which they held necessary as servants.

The iconic God of ‘in life’ leadership and humankind is perfectly illustrated by Stanley Kubric’s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Kubrick  movie “2001 Space Odyssey” (1968) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML1OZCHixR0 .

Today’s leaders (Roosevelt, Stalin, Hitler, Nixon, Bush, Obama, Putin, etc.) are very much in the image of the ape smashing the dried bones and skull of a hippopotamus, the latter standing for that part of humankind which may not be of one mind with its gone ape leadership.

The humans living ‘in life’ claim that the ‘out of life’ God does not exist, even while ‘in life’ philosophers continue to distinguish between an ‘in life’ Real and an ‘out of life’ Another. The difficulty that blocks the road http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/Hands123/deadendtrackedit.jpg  to the rejoining of thought apparently is Death.

Nevertheless, if we can prove for ourselves that there are two realities, an inner and outer, an ‘in’ and an ‘out’, and both are real enough ‘singularities’, then why not an ‘out of life (and body)’ experience for an ‘out of body’ reality, i.e., ? What if phenomenology as fuel for life is only an ‘in life’ phenomenon, but that the ‘out of life’ fuel for life is Mind? Are not atomic and subatomic particles clear evidence that construction of reality continues after death—which is why reality may not yet be fully constructed?

If there is any truth to the above, it remains an open question whether the bifurcation caused by our ‘humiliation’ holds for all time?  At this moment in time however most of those with a ‘higher education’ appear to consider the question as closed and react to their own positivist answer in a sadistic-masochistic manner that causes incalculable harm to nature and the rest of humankind.

To an outside (of ‘in’) observer fantasizing him- or her-self to be less compulsively motivated than Žižek’s ‘man’, the ‘humiliated one’ is charging towards “autistic masturbatory ‘asocial’ joisance”*. The freshmen college anecdote about the monkey pushing the button that causes him an orgasm until he dies from too many convulsions are a social reality, except that for the monkey’s hand levered button, we push the lever just thinking about it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxHxXQPxBTQ .

At the point (in a hypothetical time) where Žižek’s post-modern hyper-man meets with our Great Ancestor (still practicing subsistence economy), there may occur an interesting confrontation.

Our ‘out of nature’ ancestors raise a question which the ‘humiliated’ one may consider yet another humiliation. The question is: “Why are you jerking off so much?”

To which the ‘in nature’ response may go: “Why are you so slow, so unmotivated, and so backward?”

To which the reindeer herders, the Avenks, the travelling Johns reply: “What we took ten billion years to create (yes, we continue to create even when we are so-called dead), you want to do in two centuries. All the living creatures which co-evolved with us, you turn into bones in two decades.”

“Yes, but we can renew our body parts and clone ourselves to live in perpetuity.”

“True, but you have turned our community festivals into Fuck Carnivals, and all the wild animals in the wood are dead because your hunters get an orgasm from each kill.”

 *Slavoy Žižek, “The Universal Conception”, Continuum, pp. 308.

Eso’s Chronicles 157
I Don’t Know What to Thimk (2)
© Eso A.B.

When ‘WORD’ prevails over ‘ACT’, it always leads to excess. Take sex, for example. When words, which speak of ‘sex’ suggest a sexual act, the ‘word’—as poets well know—always gets a double orgasm (“I would like to touch you all over”) and like a bottle of champagne pops the cork.

The reason this is is because words that mention ‘sex’ arise from unfulfilled desire, which desire is a plain, naked, and shivering thing, like an empty pocket reaching down between our legs, waiting to be used as a handkerchief.

Our shivering desire motivates us to fill our pockets in the shortest possible time and in the easiest possible way. The easiest and least obscene way is to go and BUY something. In short, the ‘word’ motivates us to perform a pseudo act, i.e. not to have SEX, but to have a BUY, on the cheap, at a SALE, as a double orgasm, one for the saleslady, the other for the advertiser, with enough SEX left over to stimulate yet further BUYS, maybe a new bra for Victoria.

If one’s subconscious is untutored and perceives that to BUY means to have something like real SEX, then on the subconscious level the shopping mall becomes a capitalist cathedral, where sex is a non-stop masturbatory orgy. Such an orgy was last had as recently as moments before the 2008 global financial collapse, when, suddenly (though not unexpectedly), all Wall Street money pumps went dry and began ejaculating convulsively. Money, which heretofore had filled the vacuum left by the excess of words talking up capitalism, could no longer perform the function of masking the fact it lacked value. Meaningless existence suddenly became unsustainable and could no longer be perceived as an asset, revealed how already for some time planet Earth had been turned into a desert, and the sand had come, at last, to bury my house as well.

My blogs have been arguing that with the collapse of the ‘Word’, time has come to Act, preferably by abandoning cities—our perfect machines for producing desertification. Though transition to a subsistence economy and getting used to living in the wood again may not come without pain and containment of orgiastic technology, an orderly retreat will surely be succeeded by survival and renewal, rather than a flight from our planet as suggested by astronomer Stephen Hawking http://www.rttnews.com/2093380/stephen-hawking-pushes-for-space-exploration-to-ensure-the-survival-of-humans.aspx?type=gn&utm_source=google&utm_campaign=sitemap .

Of course, this is easier said than done; and as my favorite philosopher Slavoy Žižek explains it: “Don’t Act. Just Think.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgR6uaVqWsQ To which I do not quite know how to respond—given that I have been advocating that we think of God as an Act over God as Word. That is, does Žižek not know that the story of Western Christianity is a False Flag, and that the story of Jesus is but a prototype for Baron Munchausen? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-we0nkja-DM All who have read “The Adventures of Baron Munchausen” know that it is a story in which words are bricks that turn into canon balls of fantasy, whereas “The Adventures of Jesus” is a staged spectacle sans sex (which any good story would not be without).

Maybe this is what Žižek means when commenting on ‘Occupy Wall Street’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street (a major protest movements that followed the many other protest movements that arose after the 2008 financial collapse) he says : “….There is something fundamentally wrong with the system [Capitalism]; and the existing forms of institutionalized democracy are not strong enough to deal with the problems. Beyond this we don’t have an answer…. For me ‘Occupy Wall Street’ is just a signal…. It is time to start thinking….”

Žižek goes on to explain that 20^th century opposition to Capitalism (including that of the Soviet Union) ended in brutal repression because “…we tried to interpret the world too quickly, the time is to interpret it again, to start thinking…. We should be careful what we do…. ” Etc., etc. Žižek shifts gears and starts talking about ‘socialism’ within the capitalist system. What Žižek ends up saying is that capitalism is quite alright (even indestructible), but as other capitalist propagandists have already said: capitalism ought to have a ‘heart’ http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/16/opinion/16tierney.html?_r=0 . Alas, the philosopher sounds like one who likes to chew on frogs already ten times chewed; he not only thinks, but has thought for so long that to think has become to thimk; the Bolshevic has become a Bolshemic.

What Žižek, the opponent of capitalism, misses (he does not miss it in some of his other statements and writings) is that ‘capitalism’ is (what he himself says) a form of joisance  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jouissance , where the ‘pleasure principle’ (a la Lacan) in an effort to exceed itself causes not only excess, but which excess results in suffering, both of the sadistic and masochistic kind.

Surely Žižek’s problem is that he fails to note that capitalism is the result of repressed Christianity, which repression is the result of living by a False Flag history. In other words, what Western Christianity (Catholicism, the Mother Church) did is reset the self-sacrifice that is the heart of Arch-Christianity* with repressions no less bloody and cruel than Stalin’s. The aim of the repressions was to eliminate self-sacrifice by scaring people to death of death, i.e., by making ‘resurrection’ desirable—consequent to life made miserable by our work ethic.

The answer to Žižek’s problem is simple: a reinvention of death, which will reinvent the charisma of not-violent terror.

The quickest way to put an end to capitalism is to demand that the political elite, in return for its privileges, sacrifice life. I have pointed out in earlier blogs that if such a sacrifice had been forthcoming from Stalin and Hitler, and if they had known that it was required of them, their mode of governing and legacy would have brought about a very different history from the one we have to live with today.

*Ur-Christianity possibly descended from the Siberian Avenks (the name of John(s), the name a likely cognate by way of the Russian Ivan, Vanka, etc., where the ‘v’ is replaced by ‘y’), who in turn may have been heirs to the traditions of the herders who came out of Africa.

 

Eso’s Chronicles 156
I Don’t Know What to Think (1)
© Eso A.B.

In Blog 154, I mention that ever since God became the 'Word' and lost his 'Act'-ive Self, human beings have become passive and the norm of human life is best described as vegetative (that includes vegees bungee jumping). The fundamental problem appears to be that the ‘Word’ (capped W) always manages to inject itself between me (if presume myself as part of the public) and whatever I want to do. This ‘Word’ generally is the word of Another, who always manages to ‘suppress’ and make my word insignificant.

I trace the phenomenon to the rise of the Catholic Christian Church and the imposition of its ‘Word’ [with the help of military violence and inquisitorial torture] on behalf of a ruling elite over a civilization that has nothing to do with theirs, but which does have the means of military might and the experience of a butcher. Of course, like with most everything, there are exceptions.

One exception is the, so called, “liberation theology”, which originated in South America. It perceived the perverse doctrine of the Mother Church with a critical eye and attempted to return the Church to God as an Act. As MIT professor Noam Chomsky explains it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPp3Hykjl6s , the critics ended up dead. Had the liberation theology Activists submitted to the American led Evangelical (Wordy) theology, they would still be talking today and waiting for rapture.

While the reasons that are said to have caused the various doctrinal divergences within the Christian Church (such as trinitarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Trinitarianism or Arianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism , for example), the main split is between God as Act and God as Word. Today God as Word is the clear winner and controls ALL governments. All governments impose the Word on their subjects, and what the Word imposes at the most basic level is to tell the public “do not Act”, i.e., do not teach ‘liberation theology’, because it energizes the students to take remedial action. Since this split was begun by Western Christianity, it is justified in claiming to have brought the Bible (in so far as it is claimed by Western Christianity) to the world.

At the same time, it ought to be of a great wonder that near simultaneously with the ‘victory’ of Western or ‘Wordy’ Christianity comes its defeat not in the abstract, but real sense.

While the West has cast the entire planet into a crisis (economical, international relations, environmental, communal), the one with the most Revolutionary potential is that of the elite class. For the first time in its over a thousand year long history, the leadership of the world (China’s including) has been exposed as naked, moronic, murderous, unprincipled, and, therefore, unnecessary. There are many events that illustrate this.

Almost a fourth of Britons believe that Tony Blair should be arrested for war crimes; even as WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange speaking from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London http://rt.com/usa/assange-kissinger-cables-wikileaks-500/ releases the so-called ‘Project K’, which consists of 1.7 million files composed of US Department of State diplomatic communications; even as this writer presents (via these blogs) the oldest known (to this time) falsified literary document, Sophocles’ “Oedipus Rex (Rewritten)” http://oedipusrexrewritten.blogspot.com .

The literary falsification, behind which hides an attempt to release the ruling elites from responsibilities (mortal sins actually) incurred during their rule, does not come alone. As the reader knows, the New Testament, too, was written less to present the world with the teachings of Jesus, than to present a different account of what happened to the spiritual leader of Eastern Christianity, Basil (King) The Avenk, whom I present as ‘BasilTheBogomil’ in a series of blogs by that name.

Needless to say, I am aware that the reader is likely saying to him- or her-self that all these words seem confusing; one no longer knows what or whom to believe, what is or is not ‘real’ history. At the same time, this is precisely what I mean by writing (above) “a great wonder” at the coincidence of seeming Western ‘victory’ with the ‘rebirth’ of the Morning Star in the Eastern sky.

Even as the government of the United States of America is presumptuously exporting its fake democracy to fake dictatorships and is killing hundreds of thousands of people who have no idea why they are being killed, the killing done by the U.S. military is nevertheless Real and without meaning. How does one tell a young Iraqi that his-her life expectancy today is only about 30 years  http://rt.com/op-edge/iraq-environmental-catastrophe-hiroshima-533/

Regarding the subject of what is Real, but at the same time has no meaning, the philosopher Alain Badiou has a wonderfully succinct explanation.  Badiou states (‘A Conversation with Alain Badiou’, lacanian ink 23, 2004, pp. 100-1; toh to Žižek):

“The simplest definition of God and of religion lies in the idea that truth and meaning are one and the same thing. The death of God is the end of the idea that posits truth and meaning as the same thing….” To wit: truth and meaning become unglued; meaning without truth is the empty holy word of today’s Catholicism.

Given the crime committed by the U.S. government in its attempt to play God, and at the same time export to Iraq an incomprehensible and meaningless death, there necessarily arises a gut call for a Second Nuremberg War Crimes Trial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials . Given the definitive separation of ‘God’ and ‘meaning’ that has occurred between 1945 and 2013, the ostensible God (the government of the U.S.) having rendered ‘meaning’ meaningless, the criminals should not be sentenced to death by hanging as before, but each given a capsule of an extremely  powerful painkiller, they must administer to themselves to achieve an unfelt death.

The effect of such medicine may not be a reassertion of meaning, but a doubling of the reality of Real, or as philosopher Žižek puts it: “…when the impossibility of the conjunction of meaning and truth is imposed on us: either we endorse the ‘postmodern’ stance and denounce the dimension of truth… or we engage in the effort to discern a dimension of truth outside meaning—i.e… the dimension of truth as Real.”

Impossible though it may seem to some, we may discover that this ‘truth’ was well known by the forebears of our present civilization, the so-called ‘primitive’ Adam and Eve.

 

Eso’s Chronicles 155
Joan of Arc, God As Act (4)
© Eso A.B.

The ideology of words and the results it leads to is rather well illustrated by the following clip (if you have the patience to see it through to the end) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WhQ8bSvcHQ . Unfortunately, the subject: “Breaking the Spell - Religion as a Natural Phenomenon” is not persuasive, if only for the reason that the professor does not appear to have ever stepped very far beyond the faculty room.  As the title of the lecture advises us, the professor’s aim is to break the spell over whomever religion has enveloped in its fog and who ever thought or believed that religion is a natural phenomenon. A few minutes into the lecture, he already intimates the hope (expressed in terms of ‘likelihood’) that science will soon dispel any such notion.

Interestingly, ‘scientism’ (if not science) originated with the rigorous (and cruel) interpretation of ecclesiastical law. Joan was burnt by the Burgundians because she wore male clothes http://archive.joan-of-arc.org/joanofarc_male_clothing.html, and strict and dogmatic interpretation of ‘the science of law’ had to be applied to make prevail the ends of materialism. The object-law in the Petri dish on the table for dissection was Deuteronomy 22:25: “A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this.” A legion of scholastics put their noses to the dish and pronounced that the smell was a natural phenomenon, it smelled of the roast-of-Joan.

If it were only as simple as the professor and the faculty room environment believes. I do not dispute that such a belief is their desert. After all, the thesis of my blogs is that the present-day collapse of ‘virtually everything’ is a triumph of their making. One of the faculty room (Francis Fukuyama), recently went so far as to suggest that among the victories of capitalism was the capture of the future, and that the blood clotted False Flag was hence to flutter the words: “The End of History”.

For a while it may have seemed so. More than one academic, with no better idea about religion than getting his-her hair wet by having a priest’s hen lay a water filled word on it, suggested that religions would soon meld into each other. Nevertheless, there were a few exceptions, who understood that the word was preceded by an act: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNDG7ErY-k4 . As the foregoing remarks by Noam Chomsky’s make clear, not even a linguist can dismiss the fact that the Act is as positive matter to the anti-matter of the Word.

Today hardly anyone has heard that religion originated as a consequence to the creation of communities, and that the reason why religion continues to this day is because while violence may create empires, which are awesome and persuasive models of ‘the deserts of the real’ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgBViHeiSKM, they do not create viable communities. In ‘the dessert of the real’ all that is is made of words and derives from words seizing violence. Youngsters today imagine war as entertainment; while the video screens portray the community as populist ‘excrement’ of Earth.

As most of us know, Joan of Arc, once she had initiated a turn for the better for the kingdom of France, was soon betrayed by the same Catholic authorities that used her to save themselves and the kingdom they had trashed. While such accusations were to be expected from the Angles and Burgundians, the same arguments were soon (if not earlier) used by the University of Paris. What especially bothers the elites and the academic ecclesia is that Joan is venerated by the public as a saint even before she has been burnt, and that the public is not much bothered by her male clothes, because it knows that without them, the Maid will be raped.

 

It is difficult, even impossible, to persuade a successful (well to do) neo-liberal community that its members under stressful economic conditions are sure to behave aggressively toward other communities. Indeed, it is the well off neo-liberal community that believes that it is created by God and that God created it to be peace loving. The police are there only to restrain those who suffer from some pathology—like boredom that needs to be overcome by alcohol, indecent exposure, wife swapping, or not paying back money borrowed to pay a bill.

 

How does one become a ‘successful’ neo-liberal community? By not having to suffer from no want. And how does one avoid suffering from want? By becoming a leader of the community and demanding to be paid well.

 

And how does one do that?

 

By threat, power, and violence.

 

How does one do that?

 

By cutting down the forest, creating a desert, leaving no place for one to hide, leaving no fish in the sea, creating a police, and leaving others helpless.

 

It is not that human beings did not try other solutions. After all, the inability of people to get along is legendary. There is an anecdote (I do not remember where I read it) of a meeting of two separate groups of gorillas or chimpanzees. The groups came together without violence, but the males eyed each other apprehensively. There was tension in the air. As humans would say, there was no one around to crack a joke. Instead of a joke two females, one from each group came out into the space that still separated the two groups. As everyone watched, the two began to play with each other, that is, they felt each other up sexually. The males could not be but disarmed. Everyone relaxed, and the two groups blended into each other, and there was peace among them while they remained in each other’s proximity.

 

We may take the above scene a step further. Say, a male from each group began to dispute, because one of the females of an elder gave signs of moving to stay with a younger male of the other group. Male pride was wounded, and a fight began. Elders from each side had to intervene and break up the conflict. Nevertheless, neither of the males immediately involved would calm down, and the elders decided to let them fight it out between themselves. Whatever the outcome, even if one was killed, the other would respect the result.

 

But when one of the opponents was in fact killed, the atmosphere became very tense, and the tension was great enough to suspect that a general conflict might soon break out. This is when one of the elders stepped out of the wood with a mushroom, a green fly agaric http://7song.com/photos/199/191/Aminita-sp.-Fly-agaric.jpg , in one of his paws. Everyone knew that the mushroom was deadly.

 

The elder calmly broke the mushroom in pieces and began to eat it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc To save the elder from death by poisoning, both of the ‘lezzy’ females offered to have sex with him. The male did not refuse their offers, but continued to eat the mushroom until he went into convulsions and died.

 

Then an amazing thing happened: both of the groups of gorillas (or chipanzees) continued together, and thereafter become one community.

 

Eso’s Chronicles 154
Joan of Arc, God’s Virgin with Sword (3)
© Eso A.B.

When Joan of Arc sent (c. 1429) her famous “Lettre aux Anglais” http://www.maisonstclaire.org/resources/documents/lettreauxanglais.html to the English forces in Orleans, writing “…for the third and last time, and I shall write no more,” and did not thereafter dispute the phrase “I will have them all put to death”, for all her heroism and insistence that she had been sent by God, the False Flag event of 1118 in Constantinople (a little more than 300 years before) had already made her an unwitting accomplice in the theological charade in which both the English, French, and the entire West was complicit.

Whether the Maid knew about all that was at stake is doubtful. But there should be no doubt that she knew that France would disappear if she did not Act. While Joan was no more than a shepherdess, a chambermaid, a girl sixteen years old, but old enough to know how to handle horses, the spirit of the ancient sybils http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibyl  called on her (through now lost or hidden pareidolic channels) with sufficiently loud voice to resemble the voice of God to her.

The ‘charade’ that involved the Maid, is based on a theological change in the Jewish-Christian message from one of ‘Act’ to one of ‘Word’. As the first line of the Bible now reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God….” the line once read and should still read: “In the beginning was the Act, and the Act was with God, and the Act was God.”

Such a reading is not given, however, any longer, because the Act has been replaced by the Word which we better know as the Law. As most everyone knows about the Law, it is believed to have first come as the Word of God, which was expressed in the Ten Commandments of Moses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments. Unfortunately, it was not long after Moses that the first ten Commandments were expanded to a never ending series of Laws and Commandments. If the writer of the first ten laws was Moses, the writers of the other laws were a series of kings and princes, or priests subservient to them. Eventually the priests became lawyers, who today have become bankers, because as lawyers they grew wealthy to become bankers. Today as bankers, they can pay lawyers and dictate what the lawyers (in effect themselves) write. Such is the history of the evolution of the Word.

The first of the Ten Commandments reads: “You shall have no other gods before me”. Thus, if God is Word, you shall not put an Act before the Word, even if everyone knows that acts speak louder than words. It follows that the written Law (whoever writes it, and if it can be enforced) becomes God.

Whoever published the first Bible could have had the order of the Commandments reversed; in effect, the last commandment could have been made to read as the first. If the first commandment had become the last, one could look back to the earlier nine and see what laws God supported. Putting God first is like baptizing a child before the child knows what is happening and what he-she is being committed to.

In short, the Word replaced the Act. If any pundit, psychologist, political analyst, or writer wonders why our civilization today is passive, they need look no further than this decision to make commandment ten read as first. This in one fell stroke denigrated and eliminated any right for the subjective mind to act in its own right.

By the time we reach Joan of Arc in the 16^th century [we cannot really be sure of the dates, because official dating occurred only some time after the Council of Trent (1545-1563)], law making—predating the Hammurbi Code http://www.commonlaw.com/Hammurabi.html—had a long and well established tradition.

Nevertheless, the fact that the Word as God came without a date, it made for uncertainty regarding its past. And if the Word of God was good only in the mouths of priests (early lawyers), their subjective thoughts were still operational and to be taken note of. I.e., even if you and I had no say in any matters and had to await the decisions of authorities before we could make a move, the actual situation could move away from us, that is to say, it could deteriorate. In this way the God of the lawmakers could delay decision making, sometimes with catastrophic results.

One may speculate that the arrival of Joan of Arc to save the kingdom of France and to return the crown of France to King Charles, the rightful king, despite many assertions to the contrary, was eagerly awaited by the Catholic Church. As the initiator of Laws by earlier kings and princes, for lack of dating, it had created a situation (in France, the country of origin for Catholicism which subsequently was responsible for overthrowing  Christianity in the East, where God had continued to prevail as Act) it needed to be rescued from.

The Church had come to its downfall, because if it was to serve power-seeking princes, it also had to replace the Acts of kings (Acting in the name of God) with God as the Word. As they reset the social order, the early and inevitable conflicts with the Christians of the East went undated. The fighting was a hahey or tumult of violent acts, and there were no umpires. Blood flowed freely, and it was said that there was not enough water (sacred to the people of the land) to wash it away.

Ultimately Western or Catholic Christianity—succeeding Moses as the writer of laws—imposed princely and oligarchal authority over the people of the land. Thus, somewhat paradoxically, it undermined the supports of social order by destroying the authority of the ancient sacred king. The consequence was that France become leaderless. Not surprisingly, the English took advantage, and seized France for themselves.

The Catholic Archbishop of Embrun, Jacques Gelu, writes of the time: “There is scarcely anyone left offering obedience to the king”. Professor Deborah A. Fraioli paraphases Gelu: “The rumor spread that whoever could obtain a part of the realm by force could keep it.”*

Obviously, the Catholic Church was disturbed and worried enough to risk entrusting the solution to the inspiration of a sibyl.

Who was this sibyl?

Martin le Franc (1410-1461) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_le_Franc author of a long (24,000 verses) poem Le Champion des Dames (The Champion of Women) has the poem reaach its high point with the deeds of Joan of Arc. Joan is defending God as Act. God’s Act is to send his chosen Maid, Joan, to save France from the English and help restore to her her place among the nations.

The the zeal of the Catholic Church to instate the rule of secular princes led to an Emergency not to say Collapse of government in France. The Word of God took charge of God as Act with a vengeance. Even Jean Dupuy, Dominican theologian and Inquisitor, is ready to put his reputation on line by declaring that Joan of Arc is an event: “…so great, so considerable, and so unheard of that nothing similar seems to have happened since the world began.” Dupuy goes on to destroy the argument that would make God the Word by saying: “…it must be necessarily concluded [that Joan is] from God… and does not proceed from spells….”* Needless to say, the ‘spells’ in question are spells and words issued in the name of God by the Church. Though God saved France through sending Joan of Arc as his Act, the church remains jealous of God as Act and keeps casting spells that put the would be faithful of the entire Christian realm to sleep.

*Deborah A. Fraioli, “Joan of Arc, the Early Debate”, The Boydell Press, p. 90; 150-158. Quotes and paraphrases, though not opinions or interpretations, with regard to Joan of Arc in this blog from foregoing source.

(To be Continued)

Eso’s Chronicles 153
The Thumbsucker’s War for Human Rights (2)
© Eso A.B.

Air Brush

If one is to take seriously what J.D. Salinger wrote and what Mark Chapman read to the court as the statement why he assassinated John Lennon, re: “…I keep picturing all these little kids playing some game in this big field of rye and all. Thousands of little kids….” (see end of previous blog), and if one is to understand the text literally and has ever seen a real field of rye http://static5.depositphotos.com/1003699/523/i/950/depositphotos_5237387-Country-road-through-rye-fieldcountry-road-through-rye-field.jpg , it makes for either an absurd picture or a scene of vandals on the loose.

A farmer coming to a field of trampled rye would swear that the next time he will come with a shotgun to punish the culprits by spraying buckshot at their legs.

If one wishes to take the sentiments of Mark Chapman as signifying more than a literal interpretation of the text, one has to re-imagine that in place of the ‘rye’ there is a wood, and that the wood stands for the Sphinx in Sophocle’s well known play “King Oedipus”. The thousand ‘little kids’ then become the sacrifices the Thebans bring to the wood to appease their near uncontrollable desire to go hedonistically ‘wild’ after spending a life time of living in a city. The pain and suffering caused by the loss of their children to the Sphinx, keeps the City of Thebes a relatively orderly city inspite of everyone being unhappy.

As some readers may already suspect, Prince Oedipus, who is fleeing the home that he has imagined as that of his parents (in the kingdom of Cithaeron), comes to a wood, better, a sacred grove—the maw of the Sphinx, so to speak—and discovers that children are wandering aimlessly and lost until they die of hunger or cold, or fall down a deep chasm that bisects the grove. The chasm is known as the “Cithaeron chasm”.

At the edge of the chasm stands a temple dedicated to the Sphinx (who stands for the mystery of the wood). When any of the lost children happen to come upon the temple, they are greeted by the priest Tiresias. Tiresias offers each child an apple. After the apple has been eaten, Tiresias gives each child two bird feathers, leads them to a platform at the edge of the chasm, stands them close to the edge of the platform, and asks them to start swinging their arms as if they are the wings of a bird. Tiresias also asks the children to close their eyes and imagine that they are flying. When the children do as Tiresias suggests, he gives each child a push, and the child loses balance and falls into the chasm.

It happens that Prince Oedipus (impersonated by Mark Chapman) comes to the wood and the temple at just the right moment. As Chapman walks up the temple path, he sees Tiresias push a child over the edge of the cliff. He hears the child (all are boy children) scream, then he sees Tiresias walk back to the temple, where he is awaited by Mark’s father—John Lennon, a well known entertainer in the city of Thebes.

Lennon is Marks father from a liaison he had as a teenager with a young woman older than he. The young woman was so taken by the teenager’s voice, that after the concert, she invited the young singer to her bedroom.

When the young woman discovered herself pregnant, her young lover was on a concert tour, and though she wrote him several letters, her letters got lost among the fan mail. Because pregnancy was not something the young woman expected, and because she came from a strict Catholic family, she sold the new born infant to a family of gypsies, who were raising children for the purposes of human sacrifice practiced by another religion in a far away kingdom on the other side of a mountain ridge known as Cithaeron Mountains.

All would have gone well, except the young woman gave her young son a name, Mark. She never forgot the name.

There is a strange word about; it is little known; and it is also not wholly understood. The word is known among linguists and artists as ‘pareidolia’. Pareidolic associations are associations most commonly found in words and images http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia . What is not so well known is that pareidolia may also happen as an event or a series of events.

It happened that the young woman was forced by circumstances to earn her living as a prostitute. This is how she met Charles. Charles happened to be the king of France. Charles fell in love with Joan and wished to marry her. Because he was also a Catholic, Charles had to ask the priests of his court what they thought about the idea. When the priests asked Charles why he had to marry this particular young woman, one with a reputation for being a sinner besides, Charles could not think of a good answer.

What King Charles eventually said was: “Because her name is Joan.”

“So, what in the hell makes Joan so different from other such?” the Council of priests wanted to know.

“You see,” answered King Charles, “Joan comes from Arc. It is said that all Frenchmen are descended from the Johns of Arc. Joan says that she knows we are in a civil war with the Burgundian English, who say that their Johns are better than our French Johns. She claims that when the French Johns hear that the Queen of France is called Joan, they all will get a rise, and I, King Charles, will win the war as a result.”

The Catholic priests had a long discussion among themselves. It was not so long ago that they had suppressed the French Johns and driven them from the wood where most of them had resided. The French priests needed to cut down the wood to fire the bricks they needed to build their cathedrals. On the other hand, it was true that the Burgundies (and English) were getting the upper hand in the civil war, and the French would soon have to ask the Germans to come help. The Germans were known to be materialists and would agree to help. But this would cost the French king many of France’s eastern provinces, and the French would be squeezed between the Germans and the English more than ever. In the end, the Catholic priests agreed that king Charles and Joan of Arc could marry.

After she was married to King Charles, Queen Joan found in the royal mail a letter from the kingdom of Cithaeron, which kingdom was on the other side of the Cithaeron Mountains. The letter offered to sell to King Charles a dozen gypsy children for the sacrificial needs of the court. Joan noticed that one of the children had a name. It was—Mark.

Queen Joan of Arc immediately suspected that Mark was her son by John Lennon, who besides being an entertainer, had invested in the lucrative business of selling children for sacrificial purposes. John was an excellent salesman, because most of his songs were not only entertaining (re: “Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqXmBy1_qOQ ), but proselytized for peace. Everyone knew there could not be peace without sacrifice of life.

It is a long story of how it all worked out. There remains the story of how Queen Joan persuaded Mark to leave his home at Cithaeron Beach by telling him he was destined to marry his mother and kill his father. A rewritten version of the antique version is at http://oedipusrexrewritten.blogspot.com . However, if we want to learn about the adventures of Mark, we must—without further ado—explain that just as Tiresias was offered a wagonload of smutty children (all of who had been promised a trip to see ‘a sky filled with diamonds’), one of them shouted: “My name is Mark, and I don’t want to die. There are no diamonds in the sky! Those are only stars!”

At that instant, Mark realized that (for some pareidolic reason) he himself could be that boy. Mark instantly went into an attack mode. He managed to shoot Lennon dead in no time. As for Tiresias, Mark tied him up, and ordered him to order the temple staff to find all the children who were wandering lost in the wood. After the children were on the road and marching to Thebes, Mark took a large branch out of the bonfire and stuck and ground the burning end of the branch into both of Tiresias’ eyes.

The story would have ended there and then (as it would have if Joan had not given her son a name), except that Mark did not understand that even though he became a hero to the Thebans for putting an end to child sacrifices, he could stay a hero only if he replaced the sacrifices of children with the sacrifice of himself.