Monday, February 11, 2013

Chapter 15
Eso A.B.

The slam-dunk or two against the psychologist and philosopher Slavoy ŽiŽek, that appear in these blogs, is over his failure to recognize that the greatest of problems for ‘knowledge’ in our time is not due to an inability to think, but due to the failure of the knowledgeable to recognize the most important false flag operation ever: the mistaking of neo-Christianity for the real thing. Thus, while Žižek acknowledges Christianity as “rearticulating… a series of crucial motifs and aspirations of the oppressed”*, he fails to discover in the continued existence of the neo-Christian institution the hidden (because spiritual) poison of capitalism.

The failure to link Christianity with the rise of capitalism irradiates every Westerner, this blogger including, with tuberculosis like bacillus that makes one ever more tired, helpless, and brings one and the environment in which one lives ever closer to death.

While one may ignore the history that a ‘rearticulated’ and retold story puts on the table for reconsideration, failure to give credibility reconsider it makes every oligarch a saint and the remnant of Earth one of the ten legendary lepers whom only a lie can heal .

I came to recognize the story of Christianity in the West as a false flag not due to any special insight on my part, but thanks to the same Slavoy ŽiŽek and Anatoly Fomenko, the latter of who the History Channel seeks to discredit for implicitly turning its thoughtless versions of history on video into serious farces. Each of the men, in their own way, has enabled my skepticism to become ever more certain that our ‘history’ is the story of a road to hell.

It is interesting that at a time when Stalinism is fading from living memory, I—a victim of it—should reawaken to it. Seventy-two years after the fact, I am forced by the turn of the screw of geopolitics to think the matter through again. Perhaps if the mass deportation had caught up with us (if we had lived to the collection centre), and my siblings and myself had died (our father was not so fortunate and was killed), but the Soviet Union had survived and not been sabotaged by the military-industrial complex of the West—perhaps our death had not been in vain and Bolshevism and Stalinism was the antidote needed—had Stalin not spat into the bloody stew he had cooked.

This is where Žižek’s analysis becomes important. He writes**: “In Lacanian theory, the Real has two principal sides, One is the Real as a remainder that is impossible to symbolize, a scrap, a refuse of the symbolic, a hole in the Other…; the other is the Real as writing, construct, number and matheme. These two sides perfectly correspond to the opposition fascism/Stalinism. The hypnotic power of Fascist discourse is supported by the ‘gaze’… of the leader. The support of Stalinist discourse is, in turn, the writing. Which writing? .… The impossible Real is the institution of the ‘classics of Marxism-Leninism’ as the sacred Text….”

What ‘sacred text’?

My ‘complaint’ with Lenin. Stalin, and Žižek is not that they are ready to kill me (even though, I pale before the thought), but that they fail to make the Text ‘sacred’ by bloodying it with their blood and paling their lives and faces before it. I say this as a ‘survivor’ both of Bolshevism and Christianity, the latter which now brings not only the West, but the entire planet to its knees.

We know that Lenin when paralyzed by a stroke wished to take his life, and asked Stalin to help him, but Stalin referred the request to the bureaucracy of the Politburo, which refused to grant permission. The failure of Stalin and the Politburo to sacralize the Bolshevik Revolution is, therefore, the reason the Revolution died not only for choking thought and preventing it from coming to a conclusion, but for thoughts put to death by lack of determination to tear the curtain and reveal the ‘False Flag’ protected and carried by none other than the bureaucracy itself. Stalin, the individual, failed Lenin and the Revolution by turning cowardly and replacing himself with a bureaucracy.

As for Žižek, he manages to defend Lenin, Stalin, and himself with the meta-thought that I should trust their judgment. To wit: “The so-called ruling bureaucracy [of Really Existing Socialism] is not just the new class; it comes to stand in place of the ruling class.”**

Indeed; such rubbish creates but another academic born by means of the autosexual verbal method, being educated in a Politburo school to become a ruling bureaucrat, and as such ‘a New Man’ given license to sign from behind a University desk death sentences at will, and with no more responsibility over my or your Extinction than "the Federal Republic of Germany [which today continues to be] a neo-Nazi State, the direct heir of Nazism..."****. Unfortunately, liberalism cannot escape being liberalism, just because Žižek squares it or because the German State (with American complicity) fudges the nature of its ideology by continuing to pay the State of Israel Holocaust reparations that serve to repress the Palestinians et al.

* Slavoy Žižek, “The Universal Exception”, Continuum, p 81.
** Ibid., p 85.
*** For Žižek, the ‘anti-Semite’ stands for anti- Gypsy, Jew, Slav, Muslim, Black, etc. Žižek writes (Ibid., p 79): “[The] fundamental mechanism of self-criticism is unthinkable in fascism.” Apparently Žizek wants his readers to fail to see that he wishes to free the Bolshevik-Stalinist from the necessity of exercising such self-criticism as necessitates self-sacrifice as a Really Existing Act within a Bolshevik ruling body. I fail to see how his position differs from the Roman Catholic one, or from that of any modern government, or that his ‘writing’ fundamentally presents a story different from that of the ‘false flag’ story about world famed Jesus Christ.
**** Ibid. p. 143.

Because my way of 'thinking' is like a Tibetan twirling a prayer wheel, it stops only when another prayer presents another need. Therefore, these series of blogs at “jesusthebogomil” may yet discover some continuation on another blog site, re: , beginning with blog 141 ff. May we meet again there!

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Chapter 14
Of Virgin Birth
Eso A.B.

Everyone knows that the neo-Christian Church claims Jesus to have been born of a virgin. This was obviously not the case of Stalin, though I have argued that Stalin was profoundly influenced by Catholic theology, even if it came to him by the Georgian Orthodox Church and he later professed to be an atheist.

The trouble with being an ‘atheist’ is that you may declare yourself to be a carrot in a soup of potatoes all you wish, but if the soup is made mostly of potatoes, you will not escape being of the same soup; when on the spoon, you will still smell like a potato. The same goes for Stalin. He may declare himself ‘red’, but this does not make him any less black than the black, which is the chief color of the Catholic West.

I have also argued (see Introduction blog) that neo-Christianity is story that is a False Flag, and  was invented to replace another story, which is the story of “Basil The Bogomil” or The King who Loves God. To claim to be an atheist and not know that you are claiming yourself to be an atheist within the soup of a deliberately falsified story, will not make you an ‘atheist’, because the story that you object to will eventually be objected to by everyone who learns the truth about it. At best, an ‘atheist’ imbedded within a neo-Christian God will have to project him- herself as an atheist who is an atheist squared and looks like a centaur .

In fact, Stalin was a Russian Orthodox+Catholic-neo-Christian from the day his mother went to live with Father Charkviani, who—so it was rumored—may have slept with Keke, which is how Stalin may have been conceived. Stalin’s mother hoped her son would become a bishop. While few people give the rumor credibility, the fact is that genetic tests could yet prove the rumor to be accurate. It would be worth doing a genetic comparison of the genes of Stalin and Father Charkviani—if the latter’s gravesite is known. I would place my bets on matching genes, though this will not disprove the fact that Stalin was born into the Christian epoch and that Georgia’s psychic space was saturated with it.

Therefore, Stalin is, above all, the son of his mother. Though everyone knows what parthenogenesis means , everyone also knows that such a birth does not among humans unless in the yellow press. This does not mean that the thought did not enter the mind of Stalin, because the question of who his father was must have presented itself to him. When it did, it also met with neo-Christian mythology, where the birth of Jesus is presented as a miraculous occurrence. Given Stalin’s phenomenal rise to power and the precedent of the Mexican Revolution (1910), Stalin may in his fantasy have compared his Georgian mother with the Aztec Goddess of Earth, Coatlicue, who gave birth to Huitzilopochtli, the founder of the Aztec people. As the Aztec myth tells it, Huitzilopochtli was born of the union of Earth-mountain and sky-Feather. Given that the Earth husband of Stalin’s mother was an incorrigible and violent alcoholic and may have beat his wife during the time she carried her son, Stalin may have (now that we now know that a fetus can hear and respond to music played by the mother) sworn to revenge himself on the world he was destined to be born into even while still in the womb.

Of course, I realize that many readers think that my use of pareidolian associations to discover new links within old stories is nothing but “wild”. Be that as it may, when I viewed the following video (start at 44 min), I found that while looking for material that would link Stalin to Mexican creation myth (I believed that the link could have something to do with the assassination of Trotsky in Mexico City) involving ‘virgin birth’*, I would discover a link seemingly even more far fetched than what I was looking for . Start to listen at 42 min, until you hear the story of the Eitingons.

Last, but not least “wild”, is a link of ‘virgin birth’ to the male penis.

Though ‘virgin birth’ is associated with parthenogenesis taking place within the body of woman, it is no less closely associated—in ancient culture--with that of the male penis, especially in the mythology of the Sumerians and Egyptians. An Egyptian myth tells how a jealous brother of the Gods, Seth, killed and then dismembered the body of his brother Osiris into fourteen parts, which he scattered throughout Egypt. Osiris’ sister and wife Isis found all the parts, but the penis. Isis then reconstructed the body of Osiris and turned herself into a she-hawk. The hawk hovered over the crotch of Osiris and fanned its wings, until the penis magically reappeared, growing out of the crotch as a mushroom from under some moss. One may certainly imagine that this rebirth of the penis constitutes a ‘virgin birth’. Another brother of the Gods, Horus, later revenged Osiris’ murder by cutting off the penis of Seth. According to Plutarch, there used to be in Koptos, Egypt, a statue showing Horus* holding up in his raised hand the penis of Seth—much like the statue of Liberty in New York holds a torch. Taking away ‘virgin birth’ from enemies by cutting off their penises became a traditional way for Egyptians to gather war trophies. In one instance, hieroglyphs at Karnak report a battle in which the Egyptians killed 6111 Greeks and 6359 Lybians, and thereafter presented the pharaoh (and the Egyptian government) with more than 12,470 penises.**

* David Carrasco, “City of Sacrifice”, Beacon Press, pp. 60-63.
**Horus may be the Egyptian way of saying "Yonus"; where the 'Ho'=Yo, and 'r'=n.
***The information on Egyptian myths from David Friedman’s book “A Mind of Its Own” . If one reviewer calls the book “embarrassingly europhallocentric”, Friedman corrects with a story about President Johnson unbuttoning his fly and pulling out his penis before a reporters who were pestering him over why the Vietnam War was not coming to a close. Apparently this was the US President’s way to remind the world of the immortality of US commitment to war.

Monday, January 7, 2013

Chapter 13
The Despair of Stalin (2)
© Eso A.B.

Regrettably, Professor Girard contradicts himself by belatedly arguing that the sacrifice of the king must be avoided. If so, he cannot be serious that what he himself calls “a sacrificial crisis” is real enough to awaken in humans such profound unhappiness as in the past only a human sacrifice (including the sacrifiee of Jesus) could solve. Does he mean to say that with the arrival of neo-Christianity and increased military violence, humans have found a solution?

Girard does a literary three card monty , and side-slips the ‘sacrificial crisis’ (the heart card) with a trick unbecoming a literary critic. Girard renames and then replaces the sacrificial card with a “persecutor” card (clubfoot king), then insists that the persecutor “hates without a cause”. Such a ‘sleight of word’ makes ‘sacrificial crisis’ read what the neo-Christian church wishes it to read: hate without cause “…will gradually pervade all the converted [by Jesus who miraculously escapes his story through a magician as its rewriter], teaching them [the converted] to recognize the persecutor’s account of persecution and reject them….*”, i.e., reject ‘it’, the need of self-sacrifice.

In short, the replacement of the religion of egality takes place as the religion of the princes (capitalism) has envisioned it: without the resistance of self-sacrifice. In spite of having written numerous books on the subject and having shed considerable light on the subject, in the end Girard surprises by taking his analysis back. Like most Westerners, he fears and denies the necessity of self-sacrificial blood in the formation of community, and returns to the neo-Christian tradition, which supports the notion that the human community is a consequence of creation by violence.

The consequence of living ‘life’ without self-sacrificial responsibility, and accounting for the appearance of evil therein as a mysterious and an inexplicable ‘sin’, has Girard—in his final analysis—mysteriously and self-contradictorily deny self-sacrifice of life as an organic necessity.

However, what if self-sacrifice is, nevertheless, organic to the maintenance of a healthy community? And what if denial of ‘sacrificial crisis’ equals to the denial of Abel’s lot (see Ch 12)? Moreover, if Cain is not a killer of his brother, but the executor of God’s (the community’s) will?

What then about Stalin? Does not God or the Big Other (the community) protect the reputation of Stalin ‘sevenfold’? It would seem so, except….

There is one major objection to equating Stalin with the Biblical Cain. The reason is that by taking upon himself the role of executioner of those who fail to keep their oath to serve the community with self-sacrifice, Cain took upon himself also the role of the self-sacrifice. Like his brother Abel, whom he executed, Cain took an oath to give his life to the community. However, the Bible does not go on to tell us what happened to Cain. Perhaps his death is deliberately blotted out to avoid raising the subject of self-sacrifice. Be that as it may, we know that Stalin did not take his own life, but—if Beria did not poison him—may have died of a heart attack. Therewith, the curses that have fallen on Stalin cannot be removed.

All the same, it is interesting to imagine what would have happened to Stalin’s reputation if he had taken his life in a self-sacrificial act.

Could it be that had Stalin sacrificed his life, the Soviet Union would still be in existence? Who would dare doubt his commitment to the Revolution and once it was put into motion for pressing on until its enemies were defeated? Of course, these are hypothetical questions, and we will never know the answer.

Nevertheless… there is reason to believe that mythology embodies evidence of what it takes to bring about a community. This knowledge was once common in the Middle East—in the Byzantine Empire, among the Turkic people. This knowledge is the Heisenbergian ‘quantum jump’ of repressed history. In the case of the Turkic people (possibly also the Israelis of Khazaria) government was represented by two kings. The first king, was called ‘Khagan’, the second ‘Bek’. Khagan was the ceremonial or spiritual king, while ‘Bek’ was the executive king . We will not be far off the mark if we claim the year (1118) as the year of not only the death of Jesus The Bogomil, but as marking the end of the rule of the sacrificial king, i.e., the Khagan.

Thereafter, all authority gravitated toward the ‘Bek’, the executive and military head of the community who displaced affection for the sacred with cynicism. It is out of this cynicism that emerged the “unknown known”, the fact that the profit oriented princes of the West (most likely the Franks ) in order to consolidate their power were promoting the Bek (one of their own), and thrust Jesus The Bogomil (also the Khagan) into a pit filled with red hot coal and incinerated him.

While the Pope and Western leaders continue to play ‘dumb’, at least Zbignew Brzezinski   knows that the Russian Orthodox Church is to be feared. According to Aleksandre Latsa , Zbigniew Brzezinski, in a speech in 2007, said … that "After the collapse of the USSR, the main enemy of the USA will be the Russian Orthodox Church." By saying this Brzezinski, a Catholicized Slav was not projecting a personal religious prejudice.

A scan of words by the pareidolic technique will discover that the word “khagan” may have given rise to the name ‘gypsies’ (called Chigahni in Latvian, Ciganer in German). The gypsies were a nomadic people who in the distant past may have traveled through many kingdoms selling children (meriahs) for human sacrifice rituals. The Chigahni, may once have lived in Orissa, East India, in close association with a culturally distinct tribal group known as the Konds. Originating from among the Konds (who were culturally destroyed by the British and Christians) , the Gypsies may long ago have fled from the muslim invasion of Orissa to Puri and sought the protection at the Jagannah temple,_Puri .

As a consequence of their dispersal, these ‘traveling salesmen’ may have expanded the trading range of meriahs. Indeed, the meriahs may have been traded until the death of the last Khagan, Jesus The Bogomil. With the rise of the secular Bek, the authority of sacrifice, its very idea, was violently repressed. We continue to see the effects of such repression on the Tibetans by the Chinese

The advantage gained by violence created liberal democracy, which has resulted in minority capitalism enslaving the majority of the population. Of course, while natural resources were plenty, liberal capitalism (aided by the discovery of the steam engine) flourished. In fact, capitalism flourished on the surplus resources of our planet so well that it was able to coerce through material temptation (false gifting) the majority to relinquish the freedoms it had enjoyed while practicing survival in a subsistence economy.

With the arrival of the 19th century, however, destruction of society as an entity ‘sufficient unto itself’ was screaming in pain. The scream was heard by Marx (1818-1883), Engels, Lenin, and Stalin (1878-1953) . As the last man of this quadruped and with no solution in sight (let us remember that the 'known' of the 'unknown known' or history was pretended to have been lost), Stalin (born in Georgia and educated by Orthodox priests) fell into despair and began to slaughter the ‘traitors’ of Eastern Christianity with no regrets.

*Rene Girard, “The Scapegoat”,  John Hopkins University Press, pp. 103-108.

Tuesday, January 1, 2013

Chapter 12
The Despair of Stalin (1)
© Eso A.B.

Stalin killed millions. He struck terror in the hearts of nearly everyone who heard his name. Wishing to be taken note of, earn promotions, and avoid being arrested and shot, many of Stalin’s regional bosses (Khrushchev and Molotov among them) also killed hundreds of thousands. But few take the time to wonder whether Stalin killed gratuitously or whether he believed he had good reasons. Most people will argue that if Stalin believed that he had good reasons for issuing orders to kill, he should have left the inhumanity to a meteor or a ‘natural’ catastrophic implosion of society as appears to be taking place now a half a century later.

But because a death sentence by government is not unusual (because government appropriates the right to kill for itself and its moneyed supporters), it raises a question: if behind the order to kill—this and so many people—stands one man, do the executions have moral authority or is it based on nothing more than a legalism? A legalism is an instituted order carried out through the mechanism of ‘chain of command’ without the executioner paying any attention to the reasons of the command.

If the answer is that moral authority has been replaced by a legalism, we may ask whether the legalism is not based on God’s ‘mark of Cain’.  If so, is not God’s word beyond challenge even if it has been reduced to a legalism? After all, God not only protected Cain, when he forbade anyone to kill him, re: Genesis 4:15: “And the Lord said: Therefore whosoever slays Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest anyone finding him should kill him….”, Indeed, God’s mark upon Cain, protected Cain ‘sevenfold’. Why was God so generous to a killer?

Answer: Because the killer was the executioner of human self-sacrifices, when these sworn sacrifices hesitated or failed in courage.

To put it another way: Cain was not a killer. He is an executioner of God’s will, when his brother Abel fails to self-sacrifice himself after he has received the fateful piece of cake with the piece of coal in it. The piece of coal marks Abel for self-sacrifice. For those puzzled by this inversion of accustomed Western theologizing, I would like to remind the reader that ‘religion’ originally had little to do with ‘life’ as it is now claimed by a self-indulgent ‘human rightist’ and the Vatican, but has everything to do with sustaining the ‘community’ and its bonds.

Thus, when some men began to find fault with Cain [the name was pronounced ‘Kenite’ or ‘qayin’ in Hebrew, which name may have echoed to Greek Cadmus, the red man (see Chapter 11)], the community tradition stepped in to protect him. The old tradition valued Cain’s life as ‘sevenfold’ times greater than that of an ordinary man. Unfortunately, religion as life theology was in ascendancy, and gave an absurd interpretation to God’s judgment.

Whether Stalin knew of the original role of Cain in the sense that I have just explained, I do not know. But even as he was signing death warrants, it did not prevent him from loving Nadya, his second wife, nor did it prevent her from loving him, though she surely knew that he ordered people killed.

Yet in 1932 Nadya committed suicide. Nadya’s suicide nailed Stalin (as if he were the proverbial thief in the night, the owl) to the barn door for God to see. Though ostensibly both are said to have been atheists, there remains much evidence that Stalin was, in fact, a God fearing individual caught up in the tragedy of a God denying materialist age.

Nadya’s suicide persuaded Stalin that she had betrayed him, in effect, denied him her love. Of course, that is but an inversion of the fact that he had betrayed her and she had found him out and laid a curse on him.

By 1937, Stalin was ready to take his lost love back by unleashing one of the bloodiest slaughters that has ever visited civil society. Of 790,000 accused of disloyalty, 350,000 were shot, and 430,000 imprisoned in gulags. And this is only a part of the story of Stalin, acting out the role of Cain. Incidentally, we must remember that Nadya did not turn the pistol (bought in Paris by her brother) on Stalin, but on herself, thus, becoming a partner in Stalin’s blood baths and confirming his role as Cain.

These coincidences, real or imagined, suggest that if Stalin is put in the role as Adam and Nadya becomes Eve, they are both agreed it is right for them to kill off their descendants, some tens of thousand of years into the future. In other words, they justify their action, because they have come to believe that at the time of their origin, they had given birth not to human beings, but to beings that were not quite up to snuff as human beings.

What kind of human being is not quite human and, therefore, embodies something of the anti-human?

The answer we may leave to the imagination of Hollywood, specifically a series of horror movies, which introduced a monster known as the “undead” or ‘living dead’*. In Hollywood, these creatures appear as if out of nowhere, terrify and threaten the living, and the living defend themselves by attempting to kill these almost supernatural creatures.

Can it be that Stalin and Nadya thought of some of their contemporaries as of the ‘undead’ or ‘living dead’? How did they justify their belief? If I cannot think of a reason and it remains an 'unknown', what is it that they 'knew' different?

It is known that Stalin thought negatively of cosmopolitan society and was author of the phrase “rootless cosmopolitan” . Though the phrase emerged after WW2 and was mostly applied by the Soviets against Jews, dislike of cosmopolitans emerged considerably earlier as cosmopolitanism was believed to be an expression of anti-nationalism and anti-communism. As the following link argues, cosmopolitanism was not always though in negative terms, but over the long term, the negative emerged and prevailed. This is why the reason for Stalin’s anti cosmopolitanism is not that cosmopolitanism is anti-nationalist, but that it is anti-community and anti Ssoviet .

Why is cosmopolitanism anti-community?

The simplest explanation is that the fundamental economic activity of human beings is the practice of subsistence economy (I produce as much as my need compels and physical endurance permits). The rise of capitalism destroyed not only this basic activity in favor of an economy for profit, but increased human activity to the level of hyperactivity. It also denied ‘subsistence’ economy legitimacy, by forcing it to be identified with extreme poverty and deprivation. This 'unknown known' has gone unrecognized and is dismissed in favor of capitalism as inevitability.

The capitalist meme, an eternal imaginary sensation of a masturbatory orgasm, apparently is such a temptation that it never takes into account the possibility that in spite of its attraction, the human psyche remains in a permanent state of antagonism toward economic inequality. It is this antagonism, which—opaque and undefined as it may be—is the force that perceives every cosmopolitan as one of the ‘undead’, and a manifestation of a force which has lost the right to be among humans by becoming an ally of the monopolizers of wealth.

Though Stalin may have perceived Nadya’s new dress as a transgression against the vows taken on behalf of the Revolution (on behalf of a continuation of a subsistence economy), this perception coincided with Stalin himself having broken his vows and found out by Nadya—on the eve of the 15th Anniversary of the Soviet Revolution no less.

Nadya ‘froze’ Stalin into a compromising photograph of himself. If no one else knew the truth of the matter, he, she, and God knew. Above all, Stalin knew that Nadya knew, and her revenge was not to revenge the executions of the Undead, but to revenge Stalin’s betrayal of the Revolution and his role in it, even as he intimated she was doing the same by wearing a new dress. This is not to say that Stalin deliberately betrayed the Revolution, but that the causes of the Revolution were so complex that even Lenin and his disciple Stalin did not fully understand them. They were only skimming the surface of the reasons for the Revolution. The 'known' of the 'unknown known' had become lost to history. Regarding proof of this, let the reader answer whether he-she knows that the fundamental reason for the peoples support for the Revolution was their desire to return to a subsistence economy that had prevailed in Russia and the lands about before the arrival of capitalism and the socially destructive idea of profiteering?

Only a subsistence economy can guarantee economic egalitarianism to a greater than lesser degree. As soon as the lesser degree of economic equality appears, it leads to violence, which is why capitalism can be maintained only through the exercise of repression and violence.

Nadya’s suicide brought to the fore other unknowns, which if they have not yet become knowns, are nevertheless suspect of being knowable.

One of the factors that allow us to speculate about the subjective nature of Stalin’s being is the discovery of Stalin polishing the wall next to his bed with his spittle.** It is, both, revealing and damning. On the one hand, Stalin proves himself to be all too human, on the other hand, he commits himself to being an exception and a human inhuman, who is not among the ‘living dead’ because he is inhuman in the sense of a monstrous divine, the figure of Cain which God protects ‘sevenfold’.

Exceptional and inhuman humans or monstrous divines are not new. In the long ago, in the days before the birth of Basil-Jesus The Bogomil, it used to be that the embodiment of a government was the King. In those days, it was universally accepted that (as the novelist, Mary Renault, has written): “The King Must Die”.

Why must the King die? Is he not a God, even God?

Much has been written to answer to this question. Among the more important writers on the subject is French critic and philosopher Rene Girard. Girard, who concentrates on the theme of the scopegoat and discusses the role of scapegoating in the formation of culture a bonding element that forms government. While one may condemn the need to look for a scapegoat and a kill, it would be wrong to dwell on the injustice done to the scapegoat and fail to remember that underlying the search is the need for society to experience death as an after image of responsibility and commitment. It is a ‘live’ death that creates indestructible memories, which following death forms bonds that unite people not only in a common memory, but confirms to them their commonness through living in a given space and time. It is this force that underlies the formation and maintenance of a community through the services of Cain.

Professor Girard notes that sacrifice is repeated when commonness loses its effect. This is why long ago annual ritual death was believed to be the backbone of community. Without the experience of death, a given community may experience what the professor calls “a sacrificial crisis”. This is to say, the community comes to experience a sense of disbelief about itself, doubts itself to be ‘real’, which is why it may project itself to its inner self as a monster creature, a cosmopolitan, one belonging to the ‘undead’. Whether the ‘undead’ think of themselves as ‘brained undead’ or ‘unbrained undead’ hardly makes a difference, because their effect on the social environment is the same.

*An interesting take on the ‘undead’ or ‘living dead’ is by Glenn Greenwald, a columnist on civil liberties and US national security issues for the Guardian. In an article in the Guardian newspaper. Greenwald, without mentioning the word, points at none other than governments themselves being a phenomenon of the ‘undead’ horror in hot pursuit of human beings: Writes Greenwald: “If you were a US leader, or an official of the National Security State, or a beneficiary of the private military and surveillance industries, why would you possibly want the war on terror to end? That would be the worst thing that could happen. It's that war that generates limitless power, impenetrable secrecy, an unquestioning citizenry, and massive profit…. Just this week, a federal judge ruled that the Obama administration need not respond to the New York Times and the ACLU's mere request to disclose the government's legal rationale for why the President believes he can target US citizens for assassination without due process. Even while recognizing how perverse her own ruling was - "The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me" and it imposes "a veritable Catch-22" - the federal judge nonetheless explained that federal courts have constructed such a protective shield around the US government in the name of terrorism that it amounts to an unfettered license to violate even the most basic rights: "I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret" (emphasis added).
**Simon S. Montefiore, “Stalin”, Alfred A. Knopf, p. ?, Stalin was seen spitting compulsively against the wall


Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Chapter 11
Kirti Mukha
© Eso A.B.
Right next to the mysterious quantum jump (from particle to wave or the other way around) proposed by the Heisenberg solution, is the ancient image of Kirti Mukha  as representing the mysterious topological circle, which while remaining a circle, allows one to move from one side of the circle to the other without falling off the cliff which theoretically is presented by the edge of the circle.

The difference between a two dimensional and a topological circle has been noted since ancient times. Nevertheless, the two circles often get confused, especially since a circle may be viewed as a ‘simple’ circle and an ‘sophiscicated’ circle. Kirti Mukha belongs to the latter.
Most people today believe the simple or two dimensional circle is the real circle. This is because grammar school teachers have not been taught to acquaint children with the difference. This results in great confusion and misunderstanding between cultures today and in ancient times. With the circle perceived as having greater complexity in the East, it was projected there with great ingenuity in art.
Because in the East the circle was perceived as a body—at the very least as a body that had a  face—rather than being merely a stretched line, it manifested itself in the minds of the artists and others who meditated on the nature of reality, as Kirti Mukha.
So, what is a Kirti Mukha?
There is a story that explains it in very simple terms. Once upon a time there was a serpent. The serpent represented or stood for the wrath of God. On one day the God became so angry at a creature that He send the serpent after it—to either give him-her a poisonous bite or simply choke him-her to death. Nevertheless, a few moments later, God changed His mind and regretted that he had sent the serpent on its lethal mission. What was God to do now? He transmitted to the serpent a mental message: “Desist from attacking X, but turn your (mine) anger against yourself instead. Devour yourself to the point where there is nothing more of you for you to devour.”
The serpent obeyed and devoured itself until it came to its face and could devour itself no more. Thus, the serpent of the face became known as Kirti Mukha or Face of Glory.
Interestingly, the story does not end here. The Face of Glory was still possessed by great anger and the desire to put an end to itself. But how was it to accomplish this? It became a pure mathematical problem: How is a zero (0), that is to say a circle, to disappear?
It can do so by dividing itself in half. And how is a circle to divide itself in half? It can do so by dividing itself into two parenthesis ( ). It accomplishes this by growing out of its face, so to speak, two great horns or tusks. When these are fully grown, each horn turns into a monstrous giant with a ready spear in hand. The ancient Greeks had a fairy-tale, in which two such giants, known as Otus and Ephialtes, twins born of the Earth-Mother Artemis, when fully grown, conceived a sexual desire for their mother and decided to seize her, when she was off guard.
One early fall day, when the two giants and their mother had gone into the wood to pick mushrooms, the twins decided to do the rape. They had come to a small clearing in the middle of the wood. Artemis was at the centre of the clearing, while the twins were at the edge of the wood on the left and right of her. This was it:
Otus and Ephialtes drew back their arms with the spears ready to fly. The tips of the spears, polished shiny, glinted in the sun. The Earth Mother caught the glint out of the corner of her eye. She understood in an instant in what was happening, and in an instant she turned herself into a roe and took a high leap into the air. The spears of the two giants missed hitting her, but passed harmlessly through her legs, continued to travel, then each hit the twin on the opposing end of the clearing.
Needless to say, both of the giants fell dead.
There are many variations of this story. One of the most famous ones also comes from the Greeks. We may remember, that the Greek Adam was called King Cadmus, maybe also the Red King . Cadmus created himself warriors by breaking out the teeth of a great Serpent that he had overcome. He sowed the teeth into two rows, and from the seeds sprung two rows of fully armed men.
To put life into the men, Cadmus threw between them a stone, which the men interpreted to have been thrown by the men in the opposite row from them. An immediate fight between the two rows ensued. The fight ended only when both rows of men had mutually destroyed each other.
Furthermore, this story has an echo in the grandson of Cadmus, known to the Greeks King Oedipus. King Oedipus had twins by his mother, Polyneicis and Eteokles. These sons, too, killed each other.
The topological circle, the one that is not for ever closed, but from which there is an escape, may also be presented in non visual ways.
One such way is embedded in our language, where we continue to propagate the tooth of seed through a mental process known as pareidolia or uninhibited associatio. While association of like and unlike is manifest in many ways, one is through cognates.
Such cognates are for example, names, such as Yan, Ivan, Ion, Don, Dion, Zhan, Gan, Gen, Gion, Hans, Han, Huat, etc. One such surprising association of John maybe the name of the Indian saint, re Gandhi = Yandhi.
Unfortunately, with the arrival of ‘science’ and its insistence on rigid proof that 1=1, pareidolia was dismissed as both inconsequential and delusional.
Nevertheless, the more imaginative among scientists will see how the representation of the topological circle is likely an early representation of quantum mechanics, i.e., the ‘gap’ of quantum mechanics, is presented not as a separation between an electron or particle in one instance and in another instance as a wave, but by a twist acting as a separation or illusion of separation.
The ‘simple’ vs the ‘topological twist’ is represented also within the solar system, where the moon represents a simple circle illuminated only on one side, whereas the Earth is like a topological a circle rotating about the sun and illumined on both of its sides, which allows our planet to escape the rigor mortis that grips the moon.
To repeat, the link that connects both sides of a circle is a simple ‘twist’, and is represented by the virtual figure of the number 8. It is not a mere accident that 8 is said to represent eternity. The simple version of the circle dominated the Western perceptions and is seen as a two-dimensional circle or serpent called a Ouroboros, However, the Ouroboros never becomes a face, but remains a closed circle, from which one cannot escape.
Perhaps the reason has something to do with the repression by neo-Christians of the arch-Christians, the so-called ‘heretics’, catars, bogomils, et al, who were accused of ‘dualism’ or manichaeism , of seeing God as both ‘good’ and ‘evil’, which was anathema to the Catholic Church, which was charged by its sponsors, the wealthy castes of the West, to never to depart from a positivist interpretation of reality. Thus, while the West has so many ‘creative’ designers, all consumer products, over and above the necessities, are boring junk.

Thursday, November 1, 2012

Chapter 10
The Heisenberg Orgasm
© Eso A.B.

Basil and Jesus, both equal in their love of ‘God’ are dead. As a later blog explains, ‘Basil’ was born of a peculiarity of language: it is still in its ‘oral’ and ‘fluid’ state, while ‘Jesus’ comes of language that is ‘written’ and, thus, in ‘solid’ state.

These blogs argue that human beings of the oral tradition are more atheistic in their way of life (they have no written texts to make them appear to survive themselves), at the same time as they are more consumed and possessed with a sense of the divine. Our ‘atheist’ ancestors, seeing the true colors of their environment more clearly, because less encumbered by virtual reality, thought of life as being more precious than we do and acted on that perception on a daily basis; while human beings raised by the written tradition have come to see themselves as ipso facto deistic particles. Deism makes our thought processes less flexible. The latter state is illustrated by the prejudice exhibited by the hullabaloo accompanying the “God particle”, even though ‘proof’ of its existence is no greater than what Heisenberg propounded nearly a century ago in his Quantum Mechanics theory : if you look for a particle, a particle is what you will find, whereas if you look for a wave, it is a wave that you will see. To add some humor: a tomato cannot be a tomato and tomato juice at one and the same time. It is either one or the other, but not both.

‘Scientific prejudice’ constructs God out of its own prejudice. Indeed, so it does. However, because God cannot remain a tomato forever, a ‘historic necessity’ in due time turns it into a wave, an Act, at which stage God is more likely to look like an eel near the shore of Easter Islands, that becomes erect upon seeing a maiden come to the ocean to bathe. Of course, once he has achieved a Heisenberg orgasm (i.e., ‘jumped the cut’ from ‘that’ to ‘who’), he relaxes, becomes transparent, and vanishes.

I don’t know about the reader, but in so far as I write to fix my thoughts for myself, I believe God is with me, from the time I am born.

Like all newborns, at the time of my birth, I was at first presumptuous in my expectations. My behavior indicated that I presumed that someone wanted me to be born into their life. I was confirmed in this presumption by the fact that the woman who gave birth to me offered me her breast. I was nursed, I was cooed and sung to, and arms were put into the form of a cradle so they could swing me back and forth. I heard said that I was grandfather’s grandson and a grandchild to more than one. Grandmother took a special interest in me.

I soon learned, however, that all that I wanted or presumed that I wanted, I could not have. That is when I learned to demand by crying and screaming, an activity that made me conscious of myself and bound me ever closer to my body.

Of course, I did not know what I was crying for. When I had cried my fill and still was not satisfied, my body became weary, drowsy, and brought me sleep. That is when I heard a voice teach me to sing these words: “Now I wish to go to sleep/, Father, lead me to a dreamland sweet,/ Please keep mama and papa safe,/ may I never go for want.”

When I was still small, I had a strange dream. I was floating among pink clouds. The horizon moved in a circle around me. On occasion, I was as if outside the circle, which is when I saw that it was an enormous doughnut shaped mass of clay-like matter. When I was within the circle, it felt as if I the doughnut was sucking me into itself. This caused me a suffocating feeling. I woke up crying, and I did not stop until mother came to comfort me. From the time the nightmarish dream (it repeated itself for several years), I could not sleep unless there was a nightlight beside my bed.

When I was old enough and it was thought that I could be trusted to take care of myself, I took the occasion to fall into the garden pool. It was deep enough to drown in, but I managed to grab hold of the rim of the pool. A friend, a boy my own age, was present when the accident happened. He presumed that I was done for, made believe he saw nothing, and ran home.

On my sixth birthday, my father presented me with a toy rifle. It came with a pink paper roll in which was imbedded explosive matter the size of a match head. When I saw the rifle, I began crying and would not take it. My father had to demonstrate that it was only a toy. I have no idea where the idea that it was a deadly weapon came from. Apparently, it was from something that I had heard or read. I was reading newspapers and looking at pictures of weekend magazine editions at an early age. It was July, 1939, and talk of war was in the air. Germany attacked Poland a few months later.

A few weeks before my eighth birthday, my father took his entire family to live with relatives in a distant part of the country, where I had never been before. When in the winter (1941) my father returned to the city, he was arrested, and thereafter I never saw him again.

When an uncle came to visit us in the countryside, I remember asking him if he could tell me who ‘God’ was. He replied: “You will know, when you grow up.” The answer stuck in my mind, because as I grew older and expected to become smarter, the meaning never became clearer.

Because I read a lot, I knew that at other times, people had believed not in one ‘God’, but many ‘Gods’. Unfortunately, no one explained to me that the Sun ‘Goddess’ was a symbol for light; or that ‘God’ stood denial of Death and was a symbol for when I no longer would be on Earth. Eventually, I began to figure things out for myself, but the tradition of avoiding questions about ‘God’ (except for unpleasant assertions about ‘God’s’ nature by men in black frocks and white collars) assuredly caused a delay in “growing up” and learning about ‘God’ on my own.

Now that I know that people have been as puzzled about the meaning of ‘God’ long before me, and that there has appeared no Einstein, with a theory about the reality of ‘God’, I have come around to thinking that in order for ‘God’ to prove to himself that he is real in an organic sense, he has to die.

Because human life is so short, it means that if ‘God’ comes into the environment of planet Earth, he has to die all the time. Being dead and surviving death to die again is the only way ‘God’, I, and others may prove to ourselves that there is a ‘God’. God does not stand for ‘life’ as some cardinals claim, but stands for humans as a community (Ecclesiastes 4:12).

Only a human being who is a Bogomil, a lover of ‘God’, can prove ‘God’s existence, both, to ‘God’ and to him- or herself through an Act. When all is said and done, God is more real when he has no body or name, but is embodied in an Act on behalf of a community and an Act originating out of a community.