Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Chapter 3
‘False Flag’ Over Jerusalem
© Eso A.B.

When we talk about “love” and its importance, “love” is no less of an abstracted act than “faith”, “trust”, or "belief".

“Love” when it is an object of discussion also becomes a distanced object, as if it were a Platonic image projected (from the outside) against the wall of a cave. Let us imagine that the wall of the cave is a movie screen.

In the same way that a kiss that takes place on a screen, does not take place on your or my the lips, it fools us into thinking that it does takes place only because the darkened space of the theatre helps create the illusion that it is real. For all that, the darkened space of the movie theatre is nothing more than the inside of our heads, where the voyeur resides.

Anyone who doubts that love is, in this case, more than an ‘animated’ kiss projected on the wall of a cave may check the internet about tiny wires inserted in the brain by researchers to see what such wires can do. The research has advanced far enough for the brain of a paralyzed man to be able to with the help of electrodes to direct an artificial arm to reach for a drink. We may be sure that soon it will be able to reach with that arm for someone’s crotch.

Is this love? Or is it animated indifference?

What does animated indifference look like?

Animated indifference, a languid and neutered kind love, may stimulate the brain of a paralytic who moves the mechanical arm, but it is unlikely to stimulate the person he/it is reaching for. For mutual stimulation, both persons, the paralytic and the healthy ‘other’ must be stimulated by similar electrodes, and both will have to be presented with visual imagery that presents an event that looks as if it is taking place between ‘normal’ human beings. While pornography is not the objective of the exercise, in the developmental stages it is likely to be just that. In due course, digitized sexual partners may be able to choose love scenes from a library of ‘fuck’ films, then calibrate these with the partner’s selection and arrive at a ‘fluid’ composite. Of course, the calibration will be done with the help of a professional ‘digital sex specialist’.

One of the first professional sex therapist may have been the artist Michelangelo. In his famous painting in the Sistine Chapel called “The Creation of Adam” , Michalangelo shows God and his angels in a cartouche drifting above a reclining, languid, and sluggish young man, Adam, who rests in a reclining position on a hill side. Adam has laid his left hand across his left knee. Adam’s index finger is slightly and extended above the others. God, who has seen Adam’s finger, reaches out toward it with his right hand, its index finger also extended. However, God, too, appears to be in a sluggish state. The finger tips of neither God nor Adam actually touch, neither is animated.

Eve, who finds herself in God’s embrace under his left arm, looks over the imminent moment of ‘touch’. Michelangelo has put on Eve’s face a look of anxiousness and question: Must I truly to sleep next to this inert lump of flesh? What compels me to make love it? Is God really going to manage to put the spark of life in this hulk?

It is difficult to imagine from the painting that we are looking at early states of what ought to eventually become an act of sexual intercourse. But perhaps all is as it should be. After all, Michalangelo (1475-1564) is fantasizing five hundred years into the future. But if ours is the age of that future, then we are here to do what we can to stop Michalangelo’s fantasy from realizing itself.

As it happens, the television and video library of pornographic movies is a rather extensive one. If some government agency or religious-ethics group does not interfere with them, God, Adam, and Eve have a huge collection of films to go through. Indeed, the process may take a few years; which presents the professional sex therapist with another problem. What if paralyzed Adam after vieweing a film is greatly aroused? Should he not have the right to let his over stimulated sex hormones produce an orgasm?

We also must remember that Adam is not alone. We will have to take Eve from the cozy crook of God’s arm and have her go through the same library of porno films that Adam is going through. She, too, at some point is likely to be sexually aroused and want release.

There is nothing wrong; except religious ethicists will protest that both Adam and Eve are having sexual releases in their heads without the participation of the chosen partner. The question the religious ethicists may ask is: Is this tampering with the brain not causing the future partners to become addicted to masturbation?

In other words, for us, the Vulgars* of humankind, who heretofore have used electricity to kill criminals in electric chairs (though today we prefer to use electricity in stun guns), the zap vouches that the identity of the zapped one is like that of a ‘criminal’. Will God zap Adam with original sin and make him addicted to it?

Why is God, portrayed by Michelangelo as a bearded conceit? Is he Eve’s father taking a ride on an afternoon cloud to find his eldest daughter a suitable husband? Is the man in the cloud even God? What signs suggest that He embodies love?

Whatever the reader may answer, Michelangelo’s visage of God does not inspire us to imagine his ‘God’ as a representation of Love. Instead, those who gaze at the Sistine ceiling critically see indifference. The proper question, therefore, from the onlooker and reader ought to be: Does God really intend to present to Eve a limp Adam? Can God (or is it Michelangelo?) awaken in Adam a look of anxiety that equals Eve’s? Not least: Is Michelangelo playing a joke on the Pope (Julius II) by putting life into Eve before he puts it into Adam?

We may argue if my interpretation of the painting is or is not on mark. Why would Michelangelo ever have named the painted scene: ‘The Creation of Adam’? On the other hand, we may argue that a limp relationship between heaven and earth is what Michelangelo intends to project as the sign of his times—non-verbally of course.

As I have argued in the Introduction, the outrage that echoed across the arch-Christian world following the ‘false flag’ incineration of Basil the Bogomil (later renamed Jesus) was dealt with by the perpetrators of the West by rewriting the story of what actually took place. I noted that in the ‘written’ version of the story, the fire in the pit at the Hippodrome has been reduced to a bonfire in the high priest’s courtyard, the firewood has become a cross, and death by incineration has been replaced by the spectacle of crucifixion. Much of the story has been borrowed from the martyrdom of Bishop Polycarp of Smyrna . The new and ‘written’ version of the Passion does an excellent job of taking attention away from the 1204 ‘false flag’ pseudo revenge attack (alleging to be  revenging the killing ‘Jesus Christ’), which takes place eighty-six years after the death of Basil The Bogomil.

The false flag attack, to recapture Jerusalem, stopped at Constantinople, far short of Jerusalem. After sacking the capital of Eastern Christendom and establishing Western Christendom as the only Christendom that ever was, neo-Christianity stuck to the lie of where the battle actually took place.

The importance of Polycarp’s survival through the story of Jesus Christ is in the fact that he, as a number of other proto-orthodox Christians have done, insisted that ‘faith’ in God could only be proved by dying for God; and, writes New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman: “…this willingness to die for the faith [is] one of the hallmarks of [the proto-orthodox] religion, [which through the ‘faith’ of orthodox Christians] used it as a demarcation that separated true believers… from the false ‘heretics’.”**

Those who deny that today’s orthodox-Christians rewrote the story of Basil and turned it into the story of Jesus Christ, adamantly insist that Polycarp and others in their dying were merely imitating Jesus. As if a timely three-card Monty, is not one of the constants in the art of rewriting.

The reason why the belief that faith in God can only be proven by dying for Him, remains in effect is because it strengthens the charisma of love. It rejects the kind of love that becomes impotent, and then seeks to reestablish itself through Viagra pills or electrodes. The virtual love of country of some  air force pilots is not what nature had in mind with regard to love when it created humans. As a pilot says (at 1:20): “We do our job. It’s an all or nothing proposition… It’s either we do the best there ever was and crush everyone else or our national survival goes away….We are going for blow-out all the time….” Unfortunately, such men are not of such stuff as “artifice of eternity”*** is made of or what the poet has in mind, much less God.

The fear of orthodox Christianity is that all the heretics who once gave their allegiance to Basil and it burned and destroyed, will rise and return to Basil.

This is not such a far fetched idea if we remember that orthodox Christians to this day expect ‘anti-Christ’ to replace them. This raises the question of who is the real anti-Christ? The question reawakens the argument about the nature of God. Is He a particle or is He an Act?

A look at the nature of modern ‘democracy’ shows that it increasingly takes on the nature of a dictatorial democracy (by virtue of parliamentarism and corporatism). ‘Democracy’ increasingly becomes more like a solid (as in Capital) and loses those aspects itself that make it a political Act.

As the Act, become like a wave, loses energy and becomes a flat surface, the energy that once stood behind it takes on the appearances of many particles. Out of this phenomenon rise particles of long forgotten charismatic elements. [Dolphins rise out of the sea and dance on their tails across it.] When no longer a ‘wave’, love reverts to being a singularity, and the sacred king, believed long lost, unexpectedly is reborn. Reactionary elements do not hesitate to call him ‘anti-Christ’, though his one mission is to replace the flat sea with dancing waves.

Given a ‘lock down’ of democracy, the rule by a sacred king (who is an active king unto death) may again emerge as the grace of the future. After all, modern governments, because their elites have reneged on self-sacrifice, render secular law inconsequential by the overwhelming application of violence to effect 'the rule of law'. These rules fail to attract creative elements by not being either attractive or charismatic.

Orthodox-Christians insist that the Bible is the ‘forerunner’ to the New Testament, and that the prophets of the Bible have no ‘salvation’ except by converting to Jesus Christ (as he is advertised by the orthodox Christian writ, the New Testament). This argument was used to extinguish the spirit of the Bogomils, whose orientation toward God as Act clashed with the devotion of Princes to a God, whose principle is Money.

Peculiarly, the ‘forerunners’ of Christians, the Jews, survived, because they did not directly challenge the new Christian orthodoxy over its new fangled ‘truths’ (unchecked sense of moral superiority, enhanced by the violence of its elite 'lawmakers'). The turn of the Jews comes later, when their 'archaic ways' become too evident in a setting of the urban desert. In a similar manner, though as anonym entities, the Bogomil Christians too survived. It happened because some humans loved the divine more than God.
* Vulgars: untutored humankind.
** Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Christianities, Oxford, p. 140.
*** W.B. Yeats, “Sailing to Byzantium”.

No comments:

Post a Comment