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