Saturday, June 18, 2011

A map of my corner of Latvia

Here is one of the nicest rejections (with regard to above blog) that I have ever received:

Sveiki, paldies, ka atrakstījāt, diemžēl kā atklātai vēstulei teksts
publicēšanai nedaudz par īsu. Ar cieņu,” (My translation: Hello, thanks for writing, but unfortunately for an Open Letter the text is too short to publish. Sincerely, …”

The Latvian way of humour makes the case that the text should be continued. I take the suggestion and the opportunity.

First, as to the state of the world at the time of this writing: see George Papandreou’s Statement:

The mood of the statement no longer simply evokes foreboding, but announces forebodings arrival. It brings the virtual world down to Earth and back to reality.
Zāļu kunkuļi / Grass mounds in a field at the edge of a river

While George Papandreou speaks for and to Greece, the importance of his release is in that it speaks also of the state of our world. This includes Latvia. While the blondes still celebrate Blond’s Day in Riga, the majority of Latvians neither in Riga nor Latvia’s countryside are anywhere near a celebratory mood.

Though I generally speak only for myself, on this occasion I presume to speak also on behalf of the proto-Balts, as well as the proto-Slavs. I am not speaking for the Latvian or Slav of today, but of when neither was as differentiated as some historians on either side say they are today.

In that long-ago, one thing among others that Latvians men were concerned about was their women.

As Professor Rene Girard writes in his book “Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World”: “Animals never renounce the satisfaction of their alimentary or sexual needs within their own group…. they never turn away from the most available object. An extraordinary force would have been required to make such a renunciation the general condition for humanity, but the force cannot be the Freudian desire for incest….”

The text continues: “It could only have been fear, the fear of mimetic rivalry and of a return to interminable violence.” In other words, the fear of violence, though it is universal, is greatest among men who presume to have sex with their closest. As Burton Mack—in a preface to “Violent Origins”, a book that has several authors as contributors—notes: “[According to Rene Girard] Humans have no braking mechanism for intra-species aggression. This means that rivalries and conflicts once unleashed cannot stop short of manslaughter. Violence, therefore, is endemic.”

When I drive by this group of green monsters gathering at the river's edge, I always  wonder what is the plan they are hashing.

Therefore, the renunciation of incest among humans is not based on sexual mores (does and don’ts as such). Instead, it is in order to avoid violent confrontations and fears arising within a given group aware of the state and shape it is in. The humans most threatened by the situation and the likelihood of its eruption into violence are the human males.

In an effort to avoid intra-species violence, society developed a mind meme or virtual genome that decrees a social ritual that pushes the possibility of incest far enough away from the centre of the group to no longer threaten it with a violent eruption, i.e., a fight between Abel and Cain.
The barn, perhaps once a house now that was.
Society forbade sexual relationships between parents and their children and siblings with one another. Of course, the taboos may include other practices. Sometimes a group or society may become so moribund by prohibitions that in the event of incipient violence, it may seek the victim from beyond its boundaries. If There gives forth no victim, because it sees no justification for it and can back up its stand, then there develops what Professor Girard calls “a sacrificial crisis”.

In the event of a sacrificial crisis, the original sacrifice—the one that instituted the taboos or prohibition rituals—must be repeated. Whether we call the original sacrifice a slaughter, a murder, or self-defense, a victim must be discovered if the group is not to dissolve.

What does this have to do with Andris Berzins, the President-to-be, just elected to that office by the Latvian Saeima?

By quick manipulation of wit and resources, the so-called oligarchs let five deputies from the Valmiera region, home base for the so-called Valmieras Grupa of incestuous economics (nepotism), nominate to the Presidency a near unknown.  

What with the incumbent president ust having requested that the Saeima be dismissed and this was not a deep secret from the Saeima and known days ahead, gave opportunity for the “53+ ” coup to organize itself to the extent we see its effect. Surprise, surprise! No surprise at all. The mysterious (because secret vote) “53+” Saeima deputies oust the incumbent and put an oligarch (the one who is buggered by the others) forward as the next President (see previous blog) of Latvia.

If someone thinks that I use uncommon language, it is because the government soon to be installed will be the offspring of economic incest (oligarchs screwing oligarchs). This is government as a plum on the doorstep of the people. Just the goose is missing.  

If President-elect Andris Berzins does not have the sense to refuse his “election” and join the incumbent in a call for a new election, moreover one in which the whole nation participates, he is about to become Latvia’s Oedipus.

The “soft” coup d’etat'%C3%A9tat  that I wrote of in the preceding blog, has the liberal Latvian parliament,
Saeima bring the Latvian public face to face with a bold faced attempt to screw it. Latvia’s ever so liberally oriented center right parliament is giving Latvians not just a screw, but a Phillips screw.

Might not the People, the populace, the populist alliance of Latvia, want to kick a bop ?

I am real sorry, Jāni Ancestor, that this had to happen. Sorry, guy.

No comments:

Post a Comment