Full or partial entries of my blogs may be found at LatviansOnline http://latviansonline.com/forum/ + Forum Home + Open Forum – The 4th Awakening. If you copy this blog for your files, or copy to forward, or otherwise mention its content, please credit the author http://esoschronicles.blogspot.com/, http://melnaysjanis.blogspot.com/, http://the-not-voter.blogspot.com/ or http://the4thawakening.blogspot.com/

I suggest you look at the links imbedded in these blogs or at the end of the blog as an integral part of the argument.

The 4^th Awakening

13 The Proto-Latvian View of the Here and Now (I)

In order to discover the proto-Latvian view of themselves and their future, we need to reconstruct an ever so brief spiritual history of our forebears. As argued in my previous blog (12), the zionationalist “mythical historical narrative” of Latvia that prevails in our day is actually a story of how one history is murdered to substitute it with another. How did this come about?

The mythical historical narrative of Latvia originates at about the same time as Zionism. Though the histories of Zionist Israel and zionationalist Latvia are distinct stories, both nationalist groups originate in the abandonment of their respective early religious backgrounds, which are substituted by a secularist orientation.

Since the ideal of a secularist orientation is global in outlook, once the secular entity was separated from its religious base, and in order not to dissolve in its own all materialist plasma, it needed to find something to anchor itself to and then provide itself with a new body, a new singularity. That “something” to which secularism attached itself was the geo-political state—re Israel and Latvia. However, the body or singularity discovered itself in a newly created fictional community—ethnicity, known also as ethnocentricity or ethnocentrism.

Since the story of the Bible and the presumptions that go with it are well known, this writer will concentrate on the religious origin of the proto-Latvian people instead.

Earlier blogs of this series argue that indeed the proto-Latvian Children of Johns have more in common with the Herrnhuter-Hussite-Lollard-Cathar-Bogomil religious orientations than the fictions of Dievturi (Believers in Old Gods), a fetishistic and pseudo-religious movement that arrived to zionationalist halleluiahs (though not to state recognition) in post-foundation Latvia, c. 1925.

To give the Children of Johns reality as a religious community (something the current cultural ethos denies them), this writer argues that contrary to the presumptions of our day, Christianity consists of two Christianities. The first Christianity, of which the Children of Johns or proto-Latvians were a part (and likely would still be part of if Johns were not repressed), is called Arch-Christianity. The second or currently prevailing Christianity may be called Neo-Christianity.

The origins of Arch-Christianity are buried in the strata that form the beginnings of civilization. However, the Children of Johns—as all Johns related religious communities (think Dionysius and more) were once known—are grounded in the religion of sacrifice, said sacrifice commonly known as the scapegoat. I will touch on some of the specifics of this ritual practice of the Children of Johns in due course.

Starting about a thousand years ago (some say the 9^th, some the 13^th centuries), Arch-Christianity was beginning to be repressed by a new form of Christianity, re Neo-Christianity. This assumption is not shared in by Neo-Christian officialdom, which believes that its form of Christianity is all inclusive. Be that as it may, it is nevertheless likely to be true that there was an Arch-Christian entity. The Neo-Christians—born of secularism and brought into being as an exclusive entity by non-sacred princes—were destined to change the nature of religion for the worse.

The foundation stone of the beliefs of the Children of Johns was that if there was to be a non-violent community, personal sacrifice was as unavoidable as it was essential. Contrary to Rene Girard (see link to “scapegoat” above), it is likely that the original scapegoat was one’s own self rather than some arbitrary victim, whether human or animal. After all, it is not the scapegoat or lamb, but the charisma that comes to whoever overcomes the fear of death that enables a group of loose knit people to focus their attention on the sacrifice and allows it to become the core armature for a newly founded or reconstituted community.

A community built on a foundation of self-sacrifice is necessarily a pietistic community, because piety is the reaction of an audience to charisma. And interestingly enough, the piety of the Latvian Children of Johns is imprinted in the Latvian language. One cannot say “dear” in Latvian without thinking “dearest”. At the same time, our out synch “modern times” continues to repress the endearing word with a zeal Luther might be proud of. To illustrate the point a little further, all we need to do is take a look at the treatment the Latvian language receives from its media in our own day.

The language of the Latvian public media (newspapers, television, internet news platforms, etc.), communicates only a small fraction of what is communicable by the language as a whole—if besides the presumed objectivity of the media, one takes into consideration also its subjective potential as expressed by the endearing word. The denial of a public function to the endearing word denies the Latvian language its populist hypothesis, which has been imbedded in the speech of proto-Latvians for perhaps thousands of years. It is nothing short of nihilistic contempt for the language it uses by the Latvian media, or to put it in another way:  Latvia’s media impoverishes the language it presumes to be a function of through repressive disuse.

The subjective potential of the Latvian language (and no doubt many other languages) is left a cold room on the north side of the building. Not surprisingly, advertising with a capital “A” has taken possession of all the rooms facing east, south, and west.

P.S. Examples of the endearing word:

John < Johnny

Bird < birdie

Mouse < mousey

Alas, the endearing word in the English language has been in disuse for so long that it feels cramped and immature. In the Latvian language, the endearing word is every noun, including my computer, re kompihts.

(To be continued.)

Asterisks & Links of Interest

Posted by Jaņdžs at 2:57 AM 0 comments