(4th part of four)

Western intellectuals are conflicted over whether to support the “new” empire’s pretensions to legitimacy, re democracy, human rights, economic growth, positivism, ‘right’ thinking et al.  Support for the “New” Empire implies joining repressions of “terrorism” [we are close to defining “terrorism” as anything that questions the “New” empire’s authority], or to see if the original empire—stripped of its pretensions and its mistakes and errors glaring—retains elements on which to build its successor. John and Johns’ Day is certainly a foundational element, which is why it is being shunned and turned into a beer fest in Latvia. However, the conflict within the consciences of intellectuals is apparently so great that most remain silent. At the centre of their inner conflict is the question (even if they have never heard of it) of whether to give Fomenko’s studies in chronology attention and thereby credibility. It may be risky to an academic career. Moreover, giving a hearing to another perspective on history would give the critics of the “New” Empire a history to hang their hat on—at least for the duration of the discussion. Western intellectuals have forgotten the Johns who preceded the Great Original Empire and made for the self-sacrificial element that provided the charisma that bonded society in the first place.

Latvia’s President Zatlers and Latvia’s officialdom are clearly on the side of the “New” Empire. However, what about those who still call themselves “the Children of John” (Jāņu bērni)? Are they, like the Children of Christmas, mere consumers? Or perhaps they are beginning to perceive that consumerism is a con, and it is worth trying to resurrect John and his brother John the Baptist and ask them whether they agreed to place themselves in the position of mere “forerunners” of Jesus?

The readers probably have guessed that this writer (though a citizen of the “New” Empire) encourages research with regard to the Great Original (Mongolian) Empire. Such support is to give encouragement to those core elements of society, the non-violent Johns (later turned by princes into sword carrying janissaries) of which the Latvian Johns’ Day Children were and may still be part. They may, by way of a raised consciousness regarding their history, rise to reclaim their history. It may then become possible to create a world that can survive itself.

Facing the day with a perspective such as above, necessarily discovers a different way of looking at foreign policy. Because of the possibility of a war with Iran (now being waged on the economic front), one’s attention necessarily focuses on Iran. If the West or a surrogate attacks Iran and the West wins (U.S., E.U., and Israel II), the Great Original Empire loses its rump and its last limb. A victory over Iran by the West leaves Russia as the last remaining element of the original empire, not only hopelessly outflanked, but forced to join NATO.

It ought to interest Russia to turn to its ancient capital of Vladimir and its first seal attesting to the authority of the Great Price Ioan (see Anatoly Fomenko, History: Fiction or Science, vol. 4, p.466). No matter how this affects the foreign policy of the EU, it is likely that in Latvia the Children of John (Children of John--the nation as defined by Latvian folksongs) will drop out of future Johns Day Carnivals and celebrate Johns Day from the perspective of a different history.

(Postscript to follow)

Postscript

Johns Day of 2008 in Latvia is not only notable for the absence of Latvia’s President from Latvia in order to support Ukraine in its bid to join NATO. The PM Godmanis is in the hospital recovering from a brain concussion suffered in an unfortunate car accident. The Minister of Traffic, Shlesers, a neo-Christian, has the role of the acting Prime minister. And not least, Saeima, in a move to prevent investigation of corruption among the political parties comprising its body, voted out of office the director of the office of corruption. The Swiss psychologist Carl Jung called such a constellation of events—correspondences. In explaining a correspondence, Jung gave the example of the moment when he and a patient were talking about scarab beetles and a beetle flew through the window and landed on the desk in front of them. Not that one should read too much into such events, except to note that during Johns Day 2008, John was stood on his head, and Latvia went—rather remarkably—headless.

A Story from a fragment about
The Sun and Her Son John

Of the seventeen (17) songs on the theme of the Sun by as many composers [re: Pasaules Saules dziesmas, “Kamēr…” choir group, conducted by Māris Sirmais, at the Great Hall of the Latvian University in Riga, July 3 and 4, 2008], the song that this listener remembers best came from Australia. The text of the song is from an aborigine theme about the Sun, who during a trip across the sky loses her son, and spends the day searching for him. Several singers with lanterns in hand rushed among the audience with anxious calls. However, the Sun received no answer. How could she? A beam of light, but not the Sun itself may enter the night. If the Sun enters the night by casting her light against the moon, following the moon will not lead one to the Sun.

Early in this series of blogs, this author argued that some Latvians folksongs show signs of tampering by the collectors. Thus, some folksongs were “deconstructed” to show that the word “God” was substituted for “John”, the God of self-sacrifice, and “Dieviņš”, a personification of daylight. On the other hand, an up-construction occurs when only a fragment of the original remains, but the story as a whole is missing. The Australian story, for example, presents only a fragment of the whole. It does not answer the question of how was it that the Sun lost her Son. Let us try to imagine.

On the first day that her son is able to stand, the Sun takes him out on a walk. Mother and son walk all day long. In the evening, when the Sun and her Son—his name is John and means ever new, ever young, ever joyful in spirit—reach the horizon, John leans too far into the evening sky and falls over the edge of the horizon into the night. One may imagine the anxiety of the Sun. The mother of the world searched for John this way and that, burning the Earth as well as gentling it, but without success. The reason why the Sun cannot find John is that he is “over the horizon” where the Sun never goes—except on the longest day of the year, Midsummer’s Eve or Johns Day

Yet another question is why the Sun conceived and gave birth in the first place?

The answer is in the obvious: if one has consciousness, one cannot live without another. That is why the word “other” is written with a capital letter “O”—Other. This also is why the Sun does not orbit in a perfect circle, but in an ellipse. An ellipse has two foci, the Sun’s and that of her Other. While a circle may be a perfect form, an ellipse is more interesting because it is subject to greater number of variations.

Why is the mirror image of the Sun a male child?

Because the Other, if alive, is a sexual being. To be without sexuality means to be dead. Only a sexual Other can respond to expectations, which does not however mean that sexuality is naked sex. Sex becomes sublimated for the sake of creating thought, art, even mathematics. Even the male may be a sublimated form of the female. Such seeming polarity (and complexity) is a question of the nature of reality. The answer does not lie in science, but in how it is. Singularity is not only a matter of physics.

In an act that mirrors his mother’s search, John, too, goes looking for her in every direction of the sky and Earth. But he never finds her. Unable to live in darkness, John then takes his life, or, better, sacrifices his life so that the Sun, after receiving a double shock of losing her son and not being able to find him, will redouble her efforts, rise and overtake the night. Such stories are mimed in Johns Eve rituals—even if some find their way to Latvia after Johns Eve is past and when Latvians themselves have turned content into décor—which is what the megaconcert for the most part turned out to be.

Of polyphonic song and witches.

In the July 11-18 issue of “Kultūras Forums” newspaper, p. 12, Ilva Skulte conducts an interview with Martin Boiko, professor of ethno musicology, who has written a monograph (Lietuviešu sutartines un to Baltijas konteksti) on Lithuanian “sutartines”.

Sutartines are unique traditional polyphonic melodies, which were once sung in northeastern (?) Lithuania, but are now largely extinct (the interviewer offers no references to recordings). According to professor Boiko, “sutartines” are not folk music, because there is evidence that the performers of these songs, mostly women, trained to perform for elite circles. The interview ends with this observation by professor Boiko: “In the Lithuanian language the word ‘gaisme’ refers to spiritual songs, while ‘daina’ is a secular song. However, in the region (?) where sutartines were popular—‘gaisme’ used to be synonymous with ‘sutartine’. I do not wish to say that sutartines were necessarily cult music. Perhaps this was so. Some of my Lithuanian colleagues believe that sutartines were the songs of witches. Some documents hint at as much. On the whole, the text of sutartines contains a great deal of mythology—on the level of figures presented and mythological themes, both.” (Transl. from Latvian by author.)

Soon after reading the article this author happened to read Zoe Oldenbourg’s book called “Massacre at Montsegur”. Montsegur castle is in the county of Toulouse, then part of a country known as Lanquedoc, not yet part of France. The book is a history of the Albigensian Crusade. Oldenbourg begins the first chapter: “On 10th March 1208 His Holiness Pope Innocent III issued a solemn call to arms, summoning all Christian nations to launch a Crusade against a country of fellow-Christians. This crusade, he claimed, was not only justifiable but a matter of dire necessity; the heretics who inhabited this land were ‘worse than the very Saracens.’”

The heretics were the so-called Cathars, a sect of an ancient faith, which this author calls arch-Christians. The latter may have believed that they belonged to The Great Original Empire, the capital of which had been Constantinople cum Jerusalem. Constantinople cum Jerusalem was sacked and looted by the crusaders of the Fourth Crusade in 1204. In 1244, Montsegur, the last Cathar stronghold, surrendered to the forces led by the neo-Christian Catholic Church after enduring a nine-month siege. With the fall of Montsegur the Albigensian Crusade was over. Over two hundred captured Cathars, men and women (most of them the so-called ‘perfecti’), were taken to a stake and burnt in a mass conflagration. Several hundred years of repressive terror led by the Inquisition followed all across Europe.

What has all this to do with the Lithuanian sutartines?

Montsegur, the last of Cathar holdouts, held the Cathar treasury. Two months before the castle surrendered, the treasure was secretly moved down the Montsegjur mountainside and hid (before moved to a more secure hiding place) in the Sabarthes Mountains. The correspondence of the name ‘Sabarthes’ with ‘sutartine’ may be pure coincidence, but then again there may be more to it. Is it possible that some of the Cathars escaped to the lands of the Balts? Or were they already there as the Children of Johns representing The Great Original Empire? The similarity in the names is striking. All one needs do is replace the b in ‘Sabarthes’ with t to get satarthes.
‘Sutarti’ in Lithuanian means to get along, to be in accord, to sing together. In Latvian ‘bārt’ means to scold, and while it has the opposite meaning of accord, it may, nevertheless, have a distant echo on Mt. Sabarthe. The ‘Witches Sabbath’? The sash from ‘Bārta’ (Bārtas josta)? What about “satur”—to hold together, to bond? That was and remains the function of John-Jānis.



[size=3][/size]

Through Peaceful Means
(1st of 2 parts)

One may not think that there is a connection between the names Cathar and Tatar, but many years ago Pope Innocent III in his call (1208) for the Albigensian Crusade declared the Cathars “heretics and worse than Saracens”. The Saracens (easterners and anyone who opposed the Crusaders), were the Tatars, re Slavs, Balts and Mongols, all with their Ivans, Jonis-Jānis [John], and Johammeds—all pagans and heretics. As the similarity and close relationship of the names suggests, the people believed to have power to bond society were the Ivans, Jeans, Johns, Joni, Jāņi, Johammeds—human beings who agreed that the Sun was their mother and the mother of all Suns.

Most tsars, if they did not already have the name Ivan, took the name upon coronation. It was a sacred name. Ivan the Terrible, a Romanov, was a graft from the west, and broke the bond between the people and Ivan-John the Sacred. The Romanovs were secular princes sworn against self-sacrifice. Because of such princes in Russia and elsewhere, Ivan-John became just a name. The princes waged campaigns to exterminate those who preached and practiced self-sacrifice, and the latter become known as martyrs. This does not lessen the self-sacrifice of John or Jesus, but it obscures the practice of premeditated self-sacrifice as a fundamental principle, i.e., that human beings have a right to die the way they see it fit. However today the taboo against self-sacrifice is ten times greater than the taboo against sex was.* Still, in an era that has every reasons to believe it has been seized by a fatal paroxysm, it is unlikely that the Children of Johns have no role to play.

In a statement that Pope Benedict read in Sydney, Australia, on Catholic World Youth Day, July 18, 2008, he stated: “In a world threatened by sinister and indiscriminate forms of violence, the unified voice of religious people urges nations and communities to resolve conflicts through peaceful means and with full regard for human dignity.” The wording of the statement does not describe the meaning of “sinister” in detail or answer to the question of who represents the “unified voice of religious people”.

The word “sinister” probably stands for “terror”. But the presumption of “unified voice” raises even more questions. Is it a noun or is it a verb? Is it rhetoric or is it deed? These are questions that come naturally to the Children of Johns (Jāņu bērni) in Latvia. The Children of Johns are not “pagans” or “ķeceri” (the latter a Latvian word derived from “katari”/Cathars and meaning heretics among other things), but arch-Christians, those who preceded the crucifixion (or burning) of Jesus. The Children of Johns believed that the capital of The Great Original Empire was in Constantinople (now Istanbul). Or perhaps it was Alexandria, Egypt. Or what if Pougachov was not just a peasant leading a rebellion, but King John (Ghengis Khan) of The Great Original Empire with its capital in Tobolsk or perhaps Moscow? Few of the Children of Johns had ever been to either place, but no matter. It was the image projected by the eye of the mind that held everyone’s attention. Think of a world of which the ruler sacrifices his-her life for all the injustice that he/she dispensed to keep the kingdom afloat and imagine the aura of rubies and sapphires that living up to the deed earned them. One may ask Pope Benedict how he plans “…to resolve conflicts through peaceful means and with full regard for human dignity”? Surely not by just saying, he and “the unified voice of religious people” wish it to be so and therefore it will be so.

*Attempts to keep thought on predictable track with “right think” is common in Latvia. For one such example of media slant, including substitution of “suicide” for an unthinkable, but more accurate “self-sacrifice”, see Normunds Naumanis column “Cilvēks and valis”, Diena, 7-17-2008.

(2nd of two parts)

The Children of Johns, of whom John-the-Baptist was one, believed that self-sacrifice was essential for the creation of such bonds as held a people together even in times of distress. This is where the idea of self-sacrifice as the ultimate bond arose. Of course, there are those who feel uncomfortable with the notion. But they might ask themselves, if their discomfort is the reason why human sacrifice moved to ancient times, why there are ‘primitive’ people, and why it only happens in South America. One reason may be to keep auto-da-fe by the Inquisition and death by shooting of the Romanovs and the like from being thought of in terms of human sacrifice. In any case, self-sacrifice is a phenomenon that runs the gamut, from being a near insignificant event to the giving of one’s life. Such was the perception of a once known world, and it was not an isolated cult practice.

The Children of Johns agree that all must live by “peaceful means and full regard for human dignity”. But it is the belief of the arch-Christian collective of Johns Children that it takes the gamut of human sacrifice—from Alpha to Omega—to see that what is urged as good for the world will be realized and great crises and disasters will be averted. The Children of John did not confess their sins before they died, but asked for and took “Consolamentum”. They took consolation from the fact that they could trust the consoler as they trusted themselves. They usually took “Consolamentum” when old, and then sacrificed their bodies by rejecting food. Taking charge of their lives led them to a stake, where they burned. Nevertheless, Johns Children, the Cathars, Bogomilis, the followers of Shinto, and many others were of the belief that only through such efforts will the city of the mind’s eye, Jerusalem II, be created.

Because of violent shocks to their culture over which they had almost no say, today’s Johns Children—or “Jāņu bērni” in Latvia—have no self-awareness, except when singing the words of a Johns Day folksong on midsummer’s eve. Latvians sing the “lihgo” (-Jāni) word with enough vigor to keep the advertising industry busy selling beer for about five weeks. No one would imagine thinking of himself or herself as “Johns Children”. Today the Latvians and Johns Children know as little about self-sacrifice as those on the run for the money know about humankind’s long-term interests. Yet by some quirk of history, the Latvians call their Midsummer Day “Jānis Day” and still sing “lih-go, lih-go!” (-Jāni). They are stuck in a tradition that for an evening and a day makes them Children of John.

The needle may be on zero, but sometimes if one taps the glass, the needle bounces. If Johns Children were alive, they would say that the way to fulfill Pope Benedict’s dreams is for the unified voice of religious people to recognize self-sacrifice as not only essential, but in need of advocacy. It is not in the nature of a freedom-loving psyche (the human spirit) to submit to rhetoric alone. Rhetoric loses charisma if it comes without proof of conviction.

There is no substitute for John, Ivan, Jāņi, Johammed—the ones who preach that word is proven by deed without war. Self-sacrifice is a requirement the future makes of all. Failing that, we will quit our state of benign spiritual paroxysm by falling straight into the pit at the bottom of the cellar—we, Pope Benedict, extreme nerds, everyone. To paraphrase the French philosopher Jean Boudrillard—in a society of mass individualism, which includes terrorism, only a singularity, a radical event, may shock enough to break the barriers that keep us from awakening. Yes, through peaceful means.

All about Jānis Festival and more

The point of view about Johns Day as expressed above is unlike the traditional 19th and 20th century view. It probably would not have emerged had not Anatoly Fomenko and his analysis of history (see A. Fomenko, “History: Fiction or Science”) made possible a perspective that enables a radical reinterpretation of what did and did not happen in history. Of course, one of the major arguments for a revision of history (whatever Fomenko suggests) has always been that the current story of history continues to be propped into existence by aggressive and violent behavior.

Some of the events that suggest that there is a need to rethink history are
1.  that Jesus was thrown into a fire in 1185 (see the echo of the story in “The Alexiad of Anna Comnena”);
2.  that John the Baptist is but a symbol, the tip of the iceberg, for what happened to a caste of people (the Johns), their thought and actions;
3.  that Constantinople (then still part of arch-Christendom and capital of The Great Original Empire) was sacked by a Western Christian army in 1204;
4.  that proto-Latvians were Jāņu Bērni (Johns Children) with an imaginary capital in Jerusalem (probably Constantinople)—not Riga;
5.  that the Albigensian Crusade began in 1208; etc.

The above list of items is to suggest that there are alternate interpretation of events and other ways of looking at history. As other interpretations of history gain credibility, there may be some surprises. The Scaligerian chronologists may be loyal allies of Holywood, but lack of self-criticism makes them dangerous historians. Secular governments abide by the Scaligerian chronology, but there are fissures and scars beneath the gloss that will not heal, but grow worse unless given air. Secularism has lost trust and traditionalist religion fears the awesome burden.

Fomenko’s topological analysis of history warns of an earthquake in our perception of history. While “Johns Children” are but two words, they echo from another time with neglected-potentialities. One of the potentialities is that there was a time when people believed that they were participating in the shaping of a very different history than the one that has emerged.

One may venture and say that the time has come for worldly princes to end their aggressive interventions and not go fix what they do not know how to fix. Let healing happen with no intervention from above, and as part of it allow self-sacrifice to emerge as a singularity, a phenomenon, and give it as much space as it needs to hold back not only those who attack it, but allows it to reclaim its lost voice and power. Moreover, a singularity may become a collective voice.

Self-sacrifice is an unlikely topic when caught up in the sway of mass individualism. Latvia has the potential to evolve into an interesting community, however, its current state is reflected in how the public media treated the flag of the 2008 Folk Festival (Dziesmu svētki) during its opening session of the Festival.. http://www.aloja.lv/reportazas/0605/060527_indrikis_zile_08.jpg . One sees on the flag an ancient priest (vaidelotis) presiding over a sacred fire. In his right hand, he holds an oak leaf. One reads on the flag “26 juhnijs” and “1873”. The flag is to connect the 2008 Song Festival with its beginning at the Johns Day Festival in 1873. But for the Latvian press to look at John as priest, vagabond, healer, preacher, king, perhaps Prester John, man without end, etc. means to overstep the bounds established by the laws of stereotypes.  http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:7CLzTOUvBkoJ:asiapacificuniverse.com/pkm/presterjohn.htm+PresterJohn&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11 John was removed from the song festival by putting him on the flag, then looking past him, not seeing him. It is not only amateur television, but telling. John notes the respect and rehabilitates himself by drinking beer, beer [rather than johnsberry (a sweet-and-sour) wine] being the national drink on Johns Eve.

http://www.latvianjanis.com Ecce Iannus?!

How to get to “Ceļmalnieki” (Waysiders) or The Temple of Johns To Be
See also http://www.latvianjanis.com

On the highway from Riga to Valmiera, take Rt A2, then A3. For a map orientation, click Google, Maps, and then “Vidzeme, Latvia”.

After you arrive in Valmiera (103 km from Riga), you will note a tall transmission tower and a bridge. Drive under the bridge. Just as you pass under the bridge, immediately to your right, is a ramp exit. (A sign indicates it leads to Rujiena, Valka, etc.) Take the exit .

Follow the exit and drive over the bridge that crosses the highway you just made an exit from. Drive for about 3 km until you come to a rotary. Go ¾ around the rotary and take the road (to your right) at the point where a sign points to “Matīši (23 km)”.

When in Matīši, drive through the village centre (the white church will be on your right). About 100 yards beyond the village centre, on the left, a sign reads “Aloja”. Take this road (curvy) until you come to Vilzeni, Braslava host (pagasts)—about 14 km. You will recognize Vilzeni by a crossroad and several four-story apartment buildings, the latter to your right. Turn right at the crossroad. Go about 6 km (dirt road) until you reach an alley of oak trees. Continue down the alley until you see a sign on your right that reads “Matīši”. Beside this sign there is another sign. It reads “Melnays Jānis”. Take a right and continue another 1-1½ km. In the field, on the right, you will see a large white gate (a kind of double H). Drive yet another 100 yards until you see the Temple to Johns in the Making. You cannot miss it: its pillars support the sky. Park your car on the side of the road and greet Black Johns with a healing wreath of grasses on one or more of his waiting limbs.

A donation in the donation box is welcome.

A visit with or a tour guided by “Jandžs” is by appointment only. Appointments may be arranged by contacting this site. Please be patient. A response to an inquiry may take up to two weeks.

Join the Children of Johns

Some readers of these blogs have mistakenly taken the view that the Children of Johns are anti-Christian. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Children of Johns is an ancient Christian movement (read the above blogs to find out more), but we do oppose what we call neo-Christianity. Let us spell out our view of who are the neo-Christians and who are the arch-Christians.

Arch-Christianity emerged from the practice of forming communities through the charismatic acts of self-sacrifice. We define self-sacrifice as both the most humble act before the Universe and consciously most willful. Self-sacrifice takes for granted the limitations of what some call naked life, that is, animal life, which goes unprotected before the creation of a community larger-than-life.

Arch-Christian humility stems from realizing the vulnerability of humankind when it is made up of mere individuals, but humankind’s relative safety when individuals join an arch-Christian community. Arch-Christians call their community the community of The Children of Johns or Johns Children. This is because its founding members come from people who in former times formed a caste that served to create and then maintained communities-at-large.

The men and women of the caste of Johns Children were willing to offer themselves in sacrifice. The sacrifice consisted of acts of attempted healing (we note this act in children wishing to save a hurt bird, for example), actual healing, and acts that committed their lives over to death in order to create the charisma necessary to prevent naked life going its obstinate way. The Children of John teach humankind to protect itself by exercising non-violence. The members of the caste call themselves John(s) [or Ivan(s), Huan(s), or Johann(s)] and Jean(s) [or Joan(s) or Jane(s)]. The near mythical forebears of the caste were John the Consoler (though some call him John the Anointer or Baptist) and Joan of Arc.

In the course of the evolution of society, there arose a caste of militarists, violent men, who saw that the practice of violence gave them a short-cut to wealth and fame. In order to compromise the arch-Christian caste of Johns, the violent sect (probably originating with the hunting lodge) did several things. 1. They killed the Johns and Jeans; 2. they established neo-Christianity; and 3. they replaced borderless communities with bounded territories, i.e., “nations”, because the latter served as engines of wealth to the leaders of the violent ones, the princes.

Neo-Christianity proclaimed itself a new religion. The new religion removed John and Jean (renamed Mary) from their earthly realm and set them up above the clouds in an imaginary realm called Heaven. Neo-Christianity denied the need for further self-sacrifice by claiming that Jesus (before he was taken prisoner by the military caste, he was a member of the caste of Johns) had removed himself from Earth to Heaven, and that the miracle was proof (rhetoric enforced with the sword) that humankind had no further need to practice self-sacrifice.

Neo-Christianity gave a free hand to its violent sponsors. The sponsors—secular governments backed by military arms—not only refined their methods of stealing for personal gain, but through turning reasonable acts into extreme acts consumed planet Earth itself. To this day neo-Christianity denies individuals the right to ultimate sacrifice by calling it suicide. Such persistend disinformation, a device that prevents an obviously political act to gather energy and neuter violence, occurred on Monday, September 8, 2008, as Pope Benedict XVI, in a speech at Lourdes, insisted that people must accept death “at the hour chosen by God”. In other words, humankind should remain “dumbed down” and not turn dying into a political act.

Arch-Christianity condemns this and like teachings, because it is based on words that propagate truth under the cover of lies. Arch-Christianity teaches peace through self-sacrifice. Through the Children of Johns (once also known as Bogomils in the Slavic countries and Cathars in Romance countries), arch-Christianity teaches that all acts of self-sacrifice are political acts, acts with the potential of radically changing the politics of the lie by returning humankind to a life that lives in harmony with nature and refuses Heaven, a source of firewood for empty rhetoric in the virtual world of today.

Short note

A surgeon in Latvian is known as hirurgs. This time we are not interested in the Latvian word, but the English one.

Sur-geon. Sur is like in sur-charge, a charge on top of a charge. The sur before sur-geon means something like super-surgeon. But what does geon stand for? Well, guess! It stands for John (Jānis) thus, super-John-Jānis.

Does it make sense? Perhaps not at first, but if one goes searching around the internet and makes some quick associations, one does indeed come up with at least one connection, re: healing. Surgeon = super-healer. How is John a healer?

The following from Wikipedia. See TAJWID. I suggest the reader look up the section for him- and herself. But here is the short quote:

“’Tajwīd’ is an Arabic word meaning proper pronunciation during recitation, as well as recitation at a moderate speed…. It is derived from the trilateral root j-w-d, meaning to make well, make better, or improve….”

The word has two halves. Ta-jwid.

TA most likely is from TI, “…which is the equivalent for God in Chinese [Tao—my addition], and Buddha, or wisdom: the land, then of the Wisdom-Deity, or of the incarnations of Wisdom. It is also called ‘Bod-Jid’. Now ‘Jid’ and ‘Jod’ are synonymous apocalyptic and phallic names for the Deity—YOD being the Hebrew name for God. G. Higgins shows in his Celtic Druids, the Welsh Druids altering the name Bod-Jid into Buddud which with them too meant the ‘Wisdom of Jid’ or what people now call ‘god’.”

The word JWID has an obvious echo in the words JID or ZHID, which because of anti-semitic overtones have been encouraged to fall into disuse and be replaced with Hebrew. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the word originally stood for healer.

Certainly, there is an obvious connection between JOHN-JĀNIS-JWID. They may have their localized characteristics, but the names are one and the same. They are cognates. The Children of John were known elsewhere as the Children of Jānis and the Children of Jwid. Those who are concerned over anti-semitism ought to be reassured that the root for the prejudice is to be sought in being anti-John-Jānis.

The Latvians have as their president a man who used to be a surgeon, thus, a super-healer. Whether President Zatlers lives up to this ancient connection of his profession in all his endeavors remains to be seen. On this year’s Johns Day, he was out of the country recommending NATO (a military organization) to the Ukraine and Georgia, and just yesterday, NATO warplanes roared over Latvia reminding me of the days of WW2.

John is Jesus

In the previous blog, I argued (by way of quoting from Wikipedia) that “‘Tajwīd’, an Arabic word meaning proper pronunciation during recitation (of the Koran) is derived from the trilateral root j-w-d, meaning to make well, make better, or improve….” The word has two parts: Ta-jwid. “Ta” probably means God—like in Ta-o, Ti-bet, etc. I opined that the second half ‘jwid’ echoed to jid and zhid, two words which now have anti-Semitic overtones, but is a word that once had and in some places still is a legitimate word that identifies a Hebrew.

Now to make better, make well, and improve is also to heal. Moreover, to heal has to do with medicine, and medicine has to do with herbs-erbs-weeds-grasses. The Latvian folk proverb has it that “all grass (in the days of midsummer—Johns days) is good grass”. This is the time that people (in northern climes) gathered their grasses for medicinal purposes. These herbs or grasses were mostly ingested as teas, tē(j)a in Latvian. The great many pronunciations of the word easily take one into a labyrinth, which is why it is better to stay with the function of the word—to heal. If we use function as a guide, it becomes easier to associate seemingly differently pronounced words as once having had a non-idiosyncratic root. This enables us to identify John as a healer.

Thus, John~ Janis~ Ivan~ Huan~ Jean~ Joan~ Ion~ Gens~ Jin~ Yong~ Dzong~ Gong~ Yen~ Don~ Dan and, yes, Jew~ Jid~ Jwid~ Yew~ Yeu~ Gaw (Gawain)~ Deu, and so on all have something to do with healing, protecting, saving. One may argue that this method casts too wide a net for its fish. Perhaps, but it is necessitated by the fact that today the net that we cast for John is either too small or does not exist at all. The net catches all that happens its way, which is why fishermen fishing for a certain fish, later cast the other fish back in the water.

In any case, the arab word “tajwid” most likely has something to do with Tajik, Tajikistan and like. One may even argue that “istan” rhymes with “ian”, re Yerevan, Azarbaijan, etc. Also, “evangel”~Johns voice.

The reason for going through this labyrinth of words is that it eventually leads us to identify John with Jesus. Both men are identified with healing, with saving, protecting, guarding, and not least with self-sacrifice. But there is one major difference, which is why I separate Christianity between arch-Christianity and neo-Christianity.

Arch-Christianity identified with John-Jānis, the man (or woman—as in Joan of Arc) who would self-sacrifice him or herself to either found or maintain a community. It takes considerable initiation (study, learning) to become one of Johns Children.

Neo-Christianity took John-Jesus and removed him from Earth to Heaven. Jesus did not move to Heaven of his own accord, but was pushed there by a secularized priesthood. Of course, when John sits in Heaven, he is ineffective, he no longer influences events on Earth. Indeed, one may say that Jesus is John murdered.

The murder of John took place to keep him from self-sacrificing himself. If we are to believe the story of Jesus as told in the New Testament, he was on his way to Jerusalem (Constantinople in his day) to be crowned king of the Jews, the Children of John. Even if the crowning were nothing more than symbolic, it would commit the crowned one to an act of physical self-sacrifice at a time of his choosing. This of course was a threat to Herod. It would make Herod’s-Caesar’s throne insecure, because he sat on it not through the charisma (the forbearance, love, respect, honor) given him by the people, but by the threat of his sword. By murdering John-Jesus before he was crowned king of his community, Herod neuters the power of spiritual charisma and keeps it for the sword.

In short, there is a huge difference between John who self-sacrifices himself at the time of his choosing (whenever he believes it is necessary) and John-Jesus who is prevented from self-sacrifice by turning him into a martyr by murder. What with Ziemsvētki-Christmas on the horizon, perhaps we ought to think of celebrating the year’s second Johns Eve and Johns Day.

Whence Neo-, Arch- Christians, and Jews?

An interesting book that sheds light on John(s) is one by Paul Wexler, a linguist at Tel Aviv University in Israel. The book is called “The Ashkenazic Jews: A Slavo-Turkic People In Search Of A Jewish Identity” (Slavica Publishers, Inc.).

The book does not mention either John or the Latvian Jānis, but its arguments concerning the origins of the Ashkenazic Jews in Slavic Europe give indirect proof that Ashkenazic Jews were twins (though perhaps not identical) with what Latvians call “Jāņu bērni” and, indeed, with the Cathars, Bogomils, and other arch-Christian groups. “Jāņu bērni” is the name the Latvians use to refer to themselves for a few days during their midsummer festival called Jāņi or Johns Days.

Wexler’s book is interesting even if one does not agree with many of his assumptions. For example, Wexler refers to “pagans” so often that the name begins to read as a pejorative. He incessantly speaks of “Slavs”, but hardly mentions the Balts. Nevertheless, I concur with his suggestion that Jewish data contains a wealth of material from which one may reconstruct European “pagan” (arch-Christian) and early Christian [in Wexler’s case neo-Christian] way of life.

Wexler argues that the Ashkenazic Jews “…began in the Balkans several centuries before the formation of the Germano-Slavic Jewish Diaspora” (p. 179), the latter said to occur in the 10th century of our era. The hypothesis is interesting, but not necessarily because of Wexler’s assumptions. In his opinion “The Palestinian Jewish community that took root in Asia Minor, North Africa and southern Europe shortly before and after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem in 70 A.D. ...succeeded in surviving as a group thanks to the incorporation of overwhelming numbers of indigenous non-Jews who repeatedly joined the Jewish fold all throughout the first millennium of this era (p. 13).” Of course, Wexler’s acceptance of the Scaligerian chronology puts his own chronological orientation in question.

My argument is that neo-Christians killed (to be blunt) their arch-Christian forebears, because neo-Christians originated within the economics inspired movement of princes who seized power from an indigenous arch-Christian priesthood, which had ruled through the charisma generated by self-sacrifice. With regard to self-sacrifice and the profound pain it brings, think of the Sun Dance of the American Indian tribes http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWsundance4.JPG and rituals such as fasting. Incidentally, fasting probably served as a means of preparing for death in a self-conscious manner.

Since neo-Christians identify John (the Baptist) and Jesus as Jews, it is so at least in a neo-Christian context. However, Jews are not necessarily of an “ancient” religious caste anymore than neo-Christians, but are a movement that formed in reaction to terror brought to Johns by neo-Christians on behalf of princes and barons. That is, originally the Jews were arch-Christians seeking to camouflage themselves with a borrowed name. We may think here of the Amazon Indians and the destruction of their habitat by palm tree growers and cattle ranchers.  http://www.globalenvision.org/files/Amazon.jpg

My hypothesis leads to the conclusion that capitalism began with a military class forming a new caste system against a religious caste that had existed since time immemorial within the Great Original Empire. The latter was not conscious of itself until the proto-capitalists and neo-Christian movement in the West prompted it to self-awareness. The violent tactics of the military class soon repressed it. Not surprisingly, the New Testament is likely to have been written by the new economic (feudalist) power to “prove” that John-Jesus removed himself from Earth voluntarily through the mechanism of “resurrection”, which mechanism also left Caesar free to steal. Writing “the good news” (the Evangel) was an act of repression as well.

Today neo-Christians are not conscious of what they have wrought. The clear proof of their forgetfulness was Hitler, who spared the Latvians and the Latvian Children of John (1/365th part), because Hitler no longer made a connection between John and Jew. Equally forgetful and indifferent are the Latvians (1/365th part Children of John). The Latvian newspaper Diena reports (5.11.08), that the president of Latvia, V. Zatlers, will attend the “”Prayer Breakfast”, organized by anti-gay activist Ledjajevs. We may remember that president Zatlers was visiting abroad during this year’s Jānis Festival lobbying on behalf of NATO. What else is new? Neo-Christians remain a repressor caste, and Latvian politicians encourage them.

Ancient Latvians called themselves “bāliņi.” Roman literature refers to the Baltic region as “Balia,” “Balalia”, or Baltia, which are obvious derivatives of “bāliņi.” Perhaps the ancient Baltic tribes called themselves “The White People” to distinguish themselves from their darker skinned neighbors,

The midsummer festival definitely preceded Christianity, so it must have had a deep-rooted name from pre-Christian times.  Perhaps the Christian missionaries, unable to erase the pagan spirit that went with that name from peoples’ minds, combed Biblical literature until they found a name that resembled the primal name, and tried to make a substitute ideology from it.

Bāleliņi could very well have devolved to “baroni”. Some may say that “baroni” is derived from “bajāri”, but in the old days, the consonants “l” and “r” were often interchanged. For example, old maps for Amsterdam show that the city was once known as “Amsteldam”. Anyway, bāleliņi<baroniņi vai bāliņš<barons, or perhaps Līga<Rīga. Incidentally, the “ancient” Rome is not in Italy, but was transferred from Constantinople after it was sacked by the neo-Christian crusaders in 1204. the word “rome” was generally understood to be a defended place, and it was not necessarily the name of a city before neo-Christians stole it for themselves. The same goes for “Jerusalem”, i.e., the Russian Yaroslav means the same thing. Jerusalems (the hoped for) were many, including Riga. I suggest the readers of these blogs [size=4]refer to Anatoly Fomenko’s criticism of Scaligerian chronology and the course of history. These blogs prefer Fomenko’s view of history.

I have been stressing throughout these blogs the importance of self-sacrifice. I have argued how self-sacrifice was the main theological theme of arch-Christians and how neo-Christians—a movement that developed when spiritual leadership devolved to secular leadership (as a result of putting economic interests of the temple or some of its leadership before spiritual leadership)—suppressed it by turning conscious self-sacrifice into martyrdom. The latter stresses death by an unjust authority, rather than a just authority sacrificing itself to create the necessary charisma that will encourage the less courageous to a like offering.

The repression by neo-Christianity of arch-Christianity resulted in a civil war between arch-christianity and neo-Christianity. Arch-Christianity lost the war to those who used the sword. With the defeat of arch-Christians, the theological concept of self-sacrifice was lost. The consequences of this loss are very visible in Latvia, where government leads not by example, but by taking advantage of the fact that the Soviets “dumbed down” the Latvian people. The latter have not recovered from this humiliation and may never, because the current government continues a policy of only minimally supporting education, while allowing scholarship and sciences to slowly die of likeneglect.

I came across the following article, which—surprise, surprise—talks about the president-elect of the US mentioning sacrifice and the delusion that we can do without it. See http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/6099726.html [/size]