Part 1 of 2

The agent for the removal of religion and its replacement with a radically different “religion”, that is, a modern religion (I define “modern” as a time that began with the application of premeditated violence of militarist institutions) that acts as an apologist for institutionalized violence. Military violence http://www.britishbattles.com/first-afghan-war/kabul-gandamak/afghan-war.jpg brings on stage armed men, who act as mercenaries on behalf of princes or in our yet more “modern” times fight on behalf of well camouflaged and near anonymous groups of get rich quick schemers.

In Latvia the tradition of repressive authoritarianism from above is alive and well. In a recent article at http://www.politika.lv/index.php?id=15486 , the writer of the article “Tēma: Plastilīna iecietība”, in response to a query writes (my translation): “…minister Kastens did not deem it necessary to visit with the NGOs and hear their views, but found the time to consult and make common cause with the views of the church.” [“… ministrs Kastēns pat neuzskatīja par nepieciešamu atnākt uz tikšanos ar NVO un uzklausīt to viedokli, bet atrada laiku saskaņot viedokli ar baznīcu.”] The minister is member of LPP, the so-called “church ministers’ party”, which jointly with LC (Latvijas Ceļš) is supported by 6.9% Latvians according to a recent opinion poll, and less than 5% when on its own.

In an earlier time religion was “animistic” or “immanent” (take your pick because the concepts overlap each other) http://watch.pair.com/DRAGON2.jpg , that is to say, life was believed to exude from of matter (mother) and, thus, an indivisible part of it. But then violence replaced this belief with “supernaturalism” (some philosophers identify this with transcendentalism, but, again, the definitions are rather muddy) http://www.success.co.il/knowledge/images/Pillar2-Supernatural-GodCreates-Man-Sistine-Chapel.jpg , because faith in a “beyond” or Heaven enabled the elite to dismiss animism as superstition. This was expressed by the removal of Jesus-John from Earth and placing him somewhere “above”, outside, in Heaven.

With animist/immanent Gods killed by disparagement (helped along by such devices as auto-da-fe, being buried alive, ethnic cleansing), the age of ritual-theatre as an imitation of direct non-violent action ceased and was replaced by a theatre of entertainment. Of course, there are differences between a rock concert http://www.foxtheaterspokane.com/images/uploads/medium_pearl_jam_live_21].jpg and the latest staging of a “classic” play, but in either event the audience waits for Godot, in this instance a creature that, both, arrives and does not arrive, but when it arrives, it in no way satisfies, which is why we are still waiting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5kvp--IGa4&feature=related The difference between imitation of direct nonviolent action and action as entertainment is the difference between the past and the present and, one hopes, between the prevailing cynicism and a wiser nonviolent future.

Part 2 of 2

The neoChristian ritual is symbolic and ultimately a matter of rhetoric. It is a “play” known as the “Eucharist” http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/joos/eucharist.jpg in which the public walks up to a priest or minister and receives the “host”, a piece of bread and a sip of wine, symbolizing the body and blood of Jesus. All neoChristian churches share in this ritual, though it varies from an act that is plain to an act that involves hundreds of candles lit in rooms painted in gold. The purpose of the ritual is a kind of remembrance of the self-sacrifice of Jesus. Unfortunately, supernaturalism puts the self-sacrifice of Jesus at such a distance from us that it loses its charisma.

What remains of the archChristian sacred ritual is John’s Day, which is gradually being renamed as “Latvian Beerfest in June” or something similarly cynical.  http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2005/08/03/pt_beermaid_ent-lead__200x294.jpg
What this ritual retains from its past is the inebriation of the participants, which formerly served as an aid to the living in communicating with the dead. What it has lost, however, is of even greater significance: it is the act of self-sacrifice, the news of which the revelers—in spite of their revelry—anxiously awaited; because it justified their revelry in that it served as evidence that neither the revelers nor their society were irresponsible celebrants.

Self-sacrifice is required in a time of peace as evidence that the community remains bonded as a community “until death do us part” not only as rhetoric, but act as well. The phrase was transferred by neo-Christianity to the marriage vow, where it has become a vow before God, easily dismissed and broken. The undiluted meaning of “until death do us part” is what lies behind the great anonymous medieval English poem (and ritual that enacts nonviolent direct action) called “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight”. Sir Gawain is of course a cognate of John (Yon-Yawain-Yaun).

King Arthur’s revelers, both knights and their ladies, who are celebrating the winter solstice, are reminded that their merry making has a price: Sir Gawain has to cut off the Green Knights head, which serves as a gesture that acknowledges the reality of realities. The act is a half step (but no more) toward symbolic action, a ritual and theatrical performance, which is communicated by the fact that the Green Knight picks up his head and rides away with it—as one would on the stage of a theatre. http://faculty.smu.edu/bwheeler/kinga/gawain.jpg The promise of Sir Gawain to risk his neck is no idle promise, but is actualized at the next winter solstice, when Gawain goes to find the copse in the forest (the “green church”), meets the Green Knight, does put his head on the chopping block, and like Dostoyevsky, the Russian novelist, does leave the site of death bearing a scar. In real life, there is no difference between Dostoyevsky’s mental scar for surviving a mock execution and Gawain’s “nick” of a sword or axe on the back of his neck. Gawain claims authority and sacrifices for authority—for the sake of creating a community. We don’t do that anymore. http://www.wbur.org/photogallery/op_sontag/images/1.jpg We have grown up?!

Part 1 of 2

In “The Death of 4 European Gods: Iannus, Jesus, John, and Jānis”, I offer, among other things, my interpretation of Sophocles’ “King Oedipus”. I call my rewrite http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/lang1k1/img/04900.jpg “Tiresia’s Revenge”. My interpretation of the story is based on a particular solution of the riddle that Sophocles imbeds in the play. While the riddle (who or what walks on four, then two, then three legs?) may answer to “man”, we may read the answer in a rather different light than convention has taught us. It may be that Sophocles purposely misleads (by making the conventional answer too pat), even as he invites us to seek another interpretation offering a more profound insight into the nature of human society.

The reader will remember that King Oedipus is the king who kills his father, marries his mother, and puts out his eyes when he discovers what life has led him to do unwittingly. This is of course a very superficial summary. But if one deconstructs the play according to the chief characteristic of John, as presented in this series of blogs, one discovers that Oedipus is none other than John, bearing a different name. http://z.about.com/d/atheism/1/0/t/d/ArthurGrailVision1903.jpg By making one of the chief characteristics of the phenomenon of “man” (i.e. consciousness) self-sacrifice, one comes up with a different interpretation of what “King Oedipus” is about.

Those who are familiar with Sophocles’s play more than superficially, know that the story of John begins with his father wanting to leave him on the mountain top as a sacrifice to the Gods, but John’s mother is horrified by the idea, and steals the boy from the place of sacrifice and passes him on to a goatherd to take him to safety in a neighboring kingdom, Corinth. Thus, the key to the play is that John is to be a sacrifice, even though he never appears to consider the whyfores. We may be horrified by child sacrifice, but let us grant Oedipus’ father a mitigating circumstance: he wished to expose John to the risks of the wild for only one night. If John survives the test of exposure, then the king will interpret his survival as a blessing of the Gods, and there will be no question that John will be the next king of Thebes or Riga (to make a political point.).

[Incidentally, Jesus in the manger is only marginally less exposed to the risk of elements than Oedipus. http://www.melkite.org/NewImages/Nativity.JPG (Byzantine oriented art depicts Jesus as born in a cave, not an inn) Jesus’ flight to Egypt http://www.aug.edu/augusta/iconography/newStuffForXnCours/arenaChapel/flightEgyptGiotto.jpg may be compared to Oedipus’s being taken to Corinth.]

Years later when he is grown, John—driven by a rumor that he will kill his father and marry his mother (a rumor in tune with what steps need to be taken if he is to become king)—flies from his adopted parent’s castle in Corinth to Riga. On his journey, he meets a man with a wagonload of children, who the man has just bought from men engaged in the trade of orphans. The orphans are to be child sacrifices to the Sphinx at the temple (representing the charisma, the force that bonds any given society). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yU9lMmzLkUI&feature=related Needless to say, this happens because there is no one in Riga, who will volunteer to offer themselves to the Sphinx in the children’s place. http://www.plim.org/sphinx.jpg

Corinth, where Oedipus is raised, is not far from Thebes, and when John is a small boy, his mother comes to visit him there often. We may guess that the sister of the Queen of Riga is the Queen of Corinth. The court of Corinth is also where John hears about child sacrifice and learns to abhor it. Here he also hears the rumor that he is fated to marry his mother and kill his father, which is why, when he grows up, he flees Corinth. On his way to Thebes, he meets and kills a man whom he catches in the act of buying a wagonload of orphans from certain merchants. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_C2kIZU-UY John also kills the temple guards, and puts out the eyes of the chief priest, Tiresias. The Sphinx dives into the abyss with a screech of foreboding, while John arrives in Riga to great fanfare and a hero’s welcome. While the children go for a swim in the Daugava http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40660000/jpg/_40660868_ap_ganges_220.jpg
the Queen of Riga, Zhane or Jane (Sophocles’ Iocaste), welcomes John with open arms. http://pixhost.eu/avaxhome/avaxhome/2006-09-13/PDVD_027.jpg Of course, it is she who choreographed the events from A to Z. [Next week: Part 2 of 2]

Part 2 of 2

Queen Zhane knows that the only way John can become the king of Riga http://foto.sanne.lv/latvia/riga/rigas_pils3.jpg is if her husband, the king, is killed and her son John marries her. With the old king dead (killed by John the “Reformer”), the marriage ceremony to John (the Enlightened Secularist) is arranged. John becomes the new King of Riga. All the people of Riga are happy. John lives in the castle of Riga, watches the Daugava flow by, even as great ships (in water and air) use the harbor and airport and make Riga an ever richer city. John’s and Zhane’s children play in the courtyard of the castle with the latest children’s toys from Germany and Denmark.

What is wrong with this picture? http://riga-cd.infolatvia.com/diary/2006/07musma.jpg

For one, fearing a collapse of real estate values, no one talks about the rising water level of the seas and downward bending of the region’s crust, and that Riga is but one lifetime from being flooded. http://www.appsci.com/news/2005/April/Flood_2100.jpg

The other thing is that though John saved the orphans lives, he did not anticipate that the people of Riga, after their initial joy and festive making, would start doing the usual things that human beings do: getting in an argument with their neighbors, being jealous over one having more cows or a greater income than the other, the king’s advisors advising themselves a greater share of the city’s wealth than its citizens would allot them, officials flying business class, especially one Lāčplēsis, Queen Zhane’s brother http://sandiego.redfin.com/blog/files/2007/12/deal1.jpg . Though King John awards him for no particular reason with a Ls 135+ million contract to build a large glass encased library (symbolizing a crystal mountain http://www.constructus.lv/pic/ProjectsLV/390 library facade.jpg ) and a contract for one of the most expensive bridges in the world (Ls 600 million) http://spolitis.blogspot.com/search/label/Southern bridge , Lāčplēsis comes under the king’s suspicion, because the king himself has succumbed to the plague—consciousness and not knowing how to handle it.

Why is this? There are two basic answers. One is that nature has made human beings such. While on the pshsiological level there is not that much difference between a human being and a chimpanzee, the level of consciousness is major. Thus, two, nature gave human beings consciousness so that they could do things for nature that nature could not do without consciousness, i.e., extend its reach. But it takes self-sacrifice to do this, which, so far, most people refuse to accept, and indeed try to destroy nature for its efforts. In the case of King John, the elimination of child sacrifice is welcomed by the citizens of Riga. What no one wishes to remember, however is that the deed does not relieve either King John or society from self-sacrifice, which is necessary for creating and maintaining a complex social structure http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/David-Dennis/Leaf-Cutting-Ants-Photographic-Print-C12816629.jpeg .

Though Sophocles does not describe the result of Oedipus’ failure on those who suffer from the plague, we know that Thebes disappears from the stage of history. As for the effects on those of his family, the dead are: 1. John’s father; 2. John’s mother; 3 & 4. John’s two sons; 5. John’s daughter; 6. John’s daughter’s betrothed; 7. the betrothed’s mother; 8. Tiresias the priest; 9. the Sphinx; and 10. the king of Corinth (who may have been murdered to provide John with an opportunity to escape Riga by having to attend a funeral in Corinth).

In our own day come midsummer and the festival of John, John wanders the countryside http://farm1.static.flickr.com/126/346403200_aaa40ef748.jpg
aimlessly. He has no Sphinx (the greater mystery of society) to turn to. Iocaste goes from being anorexic to corpulent, but whether one or the other, the media always project her http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030518/her1.jpg as sexy. Creon-Lāčplēsis may well stand for Riga’s collective leadership. The orphans are the citizens of Latvia still suffering from the after effects of Soviet style demicide. Tiresias —who is he? We know that he is blind, but that he “sees”. Just what is it that he sees, we do not know. Perhaps he sees, but is not telling that Riga will sink beneath the Baltic Sea. Or perhaps he knows that Riga can rise on stilts http://www.landmark-dubai.com/images/projects/prj_256.jpg and that the glass encased library (the cost is at “empty” and does not include furnishings, re computers, up to date technology, desk, chairs, or toilets) may become the world’s most unique aquarium. The president of the Bank of Latvia, believes this a great present to the people of Latvia. [Next week: an Afterword that concludes this series.]

I have come to the conclusion of my entries about God John among Latvians and other people. This is not that there is not much more to be said. Indeed, I have barely scratched the surface of topic areas what should be discussed. Nevertheless, I believe that I have shown, if not to everyone’s agreement, that John is a figure now unimagined and formerly forceably abandoned—and due to various kinds repressions, actually, unheard of—by the people of Latvia. The latter is one reason, why the question of John reaches well beyond the rural environment in which Latvians know what little they know of who was once their God.

It is difficult if not impossible to know how a population now largely urban (this does not yet wholly apply to Latvia)--of which the larger percentage consists of slum dwellers--will react to the need for self-sacrifice to resolve the slow but certain descent into world wide chaos. Absent a theology of self-sacrifice, which was an essential part of archChristianity , we know its early phase. The popular press calls it “suicide terrorism”, a phrase which manages in the same breath to reject self-sacrifice and deny that descent into chaos has reached a momentum of its own. It is the same with children as soldiers. The press calls these youngest (manifestations of John in his young and naturally beastly form) the victims of “war lords”—and so they are. But is not the availability of these children for the purposes of violence a sign of chaos and cynicism brought us by the machinery of empires? And are not the spiritual leaders of our empires “enlightened” in rhetoric, but unable to exercise nonviolent direct action? In short, the roots of chaos and cynicism of our time have roots in the elimination of John and subsequent decomposition of communities..

Can God John be revived? The answer is “yes” and “no”. In so far that John needs to be revived, the answer is “yes”. But the answer is “no” in the sense that there will not suddenly arise many people who will acknowledge a forgotten God. Like advertisements announcing Christmas shopping, which starts at the beginning of November, so “līgo” pop music begins to appear on the airwaves of Latvia before the end of April and rise in crescendo until the “Līgo” weekend in June. Thinking “new thoughts” in the cacophony of “fun” is a rare event.

As I have stated elsewhere, I celebrate John’s Day with some small ritual or theatre. This year the temple of Jānis will hold “Jānis Awakening Day” on the 14th of June. The 14th is also a memorial day for those deported in 1941 to the Siberian gulags. Without wishing to detract from the sorrow of loss that comes with a remembrance of this sad day, the date marks also the loss of a nation for a not yet recovered and not yet mature leadership. The 14th of June also opened a much older wound, one that the nation had not recovered from after WW1 and times before to rise in self-defense, and did not survive its dismemberment to rise fully sovereign again. [The reader ought to remember that from spiritual information dominance by way of totalitarian Christendom, we have arrived at global information dominance by Militardom.]

As part of the “Jānis Awakening” ritual our ad hoc amateur actors’ company will perform “How Crazy Jane taught Clever John”, part of which story appears in one of the blogs above. [In my interpretation the story is the Latvian folk version of Moliere’s “Don Juan” discussed in a blog above.] Biruta Semjanova from Vilzēni will play the Devil’s mother and direct the play. Dzintra Mihailova from Staicele has agreed to impersonate Clever John. Agnese Sietinsone from Valmiera will be in the role of Crazy Jane; and Dzintars Ločmelis from Valmiera will be the narrator. The children who will assist in the telling of the story will be under the direction of Ineta Lopenova, a teacher at the Vilzeni Elementary School. Music will be provided by Virsaitis, “a musician and wandering man”—as he likes to describe- himself. Virsaitis does the banjo, harmonica, drums, and jingles and has developed his following. After he assists our theatrical performance with musical highlights, he will entertain with a concert by the fireside. Starting time is 7 pm (June 14), and begins with our live manikin (an immobile John standing next to Black Jānis) mimicking a dead Jānis—unless you can stir him to a smile by making faces at him. Rain or shine.

Braslavas pagasts will host its Jānis Eve festival on the 22nd of June in our local park. As usual, we are joining forces. It is the turn of our team (Vova, Sasha, Ivars, and peripherally myself) to build this year’s bonfire.

The following is the program scheduled for 14th of June, 2008, at our temple to Jānis in the making at “Ceļmalnieki” in Braslavas pagasts. The directions are at the end of the program. If you have a chance, come out to our part of the Latvian countryside. Lodgings are available in Valmiera, about 40 km from us, and a few are available in Aloya, Urga, Mazsalaca. Check your internets. Hope to see you. --Jaņdžs[/color]

Izziņa PRESEI

Antons Benjamiņš paziņo savmāju 2008. g. Jāņu programmu.

Kas ir Jānis? Dziļāks (vairāk vai mazāk kontroversāls) ieskats par Jāni un Jāņiem. Ieinteresētie skat. http://www.latvianjanis.com Atveriet un uzklikšķiniet lodziņu “Latvian”.

Ieinteresētie no mēdijiem, kas vēlas interviju, lūgti zvanīt xxxxxxxx. Generāl mēģinājums ceturtdien, 29. maijā, 17.00, „Ceļmalniekos”.

Aicinājums


14. JŪNIJĀ, 19tos, Braslavas “Ceļmalniekos”, Limbažu rajonā
(netālu no Braslavas parka)

MELNĀ JĀŅA ATMODA

19:00-20:00 “Nedzīvais” Melnais Jānis—Dzintars Sietinsons.
Apmeklētāji aicināti Jāni modināt, kā nu kurš māk—bez pieskārieniem.

20:00-20:30 “Kā Žane pārmācīja gudro Jāni”
“Dzīva” pasaka vienā cēlienā. Pasaku no pasakas pārrakstījis Antons Benjamiņš
Režisore un Velna māte—Biruta Semjanova (no Vilzēniem)
“Nedzīvais” Jānis—Dzintars Sietinsons no Valmieras
Gudrais Jānis—Dzintra Mihailova (no Staiceles)
Velna mātes vecāka meita—Agnese Sietinsone (no Valmieras)
Teicēja—Vita Sniedze (no Valmieras)
Ar izpalīgu no Vilzēnu jauniešu bundzinieku grupas „Radiridiri” un Vilzēnu pamatskolas bērnu grupas, Inetas Lopenovas vadībā.

21:00-23:00—pie ugunskura Virsaitis
“Mūziķis un klaidonis” koncertē

Ieeja pret ziedojumiem (iesakām Ls 1.50). Pensionāri un jaunieši (līdz 16) bez maksas.

Kā tikt uz “Ceļmalniekiem”: No Rigas uz Valmieru, no Valmieras uz Matīšiem (~23 km), no Matīšiem uz Vilzēniem (pa Alojas ceļu, ~14 km ), no Vilzēniem uz Braslavas parku (~7 km), pie parka pagrieziens pa labi (uz Matīšiem), ~1 km līdz “Ceļmalniekiem”. Automobīļus noparkot gar ceļmalu. Uzmanību: brauciet pēdējo ceļa posmu īpaši uzmanīgi, jo ceļš, kā jau lauku ceļš.[/size]

jandžs et al.,

Now you are getting into the spirit what “Jānis” is all about.  Just ditch the idea of building a temple.  Plant some trees and dedicate the grove to Jānis.  With your imagination, I am sure it will not matter what kind of trees you plant.

Visu labu,

Bruno, your suggestion about not building a temple to Jānis is about as conceited as one expects from a neo-Christian. I trust that there will be many Latvians who will take up my idea and build a temple to Jānis, and, for that matter, so will many arch-Christians to John who is the forerunner and father to Jesus. Incidentally, a grove is a temple, and I have been growing a grove here for some ten years--in memory of the forests and the lives therein that the current ("and the whirlwind is in the thorntrees, and it is hard for me to kick against the pricks"--Johnny Cash) civilization has destroyed. http://www.latvianjanis.com/Janis/Janis_Program.html Jandžs

jandžs et al,

“Incidentally, a grove is a temple, and I have been growing a grove here for some ten years--in memory of the forests and the lives therein .............”

Well, then you already have a temple.  How will the temple that you plan to build be different from the one you have ?

Visu labu,

Kas ir Jānis?

Antons Benjamiņš
Uzruna topošā Melnā Jāņa tempļa ceremonijas laikā, 14. jūnijā, 2008. g.

Ja kaut kur pastāv kopiena bez pašupuriem, šī kopiena eksistē uz tukšas runas pamata. Ceru jūs saprotiet, ka tādai kopienai nav lemts ilgi dzīvot, jo tai vairs nav pašai sava apziņu. Tā eksistē uz inerces pamata.

Šodien mēs atceramies 1941. gada jūnija upurus, tos, kurus Padomijas okupanti nogalināja vai padzina, jo tie pārstāvēja tā laika Latvijas valsts eliti. To starpā bija latviešu zemnieki, inteliģence, kā arī astoņi mani tuvinieki, kuri nebija zemnieki. Padzīšana un nogalināšana (vai „izsūtīšana”) notika tik pēkšņi, ka latviešu kopiena bija pārsteigta un tādai varbūtībai nesagatavota. Nenotika pretestība. Mums vienkārši, kā saka, nocirta galvu. Likvidējot mūsu kopienas eliti, okupanti mēģināja likvidēt vai „globalizēt” mūs kā kopienu, paradoksāli vispirms mūs vājinot un tikai pēc tam apēdot. Starp citu, šīs „apēšanas” instruments ir kā Padomijas tā Eiropas Savienības elite. Šai elitei nav svarīgi vai tas notiek desmit vai piecdesmit gados. Tai ir svarīgi, ka mūsu elite ir likvidēta, un mūsu kopiena, agrāk vai vēlāk, tiek asimilēta lielākā savienībā.

Lai atriebtu pret mums vērsto Padomijas (un Vācijas) iznīcināšanas akciju, tūkstošiem latviešu jaunieši, leģionāri, upurēja savas dzīvības. Kaut ir tādi, kuri viņus šodien sauc par SS padotiem, īstenībā viņi bija mūsu kopienas balss. Šai balsij nebija cita izvēle, ja tā vēlējās pastāvēt. Iet kara gājienā—apstākļu spiesti, lai ar jeb kuru par sabiedroto—ir mūsu identitātes uzturēšanas pamatojums. Tie, kuri apvaino šos karavīrus par nacistiem, runā ar īslaicīgā politikā iestrēgušu balsi. Mēs nebijām un neesam nacisti. Mēs esam kopiena, kas vēlās pārvarēt savu nelaimi un eksistēt ne tikai šodien, bet arī turpmāk—nākotnē.

Leģionāri, kuri pievienojās vāciešiem un uzbruka Padomijai, bija mūsu valsts iedzīvotāju visskaidrākā balss. Garīgā nozīmē, mūsu leģionāri bija mūsu Jāņi. Šo Jāņu balss bijā tā, kura vēlējās izteikt savu velmi dzīvot. Ja laicīgie apstākļi neļauj leģionāriem un viņu atbalstītājiem sirds skaidrību ik visos gadījumos, mēs, viņu pēcteči, nevaram atļauties viņus nesaprast. Kāpēc? Tāpēc ka mums rūp jautājums kā mums palikt daudz maz neatkarīgiem. Mēs esam Latvijas kopiena. Mums nocirta galvu. Mēs cīnāmies šo nocirsto galvu at-audzēt.

Ja jūs paskatāties uz Melnā Jāņa nozāģētiem locekļiem ( http://www.latvianjanis.com ), jūs redziet sevi kā kopiena. Mēs eksistējam ar amputētiem locekļiem. Kaut mēs esam atguvuši sev valsti, mēs neesam atguvuši savu galvu. Manuprāt, valdība, kas valda—kaut it kā demokrātiski ievēlēta—nav ne īsti demokrātiski ievēlēta, ne tur atrodama kultūra, kura pieņem iespēju sevi pašupurēt mūsu kopienas labad. Ja šo pašu apvainojumu var izteikt par eliti tā sauktos „Ulmaņa laikos”, vismaz daudzi no viņiem pierādīja savu spēju pašupurēties mūsu valsts dibināšanas laikmetā.

Mūsu valsts virsotnē bez šaubām ir atrodami „pēdējie Lāčplēši”—tādi, kuri spēj sev atrast labākās zīles, bet kuri sen vairs nav Jāņi. Mūsu Jānis ir miris un viņa pēcteči vairs nedzer alu tāpēc, lai sazinātos ar saviem priekštečiem, bet lai piedzertos. Jāņu pēcteči šodien ir mūsu pazemota Dieva Jāņa pēcteči. Liela daļa no mūsu priekšteču pēctečiem šodien rullē savā, nevis mūsu kopienas labā.

Jānis Jaunsudrabiņš reiz izteica domu, ka Jāņus var arī saukt par Līgo Svētkiem. Viņam prātā bija Jāņu dziesmu piedziedājuma „līgo” popularitāte. Bet jau tad vārds Jānis bija zaudējis savu nozīmi, un Jaunsudrabiņa novērojumu pieņēma kā ieteikumu. Jaunsudrabiņš vēlāk izteica nožēlu, ka šādu novērojumu palaidis pasaulē.

Bet no plašākas perspektīvas, ne jau Jānis Jaunsudrabiņš vainīgs. Pirms viņa, dzejnieki Rainis un Pumpurs atvietoja Jāni savās patriotiski noskaņotās dzejās, respektīvi „Uguns un Nakts” (1905. g.) un „Lāčplēsis”(1888. g.). Bet rakstnieku lēmumu atvietot Jāni ar Lāčplēsi veicināja gadu simtiem iepriekš Romas elites spēja nostādīt Jāņa vārdu pēc Jēzus—nosaucot Jāni kā Jēzus priekšgājēju. Nostādīts otrā vietā, Jānis vairs nenesa pašupuri, kā viņš to bija darījis gadu tūkstošiem iepriekš. Viņš zaudēja savu autoritāti, līdz šodien Jāņi (saukti gan Līgo, gan Saulgriežu, gan aprakstīti kā debesu dievību kāzu laiki) vairs liekās tiecas kļūt par Latvijas alus svētkiem jūnijā.

Tāds ir mans vērtējums par to, kas notiek Latvijā. Tas arī ir kāpēc esmu lūdzis jūs šeit, lai jums parādītu topošā Jāņu tempļa apkārtni, un paskaidrotu jums kāpēc šāds templis manuprāt ir nepieciešams un attaisnojams.

* * *[/size]

Esat laipni lūgti mūs apciemot Braslavas pagastā, Limbažu rajonā, “Ceļmalniekos"--14. jūnijā, 19:00. [color=blue](turpinājums iepriešejam blogam)

Kas notiek ar Dievu, kam tiek atņemta cieņa un godpilnā loma sabiedrībā?

Vienā versijā, Dievs Jānis pārvēršas par grēcinieku. Šāda ideja laikam vispirms radās tā sauktos „pagānos”. Franču pagāni, pa piemēram, sāka Jāni—Don Huānu vai Kungu Jāni—devēt par bruņču ķērāju. Vislabāk šo ideju izteica pazīstamais 17. g. s. Franču rakstnieks Moljers savā lugā ar nosaukumu: „Don Juan”. Jānis tiek attēlots kā cilvēks bez mazākās atbildības savās seksuālās nodarbībās, bet ir tik pievilcīgs (kā jau Dievam pienākas), ka izvilina no klostera un apprec mūķeni, pēc kam to pamet, lai dotos citās dēkās. Lugas beigās, ar kādu vārdā nenosaukta rēgu pie rokas, atverās ugunīga bedre un Don Juanu norij.

Nesen „surfējot” pa internetu, folkloras portālā uzgāju pasaciņu par kādu gudro Jāni un viņa „Ceļojumu uz viņu sauli”. Tā kā es pirms tam biju pārlasījis Moljera lugu, man bija skaidrs, ka gudrais Jānis ir tas pats Don Juans, bet šoreiz attēlots nevis kā brunču ķērājs, bet kā pārgudrs puika. Šoreiz „pār”-gudrais Jānis iegūst gan ķēniņa meitu, gan kaudzi zeltu, bet tikai pēc krauklis viņu nokrata no savas muguras virs ķēniņvalsts, kura, sapratīsim, ir veļu valsts. Ja kāds vēlās zināt šīs ludziņas simbolismu, tas ir pavisam vienkāršs: ja mēs tik tiešām vēlamies iegūt ķēniņa meitu par sievu un dzīvot ar zelta kaudzi klētī, mūsu kopienai ir iespēja to visu iegūt bez pašupriem dreijājot sapņus viņā saulē.[/size]

Esat laipni lūgti mūs apciemot Braslavas pagastā, Limbažu rajonā, “Ceļmalniekos"--14. jūnijā, 19:00.[/color]

Jāņu pantiņš, 2008. gada Jāņiem
Antons Benjamiņš

(Meldijs pēc „Seši mazi bundzenieki”.
Piedziedājums: Lī-ī-go! Lī-ī-go!)

Ai, Jānīti, Saules dēlis,
Tavu augstu kumeliņ
Atjāj agri rītiņāi,
Paceļ Sauli kalniņā.

Saule nakti pārgulēja,
Velna mātes kambarī.
Velna māte nelaiž Jāni
nākt pie Saules sildīties.

Nāc, Jānīti, krodziņāi,
Tur man meitas pulciņām.
Deviņas tev pirkstus zīdīs,
Es tev īkšķi nokodīš.

Melna, melna nu naksniņa,
Tur vīst Saule tumsiņā.
Pazudis ir mūs Jānītis,
Ceļu Saulē meklēdams.

Dedz, Jānīti, savu lāpu,
Savas dzīves avotiņ.
Lai izdega papardīte,
Saules māti cildinot.

Lec, Saulīte, rītā agri,
Atdzims Jānis, Pēterī,
Atdzims Jānis, Pēterītī,
Pacels Sauli kalniņā.

(1st part of four)

Johns’ Day 2008 came early for „Black John” or “Melnays Jānis” at our “temple to John in the making”. About fifty people visited our site on June 14 to see “How Crazy Jane taught Clever John”. The performance was in Latvian. The play, from a story found by this author in the archives, relates to Molliere’s play „Don Juan”. However, whereas Don Juan, a former God removed from his post by neoChristianity, demonstrates how “all things are possible to me” by becoming a shameless skirt chaser, our Clever John manifests his Godlike features by being a smart aleck. He sets out to marry the king’s daughter and to find a pile of gold. To achieve his goals, John risks a ride (horse and all) on the back of a raven. When the raven has taken Clever John to a great height, it shakes him off its back. John and his horse fall to their deaths. However, Clever John never seems to know that he is dead. Instead, he proceeds as if all is “normal”. Evidently, a transition from life to death by way of an event, rather than declaration of fact, is intentional to the original story. Once one is dead, the impossible happens readily enough, including stories how one has married the king’s daughter and has enough gold to last forever. After minor editing (cutting of extraneous matter), we hope to show excerpts from the play on You Tube.

Our helpers built yet another fantastic bonfire (a story high three-cornered cone with painted sides) for the pagasts event. It was lit with due ceremony at about ten o’clock on the evening of June 22. We will post pictures of said bonfire at http://www.latvianjanis.com

Some reflections on Johns’ Day 2008:

Women selling wreaths and grass corsages at the market in Riga were complaining that this year, due to the high prices caused by inflation, their sales were about half of last year. On the other hand, by June 23rd, the official midsummer day, the airwaves are so saturated with “lihgo” songs and talk show talk (radio, television, newspapers, and internet) about the mystical forces and wonders that are waiting for Johns’ Day to manifest themselves, we made it a day for rest and reflection. This is to say, the decorative and “feel good” emphasis in the public media have become so overwhelming, not to say such a mindless din, that one becomes convinced more than ever that John is dead and awaits resurrection. Obviously, a resurrection is not going to happen in the media, but in secret, at our or some other temple to John in the making.

(2nd part of four)

A few days before Johns Day, President Zatlers of Latvia made an official visit to the Ukraine, where he expressed Latvia’s support for Ukraine’s wish to join NATO. While we know that joining the European Union implies that its members (excepting France) become members of NATO, one wonders if it is not in Latvia’s long-term interests (and President Zatlers as the spokesperson for that interest) to take a more reserved position. After all, given our recent history and the fog that covers history that is older than two hundred years, it does not seem particularly wise to express unreserved support for those who wish to see the influence of Russia diminish further. What is unusual about President Zatler’s statement is that he may still be a good surgeon, but he has no background in foreign policy, nor does he appear to have in-depth knowledge of history. Thus, his statement in support of NATO, while beyond reproach from the official point of view (and obviously backed by the authorities in Berlin, Paris, London, and Washington), even so makes one wonder why it jars the ear as if it comes from Clever John riding the raven’s back.

While the news media informs us that all is well on the diplomatic front, and the world faces concerns a thousand fold more relevant than the Latvian President’s midsummer vacation activities, those same activities remind this author of Anatoly Fomenko’s seven-volume tome on the lost history of the Great Original Empire. According to Fomenko, the Great Original (Mongolian) Empire was destroyed by the Romanov dynasty of tsars in Russia, who not only accepted a westernized version of Russian history and religion, but acted in the interest of the West. Though Fomenko does not explicitly say so, his analysis suggests that following the fragmentation of the original empire, the inhabitants of Europe and other parts of the old empire remained exposed to “prehistoric” Europe, nevertheless, and to this day are caught up in a spiritual paroxysm caused by the break up of the Great Empire. While the origin of the Romanov dynasty is to be sought in a Europe centered empire (Peter the Great was the Romanov dynasty’s 4th tsar), the West of the Great Original Empire could never agree which of the fragments off the old block would be leader of the new block. There followed many violent wars among the European nations. Currently the de jure capital of the European Union-NATO is in Brussels, while its de facto capital is in Washington, U.S.A.

Most political analysts tended to believe that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the West had but to mop up the mess left by Soviet collapse. However, in a world order that encourages competition, the mopping up means that European Union-NATO practices a policy of expansion. While on the surface of it, the EU knows nothing about the Great Original (Mongolian) Empire, it acts though it does know and wants to destroy it for good. The BBC refused to advertise Fomenko’s books, which—since the government of England pays BBC’s bills—surely acted as censure of another perspective on history on behalf of the government of England and the majority of European officialdom.

(3rd part of four)

The Soviet Union—the end result of Marx’and Lenin’s thought and acts at least in part—is no less the result of the Romanov dynasty’s repression of history. The repression most likely caused profound resentment (today only subliminal) in the area’s that had once been under the Great Empires’s embrace (see 2nd of four parts). We may want to remember that when memory is censured, it is also being repressed, yet continues to survive subliminally as “old habit”.

The West of today has its own subliminal memory of the Great Original Empire. Perhaps this is the result of Lenin’s order to kill the Romanovs. While Lenin knew nothing about a Great Original Empire, he surely caused Russia to break free of Europe and the geographical concept that Europe had created of and for itself. Lenin’s violence inspired political experiments alienated many Europeans, many of who began to think of Russia as outside of Europe. It also caused a search for other causes for historical uncertainties, which led to the discovery of a history fabricated by the West in order to create a “New” Empire.

What remains of the original empire has devolved on Russia. As the last few years were witness to, Russia’s former premier, Putin, was conflicted over whether Russia is part of geographical (also political) Europe or is the last remnant of the original empire. Without a larger concept of itself, contemporary Russia is but a tick on the globe with a large sack of gas on its back. On the other hand, NATO has no doubts that Russia is part of the original empire (despite its many mistakes, still the only legitimate empire) and is doing what it can to sever it from its old roots and make it part of Europe for ever. The future depends on the degree of Russian sense of sovereignty and the worthiness of the principles of that sovereignty. A search for the latter is very likely to discover that Russia was once a willing subject of the Great Original (Mongolian) Empire.

Globalization under the aegis of neo-capitalism has proven a cancer on historical time. While Dubai plans to have at least one (of several planned) rotating skyscrapers by 2010, the slum dwellers that inhabit our globe from Morocco to all the way around the globe have become a critical mass. Just last week the U.S. Census Bureau announced that the population of the world is going to be 7 billion people by 1212. Nature and slum dwellers are allies in more senses than one.