May 26, 2012
The Masters of Destiny To The Slaves of All Ages: Sacrifice.
“With what eyes do you think Homer made his gods look down upon the destinies of men? What was at bottom the ultimate meaning of Trojan Wars and other such tragic terrors? There can be no doubt whatever: they were intended as festival plays for the gods; and, insofar as the poet is in these matters of a more “godlike” disposition than other men, no doubt also as festival plays for the poets.” – Nietzsche: “On the Genealogy of Morals,” Second Essay, Section 7.
“Creation And Sacrifice: Let us linger a moment over this mythic motif, for the matter is becoming complicated. It would seem that we are now dealing with a myth of extremely wide distribution, and one which appears in a considerable number of forms and variants. But this is the essential theme: that Creation cannot take place except from a living being who is immolated—a primordial androgynous giant, or a cosmic Male, or a Mother Goddess or a mythic Young Woman. We note, too, that this “Creation” applies on all the levels of existence: it may refer to the Creation of the Cosmos, or of humanity, or of only one particular human race, or of certain vegetable species or certain animals. The mythic pattern remains the same: nothing can be created without immolation, without sacrifice. It is thus that certain myths tell us about the creation of the world out of the actual body of a primordial Giant: Ymir, P’an-Ku, Purusha. Other myths reveal to us how human races or different social classes came to birth, always from a primordial Giant or an Ancestor who is sacrificed and dismembered. Finally, as we have just seen, the edible plants have a similar origin; they sprang from the body of an immolated divine being.
This myth of creation by a violent death transcends, therefore, the mythology of the Earth-Mother. The fundamental idea is that Life can only take birth from another life which is sacrificed. The violent death is creative–in this sense, that the life which is sacrificed manifests itself in a more brilliant form upon another plane of existence. The sacrifice brings about a tremendous transference: the life concentrated in one person overflows that person and manifests itself on the cosmic or collective scale. A single being transforms itself into a Cosmos, or takes multiple re-birth in a whole vegetable species or race of mankind. A living “whole” bursts into fragments and disperses itself in myriads of animated forms. In other terms, here again we find the well-known cosmogonic pattern of the primordial “wholeness” broken into fragments by the act of Creation.
From this we can understand why the myth of the creation of the useful plants and animals out of the body of a sacrificed divine being was incorporated into the mythology of the Earth-Mother. The Earth is the universal Genetrix and Nurse above all others: she creates by hierogamy with Heaven, but also by parthenogenesis or by self-immolation. Traces of the parthenogenesis of the Earth-Mother survive even in highly evolved mythologies like the Greek: Hera, for instance, conceived by herself to give birth to Typhon, to Haephestos and to Ares. The Earth-Mother embodies the archetype of fecundity, of inexhaustible creativity. That is why she has a tendency to assimilate the attributes and the myths of the divinities of fertility, whether they are human, aquatic or agricultural. But the converse of this is also true: these divinities appropriate the attributes of the Earth-Mother, and sometimes even replace her in the cult. And we can see why: the Waters, like the Mother, are rich with the germs of life, and the Moon, too, symbolises the universal becoming, the periodical creation and destruction. As for the goddesses of vegetation and agriculture, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish these from telluric goddesses; their myths reveal to us the same mystery of birth, of creation, and of dramatic death followed by resurrection. Reciprocal borrowings and mutual entanglements occur between the mythologies of all these divinities. One might say that the Earth-Mother constitutes a form that is “open” to, or susceptible of, indefinite enrichment, and that is why it takes in all the myths dealing with Life and Death, with Creation and generation, with sexuality and voluntary sacrifice.” – Mircea Eliade. “Myths, Dreams and Mysteries: The Encounter between Contemporary Faiths and Archaic Realities.” 1960. Harvill Press: New York. Pg. 183-185.
Nothing can jump start the process of historical change like war. Periods of social and political transformations revolve around major wars between world powers. War also serves as a psychological release in highly tense and anxious societies. They provide entertainment and excitement to crowds, and aid rulers in times of crisis and transition.
There is no question that modern warfare is evil. It is organized murder. It is hell. In modern war, 97.7873837% of the casualties are innocent people, according to my unscientific calculator.
Author Tom Woods explains the culture of moral, economic, social, and political corruption that a war state creates in a country in this lecture called, “War: Big Government’s Best Friend.”
A state of permanent warfare, whether against a purely imaginary enemy or an exaggerated threat, degrades a country’s political leadership, especially when the country is an aggressor and initiator of conflict.
But let’s be real and admit that war also has its positive side effects. We have to be intellectually honest on this point. We have to recognize that war has its merits. Look at where war has gotten us as a species: into the heavens. Do you think a state of peace would’ve alone enabled mankind’s cosmic evolution? Not in this world. If empires remained static, history wouldn’t progress.
So if we want to be intellectually fair we cannot just concentrate on the bad side of war and downplay the advances in science and technology brought about by the incredible energy in the engine of war. This destructive engine has taken many victims to the grave, but it has also given humankind gifts throughout history.
In the West, we are disconnected to the human consequences of war because it is the policy of our governments that we be shielded from reality and life like little children. And the reality is that war is our way of life. Samantha Nutt explains how our societies basically run on a worldwide culture of war in this interview on TVO. She names two ways that our civilization is connected to war: pension funds investing in lucrative war companies, and consumers and banks enjoying the fruits of the conquests of resource-rich countries.
Where would mankind be without the great force of war? We would not be the same vibrant species that we are today if we abandoned war 2,000 years ago. There would not have been an America without war. War has destroyed whole civilizations and wiped out cultures, but it has also served humanity in under-appreciated ways. That is the tragic truth of war and the destiny of human civilization. I have trouble accepting the other side of war: creation. But we cannot in good conscience banish the god of war from Mount Olympus. That would be evidence of our immaturity and ignorance.
II. The Western War Against Iran
“The Obama administration says it prefers sanctions and diplomacy, but as long as impossible demands are made on Iran, the chance of war is real. Many retired military officers oppose it — Iran would make Iraq look like a schoolyard — yet Obama and other prominent political figures irresponsibly rattle their sabers. It is sheer madness.” – Sheldon Richman, “War with Iran Would Be Madness,” May 10, 2012.
The talks in Baghdad between Iran and the six powers have proven to be another meaningless act in this divine drama. Flynt Leverett, a former senior member of the National Security Council, told AntiWar Radio’s Scott Horton that the Obama administration didn’t want to strike a deal with Iran, but to put on a show and prolong the talks until November.
America and Iran haven’t even reached square one in this absurd game of monopoly. They’re still arguing about who is going to be the boot and who is going to be the hat. Meanwhile, Israel is crashing the board game, throwing the pieces on the floor, and demanding that Iran not even be allowed to sit and play. If this continues, Iran will be forced into a corner and it will react with vengeance.
III. The View of History From On High: Excerpts From The Iron Mountain Report
“Accordingly, primitive man, being closer to his instincts, like the animal, is characterized by fear of novelty and adherence to tradition. To our way of thinking he is painfully backward, whereas we exalt progress. But our progressiveness, though it may result in a great many delightful wish-fulfilments, piles up an equally gigantic Promethean debt which has to be paid off from time to time in the form of hideous catastrophes. For ages man has dreamed of flying, and all we have got for it is saturation bombing!” – Carl Jung and Carl Kerenyi. “Essays on a Science of Mythology.” 1949. Princeton University Press: Princeton, N. J. Pg. 82.
The 1967 Report from Iron Mountain is without a doubt an important historical, political, academic, and cultural document that helps us understand the greater purpose behind staging the false flag 9/11 events, overthrowing the Shah of Iran and putting into place the Islamic Republic, confronting Iran, and initiating a mythic clash of civilizations between the Western world and the Islamic world.
This new world war will be the largest and most consequential of the three modern world wars because it has a religious dimension to it, and centers around the holy land.
The suggestion that this report was a grand literary hoax by Leonard C. Lewin cannot be taken seriously. The report is very intelligently written, and way too relevant for our war crazed times for it to be sidelined as a satirical work. The authors of the report clearly have a fascist and eugenicist worldview. They worship the god of war with great passion and reverence.
The most interesting and truthful quote from the report is this: “Economic systems, political philosophies, and corpora jures serve and extend the war system, not vice versa.”
Below are excerpts from the report. (I forgot to make note of and write down the page number for some of the quotes, so I’m sorry for that). I have highlighted in bold what I think are the most important and interesting sentences.
“It must be emphasized that the precedence of a society’s war-making potential over its other characteristics is not the result of the “threat” presumed to exist at any one time from other societies. This is the reverse of the basic situation; “threats” against the “national interest” are usually created or accelerated to meet the changing needs of the war system. Only in comparatively recent times has it been considered politically expedient to euphemize war budgets as “defense” requirements. The necessity for governments to distinguish between “aggression” (bad) and “defense” (good) has been a by-product of rising literacy and rapid communication. The distinction is tactical only, a concession to the growing inadequacy of ancient war-organizing political rationales.
Wars are not “caused” by international conflicts of interest. Proper logical sequence would make it more often accurate to say that war-making societies require—and thus bring about—such conflicts. The capacity of a nation to make war expresses the greatest social power it can exercise; war-making, active or contemplated, is a matter of life and death on the greatest scale subject to social control. It should therefore hardly be surprising that the military institutions in each society claim its highest priorities.”
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
“Without a long-established war economy, and without its frequent eruption into large-scale shooting war, most of the major industrial advances known to history, beginning with the development of iron, could never have taken place. Weapons technology structures the economy.”
“Since it is historically axiomatic that the existence of any form of weaponry insures its use, we have used the work “peace” as virtually synonymous with disarmament. By the same token, “war” is virtually synonymous with nationhood. The elimination of war implies the inevitable elimination of national sovereignty and the traditional nation-state.
The war system not only has been essential to the existence of nations as independent political entities, but has been equally indispensable to their stable internal political structure. Without it, no government has ever been able to obtain acquiescence in its “legitimacy,” or right to rule its society. The possibility of war provides the sense of external necessity without which nor government can long remain in power.
The historical record reveals one instance after another where the failure of a regime to maintain the credibility of a war threat led to its dissolution, by the forces of private interest, or reactions to social injustice, or of other disintegrative elements. The organization of a society for the possibility of war is its principal political stabilizer.“
“On the long-term basis, a government’s emergency war powers –inherent in the structure of even the most libertarian of nations — define the most significant aspect of the relation between state and citizen.”
“It seems clear that a new quasi-eugenic function of war is now in process of formation that will have to be taken into account in any transition plan.” (42-43).
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
“A brief look at some defunct premodern societies is instructive. One of the most noteworthy features common to the larger, more complex, and more successful of ancient civilizations was their widespread use of the blood sacrifice. If one were to limit consideration to those cultures whose regional hegemony was so complete that the prospect of “war” had become virtually inconceivable —as was the case with several of the great pre-Columbian societies of the Western Hemisphere—it would be found that some form of ritual killing occupied a position of paramount social importance in each. Invariably, the ritual was invested with mythic or religious significance; as will all religious and totemic practice, however, the ritual masked a broader and more important social function.
In these societies, the blood sacrifice served the purpose of maintaining a vestigial “earnest” of the society’s capability and willingness to make war– i.e., kill and be killed—in the event that some mystical–i.e., unforeseen — circumstance were to give rise to the possibility. That the “earnest” was not an adequate substitute for genuine military organization when the unthinkable enemy, such as the Spanish conquistadores, actually appeared on the scene in no way negates the function of the ritual. It was primarily, if not exclusively, a symbolic reminder that war had once been the central organizing force of the society, and that this condition might recur.
It does not follow that a transition to total peace in modern societies would require the use of this model, even in less “barbaric” guise. But the historical analogy serves as a reminder that a viable substitute for war as a social system cannot be a mere symbolic charade. It must involve risk of real personal destruction, and on a scale consistent with the size and complexity of modern social systems. Credibility is the key. Whether the substitute is ritual in nature or functionally substantive, unless it provides a believable life- and-death threat it will not serve the socially organizing function of war.
The existence of an accepted external menace, then, is essential to social cohesiveness as well as to the acceptance of political authority. The menace must be believable, it must be of a magnitude consistent with the complexity of the society threatened, and it must appear, at least, to affect the entire society.”
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
“Men, like all other animals, is subject to the continuing process of adapting to the limitations of his environment. But the principal mechanism he has utilized for this purpose is unique among living creatures. To forestall the inevitable historical cycles of inadequate food supply, post-Neolithic man destroys surplus members of his own species by organized warfare.
Ethologists have often observed that the organized slaughter of members of their own species is virtually unknown among other animals. Man’s special propensity to kill his own kind (shared to a limited degree with rats) may be attributed to his inability to adapt anachronistic patterns of survival (like primitive hunting) to his development of “civilizations” in which these patterns cannot be effectively sublimated. It may be attributed to other causes that have been suggested, such as a maladapted “territorial instinct,” etc. Nevertheless, it exists and its social expression in war constitutes a biological control of his relationship to his natural environment that is peculiar to man alone. War has served to help assure the survival of the human species. But as an evolutionary device to improve it, war is almost unbelievably inefficient. With few exceptions, the selective processes of other living creatures promote both specific survival and genetic improvement. When a conventionally adaptive animal faces one of its periodic crises of insufficiency, it is the “inferior” members of the species that normally disappear. An animal’s social response to such a crisis may take the form of a mass migration, during which the weak fall by the wayside. Or it may follow the dramatic and more efficient pattern of lemming societies, in which the weaker members voluntarily disperse, leaving available food supplies for the stronger. In either case, the strong survive and the weak fall. In human societies, those who fight and die in wars for survival are in general its biologically stronger members. This is natural selection in reverse.
The regressive genetic effort of war has been often noted and equally often deplored, even when it confuses biological and cultural factors. The disproportionate loss of the biologically stronger remains inherent in traditional warfare. It serves to underscore the fact that survival of the species, rather than its improvement, is the fundamental purpose of natural selection, if it can be said to have a purpose, just as it is the basic premise of this study. (41-42).
IV. War As A Means of Collective Sacrifice
“The Iron Mountain Report “has already created our present. It is now shaping our future,” one single-mindedly for war to the detriment of all but imperial interests and profiteers that benefit handsomely.” – Stephen Lendman, “The Case for War: The Iron Mountain Report,” July 7, 2010.
The findings of the Iron Mountain Report are extraordinarily bleak and apocalyptic. It demonstrates the dark genius of the new world order and the occultists in governments around the world.
The report is also a reminder of why President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by the powers that be for his revolutionary act of ending the Cold War mythology in his later speeches and giving a new vision of peaceful coexistence between all nations.
JFK was crucified for taking a brave stand for world peace while being the sitting head of state of the world’s biggest empire. He was going against the gods, and he knew the price was death, but he did it anyway. He was a true tragic hero.
But the masters of war got their way. They got their way in Vietnam and Cambodia in the 1960s and 1970s, in Iran from 1980 to 1988, in the Persian Gulf in 1990, and in New York City and Washington in 2001.
And they continue to get their way with the world. They are set to attack Iran once again.
In 1980, America’s NWO leadership generously gave the usurper Khomeini the war that he needed to militarize and Islamize Iranian society by arming Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and pressuring him to attack Iran. Hundreds of thousands needlessly died in the Iran-Iraq war, but the secret objectives of Khomeini’s cabal and the NWO leadership in America and Britain were accomplished by the end of the war.
The most important objective of the unholy war between Iran and Iraq was establishing an Islamic political order in Iran that could not be challenged internally. Without the war, Khomeini’s system of government would’ve faced powerful and sustained resistance from different political and religious factions, and the Iranian people as a whole.
And the tragedy is about to happen again. Israel, America, and the West will give the Islamic Republic a new lease on life by attacking Iran a second time in thirty three years. And the elites have already planned the outcome of this insane and absurd war: a new world order. The bloodletting is just a mass ritual, like 9/11.
Saman Mohammadi’s blog is The Excavator.