Der Dornenstrauch and the post-1912 political parametres

John Bjarne Grover

The article Yinyang and the horned vikings along with the article on Biagio Marin tells the historic background since 1912.

My 2014 ex nihilo graphics as cover to Der Dornenstrauch (2015) tells the following story (see under point 6. Wolf-dog and poultry) :

In the left part of the image, the back of the book, the story seems to be the movement of the nose from the lower left to the upper right, to become the beak of a rooster or something like that - a sort of poultry it looks like - and the lifted nose is the poultry's beak.

The poetry speak.

Turning the graphics 90 degrees gives this scene:

One sees the scene of Xantippe who is touching a dog (the dog seems perhaps not to appreciate it much but endures it politely, like a child in her custody) to the left and a big angel touching her in return. (Does she defend herself against the angel with a hoof of a 'Devold'?) When, however, one discovers the adoring Socrates (with brown beard - just to the right of Xantippe, same body size, leaning a little backwards) in the bird, the beard in the bird so to speak, but not with a brown bread, then she immediately lifts her hand up from the dog and embraces Socrates instead (it looks as if she touches her own nipple).

The touch of the dog is the sodomy/homo/pedo parametre which is when humans go astray - the right and not-so-narrow path is for Xantippe to discover Socrates as the loving husband he is.

The dog is the same as the mouth of the wolf in the first (non-turned) picture - there is a mouse or muse sleeping peacefully between those jaws. When this turns 90 degrees, one sees how the picture tells of a dog (when Xantippe is astray) and a cat or muse or mouse when the big bird turns into Socrates - and hence the dog relates to cat such as cat relates to mouse in the same way as angel relates to human and human to dog.

There is in fact a movement of the hand in this still photo - in the moment when Socrates says 'oh my Xantippe', she lifts her hand from the dog and turns towards Socrates - and her left hand (right for the spectator) turns from a hoof of a 'devold' into a lifted human hand - could be she holds with her left hand a violin which lends even more meaning to the movement of her right hand.

But is it really sodomy = greek 'zoophthoria' which is the situation? Isnt it rather that Xantippe protects the suffering dog like a child in her custody - for 'creation of life' = greek 'zoophoria'?

Politics seems to have mistaken (they have gone astray) Xantippe's problem as being equivalent to poetry - and the standard example is probably the beginning of Rilke's Duino elegies (source http://www.rilke.de/gedichte/die_erste_duineser_elegie.htm:

Wer, wenn ich schriee, h�rte mich denn aus der Engel
Ordnungen? und gesetzt selbst, es n�hme
einer mich pl�tzlich ans Herz: ich verginge von seinem
st�rkeren Dasein. Denn das Sch�ne ist nichts
als des Schrecklichen Anfang, den wir noch grade ertragen,
und wir bewundern es so, weil es gelassen verschm�ht,
uns zu zerst�ren. Ein jeder Engel ist schrecklich.
Und so verhalt ich mich denn und verschlucke den Lockruf
dunkelen Schluchzens.
etc

The beginning is said to have been pronounced by an angel from over the sea at Duino which means not far from where Biagio Marin grew up, and indeed probably around the time (at least the same year 1912) when Marin enrolled at the Faculty of Philosophy in Vienna. Could be Xantippe's problem was that Socrates spent too much time down at the faculty, indulging in endless disputes on philosophical matter? The words of the angel was also probably on the same day, or close to it, that Robert Falcon Scott (Robert 'Vollkornbrot') put his foot on the south pole - that was 18 january 1912 - as the first human after Roald Amundsen who had been there a few weeks earlier. 'Roy la i mundsen' = 'the Lord put it in the mouth' = the bread (Vollkornbrot) of the holy communion, the word of the poet. This is the point when anglophonic politics went astray - when they took the equivalence of the bread of the holy communion and the word of the poet to be the same as the perversion of sodomy - and it is a bad conclusion if one has to sum it up that modern secret intelligence is nothing but that homo program and nothing but the perverted version of the humans' relation to the divine.

But for once this is elegiac poetry of Rilke, it expresses the sadnesses of human existence, secondly there seems to be a very profound mistake installed in the political program when it defines Xantippe to be Ragna Gr�ver and Socrates to be John Jensen Gr�ver and me as the 'dirty beast in the revelation', 'the beast of terror' - for the idea that poetry belongs to the custody relation and perverse homo program while the way of Socrates (who eventually swallowed the potion while asking for an afterlife favour with a rooster, his 'will', so to speak) is the way of jews.

If 'secret intelligence' politics tries to make a homo out of me, it could be on that false pretext of 'making poet'. I do not want to be homo, which does not mean that I don't want to be a published poet.

This mistake is contained in the Kursk and Cole complex. It is the modern post-1912 and post-1955 political program associated with the international secret intelligence services who perrhaps want to take the place of the people of Israel by the mix of genetic and custody parenthood. The cue to this mistaken mix is the homo perversion - that is to go astray.

Where has the poultry got its (s)beak from? Some say that it really is in place of the ear of the dog (van Gogh = Gogol, the Shponka story) - the dog seems to serve Elementar-Saft in the canteen of the summer kennel Hopsasa - and that it really comes from the nose of the amazed spectator down left - and on its way its trajectory went across the hieroglyphic 'reed shelter in fields' (on the tip of the snout of the lapis philosophoprum), the sideboard of Schengen, so to speak, and a folded band, the hieroglyphic snake of the visible world on the other side of the lapis.

"It's not a poet, is it a dog", some says politically.

The solution to all these problems - it really looks like an unsolvable mistake - is in the grandiose turn of the cosmic mysteries (which is in my Der Dornenstrauch = DDS part 1 = 'Kinderhilfe') into the historic reality (DDS part 4 = 'Die Sch�nheit der Welt') - which is when these ex nihilo graphics of DDS part 2 turn around with the ex nihilo lapis philosophorum of DDS part 3. It turns in the metaphysical realm of ex nihilo - which is beyond material existence. The visible picture cannot solve it in itself.

But that does not mean that I should be 'the invisible' who is never credited for his work.

The hieroglyphic 'reed shelter in fields' is supposed to be a glottal articulation, an 'h', which makes sense relative to the lapis philosophorum as articulatory space of the oral tract - that is, it turns the front tip of the stone around to the back part. But Lucia should not have been turned into 'the invisible world' for the sake of mythos, tells Tiepolo's artwork. To lend roles in mythos to people in the real world is not to have a full understanding. A civilized society should not try and construct modern mythos theatres with roles. That is a primitive society which says 'you are not to be credited for your work because you are the one it is supposed to turn around on'.

Human rights means that the rights apply to every human being without exception. If the human rights apply to everybody in the society except for that single scapegoat or one who has got a special role in the mythos theatre, then the society does not respect the human rights.

The big white part of the front page of DDS has a very interesting counterpoint in some conch shells (as also Biagio Marin writes about). See this photo from this internet page, for example.

� John Bjarne Grover
On the web 12 october 2018
Last updated 13 october 2018