KUKUBRAK

Mikhail Zaborov

KUKUBRAK

Excerpt from the book “Sadomoralism...”

Cain and Abel brought gifts to the Lord, and the Lord looked upon Abel's gifts. “Agian steam locomotive!”, as the Jews say, is this why you need to kill your brother?! But the fact is that before us are contenders for the patriarchal throne. Abel is chosen, but Cain also has ideas on this issue. And when he makes his brutal amendment, he’s cursed?! Yes, but rather, he was rewarded: “And the Lord made a sign for Cain, so that no one who met him would kill him.”

- Lyama (Hebrew) for some reason?

- Yes, because, Mich, that now this is, as it were, the only heir of the patriarch, and for some other reason that we will understand later. And Cain did not wander at all, as the Almighty called him, he settled in the land of Nod “And Cain knew his wife...” Oh wife! They would have said so, otherwise it’s all about tchotchkes! Now everything is clear: Cherche la femme!!! This rawhide truth is clear to the people.

“One thing I still don’t understand is what others are we talking about all the time?” At first, Adam and Eve had only three children, and they were all assorted men: Cain, Abel, and later Seth would be born (patriarchy, what can you do!). Immediately after the fratricide, Cain was left alone, so what kind of others hang around in the Bible all the way? Will the oncoming one kill Cain or not... which oncoming one? What land does Nod Cain go to, what wife does he take there for some reason without a name?

- Don't ask too many questions, Mooch (thinking reader). The woman without a name is a foreigner, because she and all the others are children of the sixth day of creation - the first creation (see The Eighth Day of Creation). It is deliberately shaded from the second, because in the “re-creation” the patriarch, already disguised as God, acts. This discovery of ours will open all the secret doors of the biblical labyrinth.

We Jews are very proud that we “gave the world” monotheism and the morality it carries, but it was a Trojan gift. Monotheism, as we see, is a projection onto heaven of the patriarchy that was established in the corresponding era. The anti-maternal revolution he accomplished represents a fatal mutation of the main cell of all living things, of every human society - that is, a mutation of the family. A naturally formed maternal, and therefore polygamous, and therefore relatively free family, broken, forcibly circumcised, will begin to breed violence.

The patriarchal revolution radically changed the way people are produced, entailing a corresponding revolution of religion and morality, and led to the discussed devilization of eros.

The primary instinct of the patriarchal ruler is to suppress, expel, displace, destroy the sexuality of a competitor, therefore monotheism is a cruel, fanatical religion of sexual prohibition. “Forbidden fruit”, “fig leaf”, “circumcision” are quite expressive symbols for this.

At the same time, we see with our own eyes that the demonization of sex is its own fetishization, deification, but with the opposite sign. Monotheism is the negative of the ancient phallic cult, and the negative is identical to the positive by its very opposite. (The connection between anti-erotic monotheism and the phallic cult can be seen in religious architecture: an Arab minaret, a Christian dome... but that is a separate topic)

The secondary instinct of the patriarch is to preserve (still) his seed - himself in his offspring, therefore circumcision is not cutting off, it is both no and yes, and therefore it is impossible to kill Cain.

The goal “justified” the fratricidal means, Cain found a wife, became a patriarch, the father of nations, our forefather. And this is the sign of Cain: a violent prohibition gives rise to a violent crime, and if there is enough rebellious strength, the killer will be a “thief in law,” for “victors are not judged” by rulers and, as we see, even by God. Not Cain, we will bear the mark of Cain and not only in the moral sense, but also in the direct - physical sense. The wanderings destined for Cain fell to the lot of his heirs - you and me, Mych.



Sexual prohibitions are doomed to falsehood and ambiguity

the monotheist, not being able to completely reject eros, discredits it, all this begins with a fig leaf, which is why it represents such a radical turn in history that it is imprinted in the religious consciousness of peoples as the creation of a new world, a new civilization which we rightly called fig. For this case I would even change the emphasis; this civilization will bring with it too much fanatical absurdism.

The fig leaf is intended to cover something, but its meaning is transparent - it is a curse, a negation aimed at eros in general, and at the corresponding organs in particular. The ban seems to be total, even the king, who once knew how to convince those close to him that the naked body is the most beautiful of clothes, even he, as is known from Andersen’s true story, was ridiculed by the ignorant crowd, after which the kings and courtiers became fashionable for the most absurd in the bulkiness and pretentiousness of their clothes. The ban is “total”, but why is it in quotation marks? Because from now on, the sexual prohibition will work as a kind of barrier, not too high and not too low. The healthy and rich jump over it playfully; the middle ones climb, breaking down and falling, filled with hatred and revenge towards everyone and everything; the weak, the sick, the rejected are never allowed to overcome the “normal” barrier; their ban castrates them. The jealous ban castrates the weak, but the other strong part of humanity will now spend a huge share of their hefty strength on ensuring that none of the unfortunate “followers of Castro” finds some kind of loophole in sex for themselves, even the most harmless one—exvoyeuristic. This is a mechanism for the escalation of violence, and this is the general moral contour of the emerging fig civilization.



The Jews did not invent patriarchy or even monotheism, the “patriarchal revolution”, which in fact was very evolutionary, took place over a huge space-time period. As for monotheism, it is known that this idea was born and matured in two epicenters of ancient culture - in Mesopotamia and Egypt, with which biblical history closely connects the Jews. In the designated centers of culture, monotheism matured, but did not come to fruition; the Jews “only” more thoroughly than others “formulated” the principles of monotheism in their Torah, and, having formulated, with unparalleled tenacity, selfless (not to say fanatical) sacrifice, the precepts of the Torah followed and are followed. And although the Jews did not impose their religion on anyone (except the Jews themselves), on the contrary, they proceeded, left the pagans, closed themselves in the ghetto from their “brothers” - Christians..., monotheism grew and expanded, so that the Jewish God - the father acquired the status of a universal God.

Anti-Semitism is a peculiar manifestation of the Oedipus complex towards the Jewish father on the part of his Christian and Muslim offspring. This complex, as we know, consists of veneration and hatred, veneration is addressed to the heavenly hypostasis of Jewry, to the God he created, and hatred to the Jews themselves. Oedipal hatred is hatred for a sexual prohibition, which, again, the Jews did not impose on other peoples; the prohibition, as was shown, arises spontaneously out of jealousy, but when it is born, it seeks and “gives birth” to its father. This, again, is in accordance with the Bible, because even there, as they said, our first parents impose a fig ban on themselves, and then the ban is attributed to God. The Jews, we know this, can be accused of anything, but not that they imposed their religion and its sexual prohibition on others by force; on the contrary, others forcibly stole the prohibition from the Jews like the precious chest of the same Pandora, and only then took revenge on the victim of the robbery for their treacherous prey.

The Romans, having destroyed Judea and taken the Jews into slavery, did not know that after 200 years the Jewish god (in his Christian form) alone would disperse the entire horde of the inhabitants of Olympus and others like them. At the same time, beautiful naked statues will be thrown into the sea, because their beautiful originals have managed to turn into “ugly receptacles for sin.” Now it is not enough to cover this sin with a light tunic, we need rags and monastic robes... the suppressed body and soul will thirst for revenge, which will find many addresses (all “accurate”) Jews, of course, will not escape retribution, but they will be accused not of having given such a strict God, but of having taken it away, supposedly crucifying him on the cross... a perversion of good and evil, and at the same time logic is coming eternal kingdom. A similar fate - monotheization will befall the eastern conquerors of the Promised Land, only in the east the incubation of monotheism will be slow and will last for 1000 years or more.

Take it yourself and kick yourself? No, in accordance with the same perverse logic, the accusation will be brought not against the one who took it by force, but against the one from whom it was taken... and here is my rebuke to anti-Semites, I criticize Judaism not in favor of its anti-Semitic offshoots, in favor of reason, and if religion, then colorful paganism is perhaps dearer to me. It’s not that there are no sexual prohibitions in paganism, alas! But Eros is worshiped!

“And you know, Mozar, that your Oedipal theory of anti-Semitism falls precisely because of the pagans, the fact is that anti-Semitism arose among them, in ancient Egypt, in the ancient world, and the pagans are in no way “offsprings of monotheism.”

— Monotheism is a developed expression of the Oedipus complex, but this means that it exists in one form or another before and outside of monotheism, that is, the monotheistic collision speaks to the pagan soul in its language. Only if a Christian’s subconscious protest against religious prohibitions is somehow softened by his conscious solidarity with such prohibitions, then for a pagan who worships Eros as a god, anti-sexual religion is alien and is perceived as a threat of castration.

When the deified patriarch moves to heaven, Oedipal parricide is no longer possible, but a competitive struggle between brothers flares up, and the Oedipus complex degenerates into the Cain complex. True, Freud in this regard points to an agreement between brothers, the only question is what is stronger, agreement or competition?

History, as we know, does not vote too zealously in favor of treaties.



Where was Adam and where was he looking when the serpent seduced Eve? This turns out to be a very serious theological problem, on which many wise nonsenses have been said and written, for example, that God at that moment took Adam on a trip around the world so that he could see all his possessions (except for one corner). Either the omniscient did not know what would happen, or he knew, and then...? Draw your own conclusion. One thing is clear: nothing is written in scripture about Adam’s absence at the decisive moment, but one can invent endlessly. What is quite obvious and ultimatically present in the text is that Adam was sleeping when God, the deified patriarch, created woman, how did he create? Only God knows. In the future, “putting to sleep”, eliminating husbands in sensitive situations, will become such an integral tool of biblical history that nothing can be explained by the passion of such husbands for travel.

Do we know about the seducing snake that he has legs, is the most naked and the most cunning of all creatures? The most naked and cunning in nature is man, both in nature and in the Bible only he and the Valaam donkey speak in human language, the conclusion is clear, the talking snake with legs is a slender-legged pagan, and the snake here, as in the mythology of many pagans, due to its similarity with the male organ, symbolizes eros - the source of life. It is interesting that in Hebrew naked and cunning are denoted by the same word “arum”; in our context this coincidence is especially significant, because the nakedness of the seducer in this situation is his cunning. And the “cunning”, I must say, was a success, thanks to which we can “think and suffer” today, I think - that means I am an “animate noun”.

But who is this messenger of the god of nature, to whom the book of books assigned such a cardinal role, if not this god himself, because that is the essence of the god of life, that he is its originator! So, meet the Biblical Serpent - this is the one who in the first part of the same story acts as the omnipotent creator of the universe, now he is humiliated by the new cult and god, expelled from his own hypostasis.

- But where is the piquant elimination of husbands in the piquant circumstances with which you made us curious?

- It is not known exactly how, but Adam was eliminated at the moment of the serpent’s meeting with Eve, and when Eve gives birth to Cain, she makes a strange remark: “she found a man from Jehovah” - not from Adam. We assumed that the serpent is the “pagan” Jehovah, now humiliated by his monotheistic brother, but actually retaining power. The serpent convinced Eve not only with speeches (quite fair) but mainly with his naked and cunning sexuality, this is evident from the fact that the sexual characteristics of the seducer are exaggerated to the point of distortion of the figure. This is how Cain was born.

It seems that in those ancient times there was a certain form of marriage, in which the stronger patriarch “entered the wife” of the less powerful one, and thus planted his cub in someone else’s nest, so that he would subsequently become the ruler of a neighboring land, a tribe. This custom was clearly sung by the ancients by the cuckoo, so let’s call it “cuku marriage.”

So, the image of God split into two and a conflict between the gods was revealed: Jehovah the elder displaces the younger from his native territory, while the younger almost displaces the elder from the pages of Holy Scripture. Almost like Zeus the elder turns, but not into a swan, but into a serpent, in order to burden Eve and thereby plant his son Cain in the house of Jehovah the younger. The Kuku marriage took place, but subsequently it was not Cain, but Abel, who was chosen as patriarch, and the first fratricide was committed. I don’t know if the difference is great, but an analysis of the biblical text shows that brotherhood, and not parricide, lies at the basis and in the subconscious of a monotheistic civilization, hence, apparently, the commandment “honor your father and mother” is born. The archetypal nature of cucu-marriage in a monotheistic civilization is all the more high since we encounter such cucu-marriage again and again at the most important turns of biblical history.

And the Lord said to Abraham: “Get out of your land, from your kindred and from your father’s house, to the land that I will show you...” Abraham came, as we know, to the Land of Canaan, but did not stay there long and went down to Egypt along with his people and his beautiful wife Sarai. There, the pharaoh takes Sarai into his harem, and then releases her, supposedly without touching her. However, everything indicates that in the background of the story and at this powerful turn of history, another cuckoobrak is found. For the pharaoh to let his wife leave his harem, afraid of a stranger, would be humiliation and an insult, no, everything is much more complicated. This is why Abraham descended to Egypt to perform a cuckoo marriage.

The proto-Jews, as we assumed, became monotheists on the “eighth day of creation” (cm), which gave rise to their self-determination as a special people. It was then that the notorious “get out of your land,” which was still Canaan, sounded in some form, for this reason the Lord planted the Garden of Eden “in the east,” that is, in Mesopotamia. This is not in the text of scripture, it is in the subtext. It is possible that here in Mesopotamia the proto-Jews were accepted precisely as bearers of monotheism, for the kings were interested in monotheism. But monotheism could not win in Ur of the Chaldeans, where the roots of paganism were too deep, and again - get out of your land... At first this movement stops in Harran, why? Because returning to the ancestral land of Canaan requires the consent of the pharaoh, which is achieved through kuku marriage. From this marriage Sarai will give birth to Isaac, who will be raised in the palace of the pharaoh until many years later, the “holy trinity” appears to Abram.

One of this trinity, Isaac, was to become the ruler of the Jews; the remaining two, according to the same principle of kukubrak, were to become kings of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Only these free cities refused to accept the humiliating union and were destroyed. Abraham acted like a true Jew, he saved himself and his people from destruction by accepting the trinity in the most kind manner, making Isaac of Egypt his heir. But at the right time he took his adopted son to Mount Moriah in order to send him even higher from there.

— It is interesting that, having made this sacrifice, Abraham does not return home, where his beloved wife and Isaac’s true mother Sarah (Sarai) is waiting in extreme excitement.

Instead, he goes to his native place to visit his relatives, why?

- You’re right to ask, Mooch, why?! Yes, because he needs to enlist the support of his relatives in case of revenge from Egypt, and the revenge is really over. Abraham returns home with Isaac (?), seeing whom from afar, his mother falls dead, this is not the same Isaac!!! Isaac - translated means laugh, Isaac the second really has every reason to laugh at the first and at the pharaoh himself.

But he who laughs last laughs, Isaac will suffer the same fate as his father, when he and his wife Rivka fall into the hands of the Philistine king Abimelech, one of Abimelech’s men “almost (?) slept” with Rivka, Isaac’s wife. It seemed that everything ended well, but no, that man slept a little, or rather Abimelech himself and Rivka, for it is said later that two peoples fought in Rivka’s womb, how can this be from one father?!

- How can twins have different fathers? After all, it is said that the sons of Rivka are twins.

“That’s why it was said, to exclude suspicions that are natural in this situation.”

Then a struggle breaks out, in which Yakov and Rivka trick Esau, and then Isaac, “around their finger” in the most primitive way, or does Isaac laugh again and allow himself to be deceived on purpose? And the Cainic fratricide would have happened if Jacob had not fled from his brother Esau to his uncle Laban.

- So who laughs last in this story, maybe Yakov?

- If yes, then not without bitterness, for he too suffers the same fate. Egypt persistently strives to subjugate the Jews and, apparently, not only with their peaceful, but with a humiliating union of kukubrak.

So Jacob runs, and when he lay down to rest he sees a prophetic dream - the famous Jacob's ladder as a promise of his future elevation to heaven. Looking ahead and putting together the question marks that arise in the story about Jacob, we can present this story in a completely, completely different way, no matter how fantastic our assumption may seem at first. On the way to Laban, a certain diplomatic meeting between Jacob and representatives of Egypt takes place, and here the fugitive is promised a great future, with one condition: Rachel, Laban’s daughter, will become Jacob’s wife only after 14 years, and during this time she will have time to visit the harem of the pharaoh himself in order to give birth to his son, who will become the ruler of the Jews.

- Sorry Mozar, but this assumption of yours is completely groundless.

“But in it the unanswered riddles of scripture gain ground.”

It is known that Jacob waited seven, and then another seven years; it is not known what happened to Rachel during this time. It is known that Rachel was barren (like Sarah! This is important to note) but then she suddenly gives birth, like Sarah, this is the same cuckoo code.

Joseph, the son of Rachel, actively invades the biblical story when he is 17 years old (14 years of waiting for Jacob + 3 more years) before Joseph seems to not exist. Having appeared, he immediately finds himself in the center of attention, shows inexplicable claims to elevation, he wears colored clothes that are different from everyone else, he is the youngest, but was chosen by his father as if he were the firstborn. (It was exactly the same in the case of Abel and Cain; the younger brother, Abel, was chosen, but Jacob was also chosen, although he was the younger. If the younger is preferred to the older, this is a sign that the younger has a different father and is preferred, this is the biblical cuckoo code.)

And the older brothers decide to kill Joseph. From a moral point of view, the decision to kill is equal to the murder itself - the Cainic complex worked. But repentance also worked, or maybe fear of Egyptian revenge; Joseph was not killed, but sent, where? Home to Egypt, where he becomes the deputy of the pharaoh himself. The Tanakhic explanation for this is fabulous, but if Joseph is the son of Pharaoh, then his rise is quite real, and our assumption about Joseph is also real.

“You simply don’t believe, Mozar, the Holy Scriptures and therefore reduce its heroes from the sublime level to the ordinary level, not to say low.”

— I believe that behind the biblical stories there is a certain reality hidden, but it is hidden, it does not lie on the surface. If something is hidden, then there is something to hide; to prove concealment is to reveal the fact. Moreover, there is something fateful for me in this search; when I was traveling through Egypt, I could not shake the feeling that all this was familiar to me from somewhere from time immemorial, and that the search for the true Abraham, Jacob, or Joseph was a search for myself.

Does my interpretation of these characters really diminish them? Who is Abraham in the usual interpretation? “Tsaytan” (Hebrew) is a novice who obediently follows orders, ready to kill his only son without even asking why. In my interpretation, this is a man of enormous strength who knew how to raise and lead his people in search of the land of their ancestors, the land of origin, in order to found their kingdom there. In confrontation with the powerful hegemon of Egypt, he knows how, sacrificing his own ambitions, either by cunning or by force, to preserve his people, to defend their independence. The greatness of Abraham and the role that the Torah assigns to him becomes clear.

Or Joseph, in a simple reading, this is the image of one who, having seduced his people with promises, lured them into slavery, thereby destroying all the deeds of Abraham, but if Joseph is the son of Pharaoh and Rachel, his motives appear not only as political, but deeply human, and Shakespeare will come to elevate the biblical patriarchs precisely in my interpretation to the level of a real tragedy.