The Last Supper Man
The Last Supper Man
The Greek dramatist Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex (c. 429 B.C.) conducts an examination of the ancient ‘riddle of the Sphinx’ posed by the lion with the wings of an eagle and the face and breasts of a woman, which is the classical depiction of the Sphinx herself, ‘What goes on four legs in the morning, two legs in the afternoon, and three in the evening?’1 Oedipus is told the answer by a seer, ‘Man.’ The Sphinx, described as a terrifying creature that has slain all those who couldn’t solve the riddle, and is associated with a plague besetting the city, gifts Oedipus Egypt’s Thebes, with its queen, Jocasta, in marriage, who he later discovers is his mother.
However, as the Sphinx has the face and breasts of a woman, she corresponds to what Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), ‘the father of psychoanalysis’, and his colleague in dream interpretation, the developmental psychologist, Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961), descried as the figure of the ‘Terrible Mother’, killing in defense of her child, who in terms of the plot corresponds to Oedipus’ father, who unbeknownst to Oedipus was a man he killed in an argument over right of way, which has been interpreted as a rite of passage, although traditionally such rites don’t involve the killing by a man of his father, whereas Jesus ‘Christ’, the chosen’, founder of Christianity, was effectively killed by his father, the creator, God, whose failure to intervene resulted in Jesus’ execution, ‘This is my son in whom I am well pleased.’ (Matt: 3. 17) More so, presumably, while the soldiers of the Empire of Rome, then occupying Jewish Palestine in the name of their Emperor, Tiberius Caesar Augustus (24-37 C.E.), were torturing Jesus to death, after nailing him to a cross of wood, atop the hill of Calvary, outside the city of Jerusalem, where he died, while the guard, Longinus, exulted, ‘Surely, this was the son of God.’ (Matt: 27. 54) Oedipus, like Jesus, who denied that his mother’s husband, Joseph, was his father, went against what was perceived as normative. The answer to the riddle is that the Sphinx is the child that goes on all fours in the morning, because it’s made perforce to claw its way, while Laius, the father, is the killed adult, who had walked on two legs. As Oedipus is Laius’ lame excuse for a man, Laius was clawed down by the child he’d disabled; in the hope that he, Laius, would remain erect, which is the established norm.
The name, Oedipus, means ‘swollen foot’, as a prophecy foretold he would kill his father, and marry his mother, so Laius and Jocasta exposed him on a hillside to die in infancy, which abandonment, however, resulted in lameness, as his subsequent killing of his father was due to his being unable to recognize him, because he’d been abandoned as a baby. At that point Oedipus corresponds to the Sphinx, as he claws, which is why he kills his father, as his nature’s been deformed, which is similarly true of the Sphinx, whose nature is woman, at least in part, that is, a deformed woman, presumably ruined by man, the creative, in her infancy. That Laius is meant to be the type of women’s deformation is evident from Jocasta’s role in helping Laius expose Oedipus as an infant on the hillside, although it’s also clear that the Sphinx is Laius’ warning before Thebes, which had associations with lesbianism, as the deformed ‘foot’.
The concept of woman as a foot is described in the Old Testament of what Christianity calls the Bible, which is the history and law of the Jews, that is, their Talmud and Torah, where the angel, Satan, is turned into a serpent by God for rejecting God’s plan that the human host be greater than the angelic. Placed in the paradise of Eden, where Eve, the woman, and Adam, the first man created by God, dwelt, Satan gives Eve ‘the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil’, which it is death to taste, despite God’s telling the pair to ‘eat only of the fruit of the tree of life’, as it’s immortality, ‘You shall be as gods.’ (Gen: 3. 5) Expelling Eve and Adam for preferring slavery in ephemerality, God tells Eve her ‘seed’ will prevail, ‘You shall crush the head of the serpent with your foot, but he will bruise your heel.’ (Gen: 3. 15) According to Jewish Midrash, Adam was a hermaphrodite, therefore Eve’s creation from the side of Adam by God is a metaphor for hermaphroditic birth from self-fertilization, which human species is called futanarian, that is, God’s ‘foot’. Jesus, born uncontaminated by male semen, from his mother, the Virgin Mary, experienced Resurrection and Ascension to heaven in prefiguration of women’s seed, which is celebrated in Christian iconography as Mary’s crushing the head of the serpent with her foot, as women’s futanarian species’ brainpower is superior to that of the serpent’s seed of men, who weren’t Adamic, but rather slavers.
That the subsequent history of Judaism is a slave history ignores the fact that the Judaic belief system wasn’t developed until the post-antediluvian epoch of God’s reputed drowning of the Earth as ‘wicked’, and the birth of the son of Abraham and his wife, Sara, Isaac, who is credited as being its founder, after God’s order to Abraham to take him to a mountain top, and butcher him there in sacrifice to God, resulted in the intervention of an angel, who told Abraham that the order was rescinded. Eve and Adam’s expulsion from Eden is not only a description of what fathers do from the point of view of the sacrificial victim, but a depiction of what Isaac, for example, will want to be when he’s a father, that is, a sacrificer of victims, which is Judaism, as Dror Ben Ami wrote in a February 2015 issue of The Jerusalem Post, ‘… the blood sacrifice of Jesus was a more effective way to remove sins, because it was only needed once, whereas Jewish blood sacrifices needed to be repeated year after year.’2 Animal sacrifices ostensibly, but human sacrifices are obviously more acceptable, which explains war enthusiasts. The more humans are killed, the more God is appeased, that is, the fathers are palliated by the deaths of their rivals, which is what Freud called ‘the Oedipal complex’, where the son’s seeking to supplant the father isn’t sanctioned, although it’s simpler to understand that Isaac didn’t want to be taken up the mountain by his father with a knife to butcher him. As conceived by Isaac, Judaism is a slavery religion in which those who weren’t obedient to his rules were butchered as animals; including fathers.
However, Jesus was killed because he was with a woman. Judas, his disciple, informed the Jewish Pharisees, the religious police, who had Jesus arrested, despite Jesus’ mild admonition, ‘Leave her alone.’ (Mk: 14. 6) The Jews tried Jesus on the grounds that he’d broken the law that made it a crime to labor on the sabbath day, which was the day set aside by God to rest from his labors of creating heaven and Earth, according to the Old Testament, which was accomplished in six days, so God rested upon the seventh; the basis of the later division of days into human weeks. The Roman judge, Pontius Pilate, though he could find no reason for executing Jesus, who habitually taught, and practiced healing, throughout the week, did so as the Jews requested, although from the contents of the narrative it’s obvious that those Jews didn’t want God’s futanarian race to breed, as that would have meant humans escaping from husbanding, and slavery as animals for sacrifice.
The relevance for Oedipus is Jesus’ New Testament teaching, ‘Love your neighbor as you love yourself.’ (Mk: 12. 31) As women are a species, men are their ring slavers in marriage, which means that the incest taboo is designed to prevent women from sexually reproducing outside Old Testament Jewish monogamy. As women are a species’ family, incest is an imputed imposition, rather than a crime committed by their race. Oedipus blinds himself, upon discovering that he’s married his mother, which demonstrates the power of the fathers’ enslaving of women’s seed. As her breeding with her own futanarian species’ seed remains unmentionable in the plot of civilization, illustrated in the figure of the Sphinx, with almost all of her womanliness bred out of her, along with Oedipus’ own deformity, this represents the fathers’ deforming of the foot, that is, women’s more human nature.
Before Jesus’ execution, there was what the Christian religion called the ‘Last Supper’ at which he introduced the concept of the bread and wine, as representing his body and blood, which he exhorted the disciples to eat and drink, as representing an awareness that humans were bred by men as slave animals to be sacrificed in warfare, etc., or eaten; should that prove to be better economics. That the eating of a wafer, symbolic of bread, and taking a sip of wine from the priest’s chalice, became a ritual of the Christian church, known as ‘Communion’, emphasized for the slaver that there was no escape for the spirit body, which is what Jesus’ teaching had encouraged belief in.
Having left behind the flesh, the individual escaped, whereas from slavery’s point of view it was an opportunity to hijack another plane. Jesus’ cross was a plane at that level of existence, while his rising to another plane afforded the possibility for the slaver to further enslave, preceding another round of human sacrifice, which continued ad infinitum. The flesh, shucked off, was followed by escape to another plane, and its seizure by the enslaver, who manned it all, which was why the answer to the Sphinx’s riddle was, ‘Man.’ Whatever manned was slaving, so everything was the slave of men, who manned. The man that Jesus met on the road to Gadarene was manned, in the sense that he told Jesus, ‘My name is Legion.’ (Mk: 5. 9) Although Jesus is depicted as casting the demons out of the man, who ask to be allowed to enter into a herd of pigs that then promptly run off a cliff and drown, that’s what men do: they man.
Although Freud’s psychology posits a Super-ego as the policeman that represses into unconsciousness what the individual has been taught is wrong thinking. For example, endogamous thoughts about marriage with a cousin trigger the incest taboo, which repressed content of the mind is consigned to what Freud called the ‘id’. As the repository of all of the repressed contents of the unconscious, constituting a monster waiting to emerge, for example, ‘ethnic cleansing’, as a misogynistic symptom reinforcing the enslaving of women’s seed, manning is supervision, that is, man is watched by men, who’re worried about the advent of a superman amongst them, like Jesus, representing a threat to their slaving. The perception that a superman isn’t a man is the argument that a man shouldn’t be, which is superseded by Jesus’ teaching of the superhuman that doesn’t exclude women’s seed.
Jesus is the ‘Last Supper’, man, in the sense that humans are super, whereas men man, that is, they enslave and devour their own kind, while humans are undifferentiatedly supper. At the close of Sophocles’ play, Oedipus is blind, having been written, that is, ridden, as an asshole who used to be erect, but now he’s some shit on the end of Sophocles’ dick, which is what ridders need to put out the eyes. As what humans need to be able to see is that they’ve buggers, wasting their potential for development. With its ‘incurable killer’ virus, AIDS, and the SARS’ bug that, according to science, as a part of the AIDS virus suite, killed millions from December 2019, before a viable vaccine was available, the ‘biological weapon’ being effectively declared neutralized by the World Health Organization (WHO) on May 5th, 2023, homosexuality, having no use for human sexuality, was identifiably a producer of slaved sacrificial meat.
Carl Jung’s interpretations of the human psyche through dreams led him to the discovery of what he termed ‘the God archetype’, a facultas preformandi, which produced in dreams, art, and the imagination, archetypal symbols; figures, and images that assisted the mind’s development. For example, Jung perceived the archetype of the ‘Terrible Mother’ as having positive dimensions, which were almost entirely missing from Freud’s psychoanalysis. Whereas Freud perceived the unconscious as ‘nothing but’ repressed material, Jung defined the unconscious as a combination of instinct, and the personal subconscious, which he called the shadow. The contents of the individual shadow could be mediated, through careful attention to archetypal material, so assisting the conscious integration of instinctual patterns of individual response to stimuli from the externality. For example, a woman looking in the mirror doesn’t normatively comprehend that she’s looking at her own species without being a member, whereas the unconscious contains the requisite archetypal guides to growth, which Jung called the processes of ‘individuation’. The meaning of the ‘Terrible Mother’, in archetypal terms, is that lesbians are castrated women’s seed. Although lesbians are designated as homosexual, they’re only homosexual, if women’s seed are castrated by them, so that the homosexuals have more deflated assholes to slave, that is, ‘Sapphic women’, named for the poet, Sappho (c. 630-570 B.C.), of the Greek island, Lesbos, aren’t by nature homosexual, ‘My ears are full of noise.’3 They’re rather an aspect, or valence of the ‘foot’ race of women, whose anger is represented by the Sphinx, as the child; made blind and lame brained by a visible evil that’s determined to remain ‘id.
Superman, the DC Comics’ superhero, who’s been portrayed in TV shows, since actor George Reeves, in Adventures of Superman (1952-58), and in mainstream movies since Christopher Reeves in Superman (1978), but whose initial appearance was in Action Comics #1, June 1938, had super vision, rather than supervision, that is, he could see, without being watched, which is what men want to do with man; watch. What that means is either that the watchers are animalizing the watched, or the watchers are animals. As is evident from Jesus’ disciple John’s apocalyptic vision of the future, Revelation, and the TV broadcasting of global warfare, ‘live’, men’s desire to watch man is viral: `The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed.` (Rev: 13. 15) For humankind, it’s worrying that the social framework consists of those who’re animalizing as watchers, and animalized as watched. Those with any vision at all are likely to be acknowledged as supermen; until they’re supervised: for example, the experience of pre-graduates in the Arts and Sciences at Universities, as their concerns are with social engineering, and slavery doesn’t want societal ameliorations, is little better than that of psychiatric patients under mental health supervision, or criminals, which means a constant downward spiraling of intelligence, that is, a return to the dark cages. Although Superman doesn’t want to be caged, those who dumb down will be the supermen, as that’s the defining context. Vision will disappear forever, as the bars disappear, as there’ll be nothing to see except slavery.
1 Apollodorus, Library of Apollod, 3. 5. 8.
2 Ami, Dror Ben ‘Metaphors in the Torah: The Roles of Blood and the Liver in Removing Sin’, The Jerusalem Post, February 10th, 2015, 18:57 pm, https://www.jpost.com/Blogs/Torah-Commentaries/Metaphors-in-the-Torah-The-Role-of-the-Blood-and-the-Liver-in-Removing-Sin-390469 .
3 Sappho phainetai moi, Fragment 31.