[SolarCross]

Yes, there was, it is one of the most attested event's in human history, for one thing the Roman Empire doesn't exist now, does it not?

Political upheavel is not identical to economic unheaval. Pot was making a false conflation.

Most people were in various stages of ''un-freedom'' in the Feudal period.

There is no feudal period, you are talking about the medieval period, also known as the middle ages. Arguably western europeans were more free then than now in political terms in that there were no borders of any consequence and bearing arms was not forbidden in general. People in general were only less free in a technological sense. If one wanted to travel one could walk or if had the coin one could go by horse or sail if a water route was available. No planes, trains or automobiles.

More horse manure. For example, the Dark Ages of Greece and the Near East during the Bronze Age, it lasted over 400 years, writing was forgotten in Greece, and technology actually regressed. Another example would be the absolute desolation and neglect in the Levant during the Ottoman Empire period after 1517. Only mere handfuls of people lived in the Holy Land by the time Mark Twain wrote of his pilgrimage there about 150 years ago, and travelers told that the native population that did exist had almost forgotten the use of the wheel so abject was their ignorance and poverty...

pot was implying that the mode of economics changed with the political upheavels. The basis of economics only changed with technological improvements which are essentially orthogonal to political messes. Political upheavels might destroy the peace which destroys the economy but they do not generally result in a change in the economics. Eg he implied Rome's "slave economy" was done by the 5th century and this caused collapse. The truth though is that the western empire persisted with slavery for centuries after, it was only minor source of labour, and the actual collapse was political and it resulted from the aggressive migrations of Goths and other non-roman people. The economy suffered because of the politics, but the politics did not suffer because of the economics.

[annatar1914]

Political upheavel is not identical to economic unheaval. Pot was making a false conflation.

When you have one you have the other. I'm not sure why this is even questioned by you.

There is no feudal period, you are talking about the medieval period, also known as the middle ages. Arguably western europeans were more free then than now in political terms in that there were no borders of any consequence and bearing arms was not forbidden in general.

Nonsense. There were in effect thousands and thousand of little borders, of very serious consequence, and far less liberty than today. You're either deliberately talking out of your ass or gaslighting, or something more serious and personal is going on. In any case you're absolutely full of shit on this issue.

People in general were only less free in a technological sense. If one wanted to travel one could walk or if had the coin one could go by horse or sail if a water route was available. No planes, trains or automobiles.

Most people never managed to go as far as 10 miles from where they were born in their entire lifetime. Again, bullshit.

pot was implying that the mode of economics changed with the political upheavels. The basis of economics only changed with technological improvements which are essentially orthogonal to political messes. Political upheavels might destroy the peace which destroys the economy but they do not generally result in a change in the economics. Eg he implied Rome's "slave economy" was done by the 5th century and this caused collapse. The truth though is that the western empire persisted with slavery for centuries after, it was only minor source of labour, and the actual collapse was political and it resulted from the aggressive migrations of Goths and other non-roman people. The economy suffered because of the politics, but the politics did not suffer because of the economics.

Wrong again, on both what he was talking about and on the barbarian invasions. You're wasting my time and yours. Please take this delusional crap storm you've come up with and place it elsewhere.

[annatar1914]

For some time I have displayed an antipathy to Mormonism specifically as a false religion albeit with the explicit understanding for my readers that I believe Orthodox Christianity is the only true one. That being said I do see how those unfamiliar with the intellectual terrain i'm journeying in would be rather perplexed from maybe what little they know of these weird but terribly nice and earnest people who seem to have lives noted by seeming stellar conduct, morality, sobriety and meaningful lives. Especially when compared to the people around them. It almost seems repulsive in a way to attack beliefs held by people who seem to be very 'good' in an Anglo-Saxon Bourgeoisie sense...

This is because of what I have personally come to believe over time about Western/Faustian Civilization, about Capitalism, and about my own homeland of America.

I don't ''attack'' people as persons. We're all on a journey in this life. These are people I have known very personally in my own life.

I believe that I have said at this point more than enough about Mormons as such. What I am going to speak of now is about the temptation of Mormonism in it's specifically ''Pagan'' sense. That is, for many people it is so much easier for someone caught up in the material cares of this life to imagine the next life as being but a slightly more evolved and exalted version of this life, complete with one's earthly husbands, wives, children, and in the next life new bountiful and beautiful worlds to settle with one's literal children, belonging to yourself exclusively, extending forever in space and time. And doing all this by virtue of following certain techniques and being very earnestly; ''good''. You give something, you get something. Almost nobody is fully cut off, and even after death the good guys are still there to help you see the light. It's cheerful, like Disney. It's patriotic. It's apparently life-affirming of the lives we have here and extends the relationship into eternity with all the zeal of Ancient Egypt.

Pragmatic, bourgeoisie, optimistic and down to earth while offering much room for the human imagination to run free within certain bounds. A lot like America, a lot like Capitalism's promise, a lot like the inner drives and wishes of Western/Faustian man given concrete form. And a ''Pagan'' religion that ties all these things together and gives them a religious dimension lacking before. What's more, resembling as if in a funhouse mirror the original iteration of the West's Religion and like it, having what is a very comforting ''Christian'' veneer for many persons.

And given enough time, enough worldly pomp and grandeur and earthly success will accrue to It, that persons will be attracted to it for that as well.

What's more, it is close enough in it's errors regarding the material nature of spiritual things in my personal opinion that it has an appeal only perhaps surpassed by early Islam; likewise a ''Christian Heresy'' that is really a separate religion. People with some justification expect some level of tangible realities to ground what they believe in, especially when it comes to the answers to questions of universal ultimate concern.

But the bottom line is that It's a slightly more intelligently tweaked and sophisticated version of what the ancients imagined regarding Asgard, or Olympus, or other homes and lives and worlds of the gods and goddesses (mind you, that I too see Angels as having a real material reality, and even genders...).

[SolarCross]

@annatar1914
It is clear you are just projecting your own dark fantasies on the past just as you do on the present and the unknowable future.

"Age of Devilry" indeed.

Most people who read 1984 will remark on it something like: "My word! Mr Orwell, what a dismal and cheerless little world you have created for our morbid entertainment? Thank goodness it can't happen here! By jove!"

You read it with tears of joy in your eyes, then pressing the little bundle of papers to your heaving heart exclaim "yes! this... this is how my society should be!". But deep down you know the normies will never allow it, they will never allow you to take your rightful place as Dear Leader and the normies outnumber you a million to one... so you are frustrated. Thus in vengeance upon the oblivious normies and their supreme indifference of your aesthetic appreciation for totalitarianism you haunt obscure forums conjuring dark narratives of the present, dark alternative histories and dark future prophesies where all the normies of the past, present and future will suffer exactly what you think they deserve. A boot on their human faces forever and ever.

[annatar1914]

@annatar1914
It is clear you are just projecting your own dark fantasies on the past just as you do on the present and the unknowable future.

"Age of Devilry" indeed.

Most people who read 1984 will remark on it something like: "My word! Mr Orwell, what a dismal and cheerless little world you have created for our morbid entertainment? Thank goodness it can't happen here! By jove!"

You read it with tears of joy in your eyes, then pressing the little bundle of papers to your heaving heart exclaim "yes! this... this is how my society should be!". But deep down you know the normies will never allow it, they will never allow you to take your rightful place as Dear Leader and the normies outnumber you a million to one... so you are frustrated. Thus in vengeance upon the oblivious normies and their supreme indifference of your aesthetic appreciation for totalitarianism you haunt obscure forums conjuring dark narratives of the present, dark alternative histories and dark future prophesies where all the normies of the past, present and future will suffer exactly what you think they deserve. A boot on their human faces forever and ever.

@SolarCross ;

I'm going to interpret this as a misplaced attempt at rhetorical flourishes and politically and philosophically partisan hyperbole instead of the personal attack some might take it as, because I'm sure you're a great person in real life and all...

We're just too far apart in political philosophy to see eye to eye. And since this is the case and I feel that i've been most fair and polite with you, my suggestion still stands that you go and find a more productive use of your time than trying to get an argument out of me, which I assure you would not be very productive.

[annatar1914]

Lately I've been thinking about four different things in tandem that don't seem to be connected, but which actually are, relating to the position I should take as a Christian in political as in other worldly affairs...

Monarchy versus Non-Monarchial political rule, and;

Christian rule over Christian society versus Christian citizenship in Non-Christian/Post-Christian society.

Secularism, an artifact of Liberal ideology, doesn't even come into the equation. Soon it'll be in the dustbin of history and even Western Civilization will be religious... As I predict, Mormonism, religion under the coming American Imperium. (or failing that, the original Western religion of Roman Catholicism, as debated internally before)

Neither does Revolution come into the question really, as it contained in the past fragments and artifacts of Liberal Bourgeoisie ideology like Secularism as well. But memory of a better society will be maintained in the hearts of some men of good will, perhaps now returning to the original Apocalyptic and Eschatological wish from which Revolution came forth from as a secularized Christian dogma. And yet, the interplay of material forces of the dialectic may well necessitate more proper resistance to earthly injustice by sinful mankind, as the call of the time for witness suited to the time, and maybe there will be a revival of more just society by men better fitted by God to make it happen..

Orthodox Christianity seems to historically favor Monarchy as the form of the State over an Orthodox Christian Society, and I agree that this is so particularly in previous ages. However, we are clearly not in normal times in this Age of the world, and the People are now returned to being mainly ''Gentiles'', Pagans in this world and openly so. As I stated in another thread, Pagans worship wealth and power, worldly success, and the loss of rule by Orthodox Christian Monarchs and loss of official status as national religion by Orthodoxy will eventually lead to another religion filling in the spiritual void. It will thus be Mormonism if I'm correct about that, or if not, by Roman Catholicism, which provides another point of reference.

Is it possible to be a Citizen or a subject then within a Non-Christian society? Sure, obedience in all things save sin. And when the Man of Sin arrives, Christians will thus flee society altogether and withdraw into the Wilderness for a refuge. That Refuge may itself constitute then an unconquerable Nation blessed by God, but certainly on the defensive in the Last Days. ''Raising the Black Flag'' may mean just fighting against spiritual and physical extermination, against deception and darkness.

It doesn't seem politically re-assuring does it, for at least those of my ilk? Why then speak of politics at all if it's one long losing battle until the Second Coming? One has to be a witness to what is right, and stand firm in one's faith alongside those of like mind. I never expected to ''win'', nor spread my political ideas that are themselves but the penumbra of my spirituality. No, I expect with others to eventually ''lose'' before He Wins, at least in the worldly sense, perhaps always did deep down.

Witness may possibly just come down to life like St. John the Forerunner, the Baptist, witnessing publicly to the honest truth even at what the world considers the ultimate cost.

[annatar1914]

So how is it exactly that I can draw lessons from Dialectical Materialism and yet be opposed to Darwinian Evolution?

It's a good question that I've asked myself quite a bit, but the short version is that a process of resolution of contradiction and conflict only to result in new conflicts and contradiction appears to be natural to the way of things, while Darwinism seems to be ''progressive'' only in that Liberal Bourgeoisie manner, the way of not only Charles Darwin but Francis Galton and Herbert Spenser; ''Social Darwinism'' in it's necessarily Libertarian and also Fascistic and Eugenicist aspects. It's racist, and implicitly polygenist and thus denies the unity of the human race.

Entirely incompatible with genuine Christianity.

Evolution only comes with the Eschaton, when all will be transformed in a Revolutionary leap recreating all things.

[Potemkin]

So how is it exactly that I can draw lessons from Dialectical Materialism and yet be opposed to Darwinian Evolution?

It's a good question that I've asked myself quite a bit, but the short version is that a process of resolution of contradiction and conflict only to result in new conflicts and contradiction appears to be natural to the way of things, while Darwinism seems to be ''progressive'' only in that Liberal Bourgeoisie manner, the way of not only Charles Darwin but Francis Galton and Herbert Spenser; ''Social Darwinism'' in it's necessarily Libertarian and also Fascistic and Eugenicist aspects. It's racist, and implicitly polygenist and thus denies the unity of the human race.

With respect, I believe you are misinterpreting Darwinian evolutionary theory. I believe that people like Spencer also misinterpreted it, but that's no excuse to also do likewise. There is, in fact, nothing remotely 'progressive' about Darwinian evolution in the liberal bourgeois sense. Fact: life on Earth right now is, on average (in the sense of the 'mode'), no more complex than it was three billion years ago. Most organisms now are still no more complex than single-celled bacteria or viruses. What life is, is more diverse than it was three billion years ago, and it just happens to be the case that one of the niches of that diversity is for complex organisms who are and will forever remain only a tiny minority of all living organisms. To interpret this increase in diversity as an increase in complexity is to fundamentally misunderstand Darwinian evolution. A human is not more evolved than an earthworm, nor is the human species more 'successful' than the humble earthworm. We are both part of the same web of life, each with our assigned place. There is no basis for eugenics, neither in Darwinism nor in any other properly scientific theory of which I am aware. In fact, the diversity of the human genome is more important than any other factor in ensuring that humanity has 'good genes'. Creating a genetic monoculture out of the human race would be the best way to ensure our extinction the very next time there is a global pandemic. Darwin knew this, of course, which is why he had no truck with eugenicist nonsense. He always preached the unity of the human race - that all of humanity had one progenitor, and that the diversity of the human stock is a natural thing and a great good.

Entirely incompatible with genuine Christianity.

Agreed, but as I have outlined, eugenics is a pseudo-science which has no basis in Darwinian theory. In fact, it contradicts Darwinian theory with its hatred of diversity.

Evolution only comes with the Eschaton, when all will be transformed in a Revolutionary leap recreating all things.

I would agree with that, but only in a dialectical rather than a teleological sense.

[annatar1914]

@Potemkin , you wrote my friend that;

With respect, I believe you are misinterpreting Darwinian evolutionary theory. I believe that people like Spencer also misinterpreted it, but that's no excuse to also do likewise. There is, in fact, nothing remotely 'progressive' about Darwinian evolution in the liberal bourgeois sense.

I agree in essence that Darwinian Evolution is still conservative, but I believe that Natural Selection is both a real phenomena and is a fundamentally 'homeostatic' mechanism which tries to inhibit too much change over time. I personally suspect and believe that creatures are far more capable of radical change in form and even function over a extremely rapid time frame than evolutionists and creationists alike would ever admit.

If I wrote in a manner which suggests otherwise as being my view, if I was not too clear as to that, my apologies.

Fact: life on Earth right now is, on average (in the sense of the 'mode'), no more complex than it was three billion years ago.

I agree with that as well, apart from the age thing . Diversity and complexity are ideas that trip up many people I'm with you on that.

Most organisms now are still no more complex than single-celled bacteria or viruses. What life is, is more diverse than it was three billion years ago, and it just happens to be the case that one of the niches of that diversity is for complex organisms who are and will forever remain only a tiny minority of all living organisms.

The reason I partly give for that is Death, extinction of species.

To interpret this increase in diversity as an increase in complexity is to fundamentally misunderstand Darwinian evolution. A human is not more evolved than an earthworm, nor is the human species more 'successful' than the humble earthworm. We are both part of the same web of life, each with our assigned place.

Sure, but I would say that Man has something of the Divine Image in him. ''My'' fundamental premise in this regard is an explicitly Creationist one of course, where as you say every creature has it's niche, modified by an Augustinian reasoning his '''seminal/rational forms' or 'Logoi Spermatikoi''' that can fill a niche should a species become extinct, and then It grows into and changes into a being capable of re-filling that niche entirely.

On Augustine's ''seminal reasons'' I quote;

Augustine was very fond of associating the conception of simultaneous creation with the doctrine of seminal reasons (rationes seminales or rationes causales) which was found in slightly different forms in Stoic and Platonic philosophy. He was not the first to regard this as a theologically significant conception, but he systematized it more than his predecessors. According to Augustine, the members of the natural kinds which unfolded later on their own were created in seminal form at the beginning, but the seminal reasons also involved the seeds of all miraculous deviations from the common course of nature. In this way God remained the ultimate creator of every new being (De Gen. ad litt. 6.10.17-11.19, .14.25-15.26; De Trin. 3.8.13-9.16). (Knuuttila, “Time and Creation in Augustine,” in The Cambridge Companion to Augustine, 104)

This unfolding of a creature's being to be what they are meant to be than might be observed at first glance is something very beautiful and profound, the more so as I am also explicitly a materialist and also believe in panpsychism and hylozoism.



We live in a weird and wonderful Cosmos I believe, and I'm not going to say major transformations can't happen, just not very often in more 'ordinary' ages. I'm not sure if it comes as a surprise to you that while I believe in a very young Universe I also accept a radical plasticity of material Form of creatures, perhaps more radical than evolutionary science believes at present, but that's the way I see it. However, I believe that none of this this was not the case before the Fall. Man fell, did not 'arise', and because of man everything fell with him, the Death principle being fused into the Being of all Matter.

There is no basis for eugenics, neither in Darwinism nor in any other properly scientific theory of which I am aware. In fact, the diversity of the human genome is more important than any other factor in ensuring that humanity has 'good genes'.

Agreed. But i'm sure you're aware how this thinking is creeping back openly on the Right these days.

Creating a genetic monoculture out of the human race would be the best way to ensure our extinction the very next time there is a global pandemic. Darwin knew this, of course, which is why he had no truck with eugenicist nonsense. He always preached the unity of the human race - that all of humanity had one progenitor, and that the diversity of the human stock is a natural thing and a great good.

Absolutely. The ''monoculture'' and thus extinction being the real aim of the ''Tower of Babel'' episode.

Agreed, but as I have outlined, eugenics is a pseudo-science which has no basis in Darwinian theory. In fact, it contradicts Darwinian theory with its hatred of diversity.

No problems there then. But as to the other, the fulfillment of the Dialectic at the Eschaton;

I would agree with that, but only in a dialectical rather than a teleological sense.

Ah, the 'cunning of history' or 'Divine Providence'... Well, we shall see then

[annatar1914]

My recent post got me thinking of Chapter 16 of Saint Augustine's ''City of God'';

Chapter 8.— Whether Certain Monstrous Races of Men are Derived from the Stock of Adam or Noah's Sons.

''It is also asked whether we are to believe that certain monstrous races of men, spoken of in secular history, have sprung from Noah's sons, or rather, I should say, from that one man from whom they themselves were descended. For it is reported that some have one eye in the middle of the forehead; some, feet turned backwards from the heel; some, a double sex, the right breast like a man, the left like a woman, and that they alternately beget and bring forth: others are said to have no mouth, and to breathe only through the nostrils; others are but a cubit high, and are therefore called by the Greeks "Pigmies:" they say that in some places the women conceive in their fifth year, and do not live beyond their eighth. So, too, they tell of a race who have two feet but only one leg, and are of marvellous swiftness, though they do not bend the knee: they are called Skiopodes, because in the hot weather they lie down on their backs and shade themselves with their feet. Others are said to have no head, and their eyes in their shoulders; and other human or quasi-human races are depicted in mosaic in the harbor esplanade of Carthage, on the faith of histories of rarities. What shall I say of the Cynocephali, whose dog-like head and barking proclaim them beasts rather than men? But we are not bound to believe all we hear of these monstrosities. But whoever is anywhere born a man, that is, a rational, mortal animal, no matter what unusual appearance he presents in color, movement, sound, nor how peculiar he is in some power, part, or quality of his nature, no Christian can doubt that he springs from that one protoplast. We can distinguish the common human nature from that which is peculiar, and therefore wonderful.

The same account which is given of monstrous births in individual cases can be given of monstrous races. For God, the Creator of all, knows where and when each thing ought to be, or to have been created, because He sees the similarities and diversities which can contribute to the beauty of the whole. But He who cannot see the whole is offended by the deformity of the part, because he is blind to that which balances it, and to which it belongs. We know that men are born with more than four fingers on their hands or toes on their feet: this is a smaller matter; but far from us be the folly of supposing that the Creator mistook the number of a man's fingers, though we cannot account for the difference. And so in cases where the divergence from the rule is greater. He whose works no man justly finds fault with, knows what He has done. At Hippo-Diarrhytus there is a man whose hands are crescent-shaped, and have only two fingers each, and his feet similarly formed. If there were a race like him, it would be added to the history of the curious and wonderful. Shall we therefore deny that this man is descended from that one man who was first created? As for the Androgyni, or Hermaphrodites, as they are called, though they are rare, yet from time to time there appears persons of sex so doubtful, that it remains uncertain from which sex they take their name; though it is customary to give them a masculine name, as the more worthy. For no one ever called them Hermaphroditesses. Some years ago, quite within my own memory, a man was born in the East, double in his upper, but single in his lower half — having two heads, two chests, four hands, but one body and two feet like an ordinary man; and he lived so long that many had an opportunity of seeing him. But who could enumerate all the human births that have differed widely from their ascertained parents? As, therefore, no one will deny that these are all descended from that one man, so all the races which are reported to have diverged in bodily appearance from the usual course which nature generally or almost universally preserves, if they are embraced in that definition of man as rational and mortal animals, unquestionably trace their pedigree to that one first father of all. We are supposing these stories about various races who differ from one another and from us to be true; but possibly they are not: for if we were not aware that apes, and monkeys, and sphinxes are not men, but beasts, those historians would possibly describe them as races of men, and flaunt with impunity their false and vainglorious discoveries. But supposing they are men of whom these marvels are recorded, what if God has seen fit to create some races in this way, that we might not suppose that the monstrous births which appear among ourselves are the failures of that wisdom whereby He fashions the human nature, as we speak of the failure of a less perfect workman? Accordingly, it ought not to seem absurd to us, that as in individual races there are monstrous births, so in the whole race there are monstrous races. Wherefore, to conclude this question cautiously and guardedly, either these things which have been told of some races have no existence at all; or if they do exist, they are not human races; or if they are human, they are descended from Adam.''

There are many strange things out there in the world, and perhaps in the younger world of the past it was stranger still than what we in the modern age know today. From the records we have that possibility can still be entertained. We don't know much really, and what we think we know I am personally doubtful of some of that.

[annatar1914]

@Potemkin , @Far-Right Sage, @Rei Murasame, and others;

Today is one of those days in which I'm reflecting upon my past years of esoteric researches and flirtation with the far Right (hence my antipathy to Fascism today), and some of the concepts involved, some secret, some not but definitely obscure.

The world is a far different thing than what we think we know, I know this. I look upon some of the arguments here on PoFo that seem so foolish and ignorant in the context of what I'm speaking of and wish I could unburden myself of it, but I have a responsibility at the very least to myself if nobody else. If the world is deceived then let it be deceived.

Sometimes the thoughts I entertain here on this thread and elsewhere they certainly don't seem like wishful thinking but that's what they are compared to the thoughts I have when I reflect on some of the research conclusions I made decades ago.

Those who are on the side of death and evil can only pretend to support life and good, if they support destruction no matter how rational the argument may appear they give their game away. They want to destroy or enslave all they consider weak and inferior.

In my lifetime their movement will fully revive I think, certain people have been preparing for this since 1945 and have laid the groundwork and foundations for it. When and if It appears, It will appear somewhat different than it's previous iteration to reflect the new times, but the basics of what it is will remain.

This all sounds very weird and paranoid of course, I understand. But it is what it is.

[annatar1914]

@Potemkin , @Far-Right Sage, @Rei Murasame, and others;

Today is one of those days in which I'm reflecting upon my past years of esoteric researches and flirtation with the far Right (hence my antipathy to Fascism today), and some of the concepts involved, some secret, some not but definitely obscure.

The world is a far different thing than what we think we know, I know this. I look upon some of the arguments here on PoFo that seem so foolish and ignorant in the context of what I'm speaking of and wish I could unburden myself of it, but I have a responsibility at the very least to myself if nobody else. If the world is deceived then let it be deceived.

Sometimes the thoughts I entertain here on this thread and elsewhere they certainly don't seem like wishful thinking but that's what they are compared to the thoughts I have when I reflect on some of the research conclusions I made decades ago.

Those who are on the side of death and evil can only pretend to support life and good, if they support destruction no matter how rational the argument may appear they give their game away. They want to destroy or enslave all they consider weak and inferior.

In my lifetime their movement will fully revive I think, certain people have been preparing for this since 1945 and have laid the groundwork and foundations for it. When and if It appears, It will appear somewhat different than it's previous iteration to reflect the new times, but the basics of what it is will remain.

This all sounds very weird and paranoid of course, I understand. But it is what it is.

Of course yesterday I didn't provide any context as to what I was talking about or reading decades ago, but Lanz von Leibenfels, Karl Willigut, Guido von List, von Sebottendorf, the ''Ariosophists'' basically of the various Germanic esoteric societies and so forth, but also modern post 1945 individuals like Savitri Devi, Miguel Serrano, and many others. Hans Horbiger, Rosenberg, a lot of people before and after the war.

Concepts like the ''Black Sun'', ''Vril'', the ''Green Ray'', ''Hyperborea'' and so forth were not unknown to me.

I don't believe as they do, but knowing what they believe and also what they oppose is important to me.

[Potemkin]

Of course yesterday I didn't provide any context as to what I was talking about or reading decades ago, but Lanz von Leibenfels, Karl Willigut, Guido von List, von Sebottendorf, the ''Ariosophists'' basically of the various Germanic esoteric societies and so forth, but also modern post 1945 individuals like Savitri Devi, Miguel Serrano, and many others. Hans Horbiger, Rosenberg, a lot of people before and after the war.

Concepts like the ''Black Sun'', ''Vril'', the ''Green Ray'', ''Hyperborea'' and so forth were not unknown to me.

I don't believe as they do, but knowing what they believe and also what they oppose is important to me.

It has always astounded me that the Theosophists and their successor occultist 'thinkers' could base so much of their thinking on a novel by Edward Bulwer-Lytton (he of "It was a dark and stormy night" fame, lol). They seemed to treat it as a documentary rather than what it is, an early work of science fiction (or "scientifiction" as the Victorians used to call it) by a popular scribbler. Lol.

[annatar1914]

It has always astounded me that the Theosophists and their successor occultist 'thinkers' could base so much of their thinking on a novel by Edward Bulwer-Lytton (he of "It was a dark and stormy night" fame, lol). They seemed to treat it as a documentary rather than what it is, an early work of science fiction (or "scientifiction" as the Victorians used to call it) by a popular scribbler. Lol.

@Potemkin

Yes, pretty nutty. But he in turn was something of an esoteric adept himself, Bulwer-Lytton was, trying to popularize various ideas then current in theosophical and rosicrucian circles for some time previous. I vaguely remember ''Zanoni'' and the ''Last Days of Pompeii'', reading them I think he had some interesting hornets in his headgear...

However... My old research indicated to me that part of the Germanic component of this garbage was very much alive and well throughout the Middle Ages, that groups like the Teutonic Knights clearly had a non-Christian agenda (so that for example I can absolve Sergei Eisenstein for putting a swastika on the German Archbishop's clothing in his ''Alexander Nevski'' movie) which carried on through German aristocratic secret societies and on from there to the mass movements of the 20th century.

[Potemkin]

Yes, pretty nutty. But he in turn was something of an esoteric adept himself, Bulwer-Lytton was, trying to popularize various ideas then current in theosophical and rosicrucian circles for some time previous. I vaguely remember ''Zanoni'' and the ''Last Days of Pompeii'', reading them I think he had some interesting hornets in his headgear...

Indeed. I suspect that reactionary fantasists and reactionary political theorists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries fed each other ideas, when they weren't actually one and the same person. What they eventually came up with, of course, mutated into fascism in the 1920s and 30s and the infection almost proved fatal to humanity in the 1940s....

However... My old research indicated to me that part of the Germanic component of this garbage was very much alive and well throughout the Middle Ages, that groups like the Teutonic Knights clearly had a non-Christian agenda (so that for example I can absolve Sergei Eisenstein for putting a swastika on the German Archbishop's clothing in his ''Alexander Nevski'' movie) which carried on through German aristocratic secret societies and on from there to the mass movements of the 20th century.

Ironically, much of the opposition to Hitler came from those same German aristocrats, especially once it became clear that Germany was losing the War. They seemed to feel that Hitler had vulgarised their beliefs and soiled them by his dishonourable plebiean outlook and behaviour. This aristocratic disdain for Hitler culminated, of course, in the von Stauffenberg plot and the treason of Admiral Canaris.

[annatar1914]

@Potemkin , I think you're spot on about Fascism/Nazism;

Indeed. I suspect that reactionary fantasists and reactionary political theorists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries fed each other ideas, when they weren't actually one and the same person. What they eventually came up with, of course, mutated into fascism in the 1920s and 30s and the infection almost proved fatal to humanity in the 1940s....

My suspicion is that these beliefs are hard to stamp out, and are having something of a covert revival today. Hard for anyone to prove of course but I see some of the signs and symbols and catch-phrases, some things slightly modified for a new generation of course, but essentially the same.

Ironically, much of the opposition to Hitler came from those same German aristocrats, especially once it became clear that Germany was losing the War. They seemed to feel that Hitler had vulgarised their beliefs and soiled them by his dishonourable plebiean outlook and behaviour. This aristocratic disdain for Hitler culminated, of course, in the von Stauffenberg plot and the treason of Admiral Canaris.

I have no use for Stauffenberg and his clique, he was for years a devotee of the Germanic secret society ''Secret Germany'' (his last words were ''long live secret Germany!") and was a disciple of the Fascist poet and thinker Stefan George... With and through Hitler they might have thought that they failed, not so much Ideologically as simple military disaster staring them in the face giving them reason to ''resist' Hitler.

Overall, there's a reason why I combine the Great Wars into one; that of 1914-1945, and reasons why another series of conflicts is likely to not resemble that period too much, as some lessons of that period would have well been taken to heart.

[Potemkin]

My suspicion is that these beliefs are hard to stamp out, and are having something of a covert revival today. Hard for anyone to prove of course but I see some of the signs and symbols and catch-phrases, some things slightly modified for a new generation of course, but essentially the same.

I suspect that you are right about that. There seems to be a light-heartedness about such ideas, especially on the so-called 'alt-right'. They don't seem to understand just how dangerous such ideas can be; that they are, in fact, a spiritual and political poison.

I have no use for Stauffenberg and his clique, he was for years a devotee of the Germanic secret society ''Secret Germany'' (his last words were ''long live secret Germany!") and was a disciple of the Fascist poet and thinker Stefan George... With and through Hitler they might have thought that they failed, not so much Ideologically as simple military disaster staring them in the face giving them reason to ''resist' Hitler.

Precisely. People like von Stauffenberg and Canaris were reactionaries; just different kinds of reactionaries than Hitler - their opposition to Hitler and the Nazis was in fact merely factional in-fighting among the ruling elite of German society - rather like the struggle between the Stalinists and the Trotskyists in the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 30s.

Overall, there's a reason why I combine the Great Wars into one; that of 1914-1945, and reasons why another series of conflicts is likely to not resemble that period too much, as some lessons of that period would have well been taken to heart.

I agree. The past repeats itself, but in a different key....

[annatar1914]

@Potemkin , you said;

I suspect that you are right about that. There seems to be a light-heartedness about such ideas, especially on the so-called 'alt-right'. They don't seem to understand just how dangerous such ideas can be; that they are, in fact, a spiritual and political poison.

They are not understanding, or they are fully aware and are willing to pay the price. I could say more but I don't find it necessary really; I think we can recognize the political front of esoteric Luciferianism pretty well in it's militarism and war-making, it's worship of power and wealth, it's racial and eugenic supremacy/caste system, etc.. And attempts to install the same.

Precisely. People like von Stauffenberg and Canaris were reactionaries; just different kinds of reactionaries than Hitler - their opposition to Hitler and the Nazis was in fact merely factional in-fighting among the ruling elite of German society - rather like the struggle between the Stalinists and the Trotskyists in the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 30s.

Well put analogy, and like the friction between Gen. Franco and the Falange, and C.Z. Condreanu's Iron Guard's difficulties in Romania, and even between Mussolini and Hitler.

I agree. The past repeats itself, but in a different key....

Yes, Savitri Devi said that the next Avatar after Hitler wouldn't be as kind and sentimental as he was...

Consider that so many of the new generation are even further removed from the worldview of most civilized people, ever, compared to the generation that fought in 1914-1945, very far away from the Ten Commandments/Beatitudes or the ''Builder of Communism'' morality.

[Potemkin]

They are not understanding, or they are fully aware and are willing to pay the price. I could say more but I don't find it necessary really; I think we can recognize the political front of esoteric Luciferianism pretty well in it's militarism and war-making, it's worship of power and wealth, it's racial and eugenic supremacy/caste system, etc.. And attempts to install the same.

Indeed. Rei Murasame was merely the most vocal of such spokespeople for Luciferianism on PoFo. She was intelligent enough and well-read enough to be consciously aware of what she was adhering to; most of the alt-right are neither of those things. Most of them seem to think they are merely being 'edgy'. They don't understand the danger they are in.

Well put analogy, and like the friction between Gen. Franco and the Falange, and C.Z. Condreanu's Iron Guard's difficulties in Romania, and even between Mussolini and Hitler.

Indeed. Hitler spent a large fraction of his time throughout the 1930s killing off rival fascists, just as Stalin spent a large fraction of his time throughout the 1930s killing off rival Communists. The only reason Hitler didn't slit Mussolini's throat the same way he did Dollfuss's throat was because Mussolini was the leader of a (relatively) powerful state and because he wisely deferred to Hitler in almost everything after 1940.

Yes, Savitri Devi said that the next Avatar after Hitler wouldn't be as kind and sentimental as he was...

Indeed. Hitler always had a sentimental soft spot for animals and children (so long as those children weren't Jewish, of course). Any spiritual or political successor to Hitler will likely not be as sentimental....

Consider that so many of the new generation are even further removed from the worldview of most civilized people, ever, compared to the generation that fought in 1914-1945, very far away from the Ten Commandments/Beatitudes or the ''Builder of Communism'' morality.

Christianity is a distant music, which is fading into silence as each decade passes....

[annatar1914]

@Potemkin

Indeed. Rei Murasame was merely the most vocal of such spokespeople for Luciferianism on PoFo. She was intelligent enough and well-read enough to be consciously aware of what she was adhering to; most of the alt-right are neither of those things. Most of them seem to think they are merely being 'edgy'. They don't understand the danger they are in.

Such are the foot soldiers. In ''normal'' times even such as these, these people are marginal, misfits, even with something of a makeover to humanize them they get maybe 20-30% of the vote in a democratic society, if that. But the reactionary Elites (connected themselves to Synarchic networks*) have use of such people in unstable times, and they provide the nucleus around which a parody of a mass movement can congeal around.

*By the way, when I use the term ''Synarchism'' I am defining it as a secret network running things behind the scenes. Such networks are only necessary in Capitalist societies that have the forms of representative democracy-decisions therefore need to be made behind closed doors and with a bought media, etc..

Indeed. Hitler spent a large fraction of his time throughout the 1930s killing off rival fascists, just as Stalin spent a large fraction of his time throughout the 1930s killing off rival Communists. The only reason Hitler didn't slit Mussolini's throat the same way he did Dollfuss's throat was because Mussolini was the leader of a (relatively) powerful state and because he wisely deferred to Hitler in almost everything after 1940.

I have the distinct feeling that Hitler would have turned on Mussolini and the Japanese had the Axis won the war. But when the next threat arrives I think the Enemy will have already solidified around one leader worldwide well before the public perceives them.

Indeed. Hitler always had a sentimental soft spot for animals and children (so long as those children weren't Jewish, of course). Any spiritual or political successor to Hitler will likely not be as sentimental....

True.

Christianity is a distant music, which is fading into silence as each decade passes....

One of my consolations as such is that the Founder of Christianity prophesied it's dwindling down to a remnant. Hard to see then what my political role could be other than a spectator, but we've been in this situation before, and justice is for all, after all, whether all know or believe in it or not, a common humanism.