I Reject, I Affirm. ''Raising the Black Flag'' in an Age of Devilry. - Page 26 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

An atheist-free area for those of religious belief to discuss religious topics.

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be discussed here or in The Agora. However, this forum is intended specifically as an area for those with religious belief to discuss religion without threads being derailed by atheist arguments. Please respect that. Political topics regarding religion belong in the Religion forum in the Political Issues section.
#15110826
@Political Interest ;

Perhaps in the former Soviet Union we could find these types of traditionalists and traditional people. I am not an expert because I've never lived or visited there but it seems that the FSU countries are modern societies in the majority, with a few exceptions in the Caucasus and Central Asia perhaps. Of course there are Cossacks and Old Believers as well. But would it be correct to conclude that the vast majority of the peoples of the FSU are living within modernity now days?


I wonder myself actually. It seems to me that there was a modification of western style modernity even during the Soviet Union period, and that the post-Soviet period Russia now will especially be rejecting the West and embracing the living aspects of the past. As much as i've seen Westernization on a superficial level, I have seen profound differences too.

Maybe we could find such traditional people in Afghanistan, India or Pakistan. The Islamic world still retains many traditional ways of living but certainly the Orthodox world does as well.


Oh without a doubt. And I don't think that it's a coincidence that the significant resistance to the West comes from these lands you've mentioned. I've called them ''Magian'' after Oswald Spengler's ideas on the subject, but ''Monotheist'' also seems to fit too. The West is functionally if not formally Polytheistic these days, but I'm thinking about writing on discussing the possibility that they are Polytheistic on a formal level theologically and have been for some time.

Maybe Germany and France were traditional still in the 1900s.

Honestly speaking, I could not survive in a traditional world. The expectations would be too great on me. I try to be traditional but it is very hard.


I don't think that an incorporation of today's technology to some degree in one's life is necessarily anti-traditional, as long as what tools one uses are practical and are an organic development with what proceeded it. It's like the Cowboys I see every now and then to use an illustration, using horses when it's practical and likewise using trucks and trailers in their work when it's more useful. I don't think they're being untrue to what they are in their essence, and what they always have been.

See that's the key in my opinion, there's change that enables one to maintain a full human existence as one's forebears did more or less, and then there's change that uproots and atomizes the individual.
#15110830
See that's the key in my opinion, there's change that enables one to maintain a full human existence as one's forebears did more or less, and then there's change that uproots and atomizes the individual.

And this is precisely what Marx referred to as "alienation", which he regarded as an inevitable and necessary consequence of the rise of industrial capitalism. He further believed (given the fact that putting the historical process into reverse is neither possible nor desirable) that only the sublation of capitalism into socialism - a higher form of social and economic organisation - can heal that alienation. As Goethe said, the historical process is not a cycle, it is a spiral - ever circling back to its starting point, yet ever ascending....
#15110839
Potemkin wrote:And this is precisely what Marx referred to as "alienation", which he regarded as an inevitable and necessary consequence of the rise of industrial capitalism. He further believed (given the fact that putting the historical process into reverse is neither possible nor desirable) that only the sublation of capitalism into socialism - a higher form of social and economic organisation - can heal that alienation. As Goethe said, the historical process is not a cycle, it is a spiral - ever circling back to its starting point, yet ever ascending....


@Potemkin , I've a couple of questions on your post, the first being; do you believe that Capitalism is a universal socio-economic system which all cultures must necessarily go through, or is it a time and culture-conditioned system which is entirely a product of Western culture ? (even if other cultures wind up uneasily adopting it?)

The second is akin to the first; do you believe that Socialism is a universal socio-economic system applicable to all who have gone through the phase of Capitalism? Or is it something that all can adopt to their own cultural conditions at the moment?

And I want also to add that it would be something of an irony, a society being able to preserve it's traditional essence, it's national and cultural identity, by the adoption of Socialism...
#15110874
annatar1914 wrote:I'm skeptical of the idea that one can be a genuine traditionalist-considering the type of humanity i've mentioned previously, living a whole way of life much as their forefathers but not hostile to changes for the better in contact with larger society- and a Fascism that actively tries to bring about a new society based on certain concepts which are frankly anti-human.


Agreed.

annatar1914 wrote:Evola was Fascist. Guenon was too much the idiosyncratic scholar to be easily categorized. Don't get me wrong, I read Spengler, have read Werner Sombart, Arnim Mohler, Ernst Junger, many others in that ''Conservative Revolutionary'' vein of thinking. I believe that they influenced Fascism a great deal, but there are at least a couple of those i've listed at least that were disappointed by the movements they helped spawn. That's common by the way with political intellectuals, that disappointment, btw.

Life is both acting from basic ideals, and being shaped by the results upon contact and modification with reality. I don't think that most ''reactionaries'' are living an integral way of life in this modern age; it's possible that they cannot. However, this is not the case necessarily with people living a more traditional way of life; hard to call an Ethiopian farmer from the highlands of his homeland in 2020 a ''reactionary'', whereas a guy like me who is more ''waiting'' to be proven right in my political and socio-economic beliefs, could be considered so. More on that later...


But is that farmer necessarily a traditionalist, either? Living an agrarian lifestyle and adhering to an interpretation of the teachings of the Tewahedo Church does not inherently mean that an individual is opposed to the forces of modernity.

annatar1914 wrote:Depends on the time and circumstances I think. A American in 2020 who is looking for a imposition of Monarchy upon the people of North America would probably be illogical in pursuit of political power, unless they were somehow able to make that happen by virtue of already being at the top of the Elite.


So this action is not inherently futile? These civilisational cycles cannot be set in stone, then, if the imposition of a monarchy on a 'degenerate' society is thought to be able to reverse or redirect its social trends.
#15110916
@Local Localist , when I used the example of a Ethiopian highland farmer, faithful to the Tewahedo church, as the kind of person I mean as a real ''traditionalist'', you stated;


But is that farmer necessarily a traditionalist, either? Living an agrarian lifestyle and adhering to an interpretation of the teachings of the Tewahedo Church does not inherently mean that an individual is opposed to the forces of modernity.


I would say that it does, insofar as ''Modernity'' is an cluster of Western worldviews and not necessarily an advance in technologies. It's not a rejection of the toothbrush and internal combustion engine, but a rejection of Western anti-values and cultural assumptions.

When discussing ''reactionaries'' and the futility of that type, I used the illustration of an American who is a Monarchist, unlikely to ever come to power over an American republic unless possibly they happened to be already in the Elites (and presumably, with followers and allies), you asked;


So this action is not inherently futile?


From a reactionary, yes. But from a traditionalist, embedded in a collective way of life and representative of trends favoring any changes back towards a more traditional existence, I think it's likely.


These civilizational cycles cannot be set in stone, then, if the imposition of a monarchy on a 'degenerate' society is thought to be able to reverse or redirect its social trends.


In this fallen world, nothing we do is set in stone, but the cycle itself teaches us that. Even a ''return'' to principles established in a previous age to our own is not ''going back'' like in a time machine to that previous age, and I think even most reactionaries that are lucid understand that.

The key for me is this (and the reason this thread is in ''spirituality'' and not another sub-forum); it really isn't about the politics, or a worldview that is entirely focused on this world and this life, but is informed by my faith and the best response a society can have towards the common good of all as a reflection of that faith. It's about social love, without being utopian and with seeing people as they are not as one might have them be.

This is why I should have been clearer even to myself after I started this thread, that a rejection of Modernity and of the Modern Age isn't really about taking up a political position and voting in local or national elections, opining on contemporary geopolitics.

Because in my opinion we are well past the end of what would be considered the Modern Age already, which began in 1492 AD and ended in 1991 AD. It's dead, it's just that many people haven't awakened to that yet. Taking up a political position in the Modern sense, voting in elections and all that, is a social and cultural response, not so much a practical one. A rejection of that is the time-honored and well, traditional, response to Modernity. Living, fighting if need be, praying, raising a family. Voting is the social theater which psychologically binds the voters to the outcome no matter the result, when in a sense that outcome has already been decided more or less well before the actual voting.
#15111015
annatar1914 wrote:I would say that [a farmer in the Ethiopian highlands is a traditionalist], insofar as ''Modernity'' is an cluster of Western worldviews and not necessarily an advance in technologies. It's not a rejection of the toothbrush and internal combustion engine, but a rejection of Western anti-values and cultural assumptions.


But perhaps he hasn't necessarily rejected such assumptions, but more that it hasn't come time for him to embrace them yet. Most would acknowledge that there was a utility to feudalism once, and that that 'once' is different in different parts of the world. Industrialisation is a process, after all. In a similar vein, my explanation for why particular 'anti-values and cultural assumptions' developed first in the West is that a culmination of factors beginning in the Renaissance allowed them to socially progress faster than anywhere else. Agriculture did not develop everywhere at once, and yet almost everywhere uses agriculture.

annatar1914 wrote:When discussing ''reactionaries'' and the futility of that type, I used the illustration of an American who is a Monarchist, unlikely to ever come to power over an American republic unless possibly they happened to be already in the Elites (and presumably, with followers and allies), you asked [whether or not imposing a monarchy would be futile].

From a reactionary, yes. But from a traditionalist, embedded in a collective way of life and representative of trends favoring any changes back towards a more traditional existence, I think it's likely.

In this fallen world, nothing we do is set in stone, but the cycle itself teaches us that. Even a ''return'' to principles established in a previous age to our own is not ''going back'' like in a time machine to that previous age, and I think even most reactionaries that are lucid understand that.

The key for me is this (and the reason this thread is in ''spirituality'' and not another sub-forum); it really isn't about the politics, or a worldview that is entirely focused on this world and this life, but is informed by my faith and the best response a society can have towards the common good of all as a reflection of that faith. It's about social love, without being utopian and with seeing people as they are not as one might have them be.

This is why I should have been clearer even to myself after I started this thread, that a rejection of Modernity and of the Modern Age isn't really about taking up a political position and voting in local or national elections, opining on contemporary geopolitics.

Because in my opinion we are well past the end of what would be considered the Modern Age already, which began in 1492 AD and ended in 1991 AD. It's dead, it's just that many people haven't awakened to that yet. Taking up a political position in the Modern sense, voting in elections and all that, is a social and cultural response, not so much a practical one. A rejection of that is the time-honored and well, traditional, response to Modernity. Living, fighting if need be, praying, raising a family. Voting is the social theater which psychologically binds the voters to the outcome no matter the result, when in a sense that outcome has already been decided more or less well before the actual voting.


I think I'm meant to take from that one would impose a monarchy because it is morally right, rather than because it is practical. Fair enough, I suppose. Out of curiosity, then, if you don't mind, what exactly happened in 1991, what trends mark the current phase of the cycle you speak of, and is this cycle only applied to the Western world?
#15111099
@Local Localist , you retorted that;

But perhaps he hasn't necessarily rejected such assumptions, but more that it hasn't come time for him to embrace them yet.


Cultures don't live in a self-contained bubble entirely, but they do respond to influences from other cultures in ways that make those influences all their own. This is almost never an embrace of the meaning of the influence of the other culture as that culture internalizes it, but a reaction of sorts, a response that modifies the outside culture's influence.

Most would acknowledge that there was a utility to feudalism once, and that that 'once' is different in different parts of the world. Industrialisation is a process, after all.


It could be argued that Industrialization is a process that only has meaning within the context of the Western culture, that the process would and will be changed by cultures who adopt Industrialization but without Western characteristics.



In a similar vein, my explanation for why particular 'anti-values and cultural assumptions' developed first in the West is that a culmination of factors beginning in the Renaissance allowed them to socially progress faster than anywhere else.


Coming from within the Western civilization, it is easy to make the assumption of ''progress'' that makes sense-sort of, in a limited way-within the bounds of that civilization and no other.


Agriculture did not develop everywhere at once, and yet almost everywhere uses agriculture.


There are universals involved, yes, but again it is always modified in ways that make sense within certain worldviews at certain times. That's not to say that I don't believe in universals, in absolutes, in fact I have a definite stake in seeing one particular civilization win out over another... And really, so does everyone else.


I think I'm meant to take from that one would impose a monarchy because it is morally right, rather than because it is practical. Fair enough, I suppose. Out of curiosity, then, if you don't mind, what exactly happened in 1991, what trends mark the current phase of the cycle you speak of, and is this cycle only applied to the Western world?


If Monarchies were to return, and i'm not certain that they will, it would be because it's conformity with human nature, or not.

I date the end of the Modern age to the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the First Gulf War in 1991. Everything after has been not the ''End of History'' but rather it's full return after that point.
#15111103
I date the end of the Modern age to the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the First Gulf War in 1991. Everything after has been not the ''End of History'' but rather it's full return after that point.

Glad to see that someone else noticed that too. Far from the collapse of the Soviet Union being the 'End of History', as Fukuyama (and others) trumpeted at the time, it was in fact the resumption of history after being put in the deep freeze for almost half a century during the Cold War (which was well-named in more ways than one). Both sides during the Cold War had a vested interest in the status quo, a vested interest in seeing that nothing ever fundamentally changed. Both sides, in effect, tried to halt the historical process throughout their confrontation during the Cold War. They didn't succeed, of course, but they both made a damn good attempt. But after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the historical process resumed its normal pace with a vengeance. Fukuyama was not just wrong, he was dead wrong. Lol.
#15111110
Potemkin wrote:Glad to see that someone else noticed that too. Far from the collapse of the Soviet Union being the 'End of History', as Fukuyama (and others) trumpeted at the time, it was in fact the resumption of history after being put in the deep freeze for almost half a century during the Cold War (which was well-named in more ways than one). Both sides during the Cold War had a vested interest in the status quo, a vested interest in seeing that nothing ever fundamentally changed. Both sides, in effect, tried to halt the historical process throughout their confrontation during the Cold War. They didn't succeed, of course, but they both made a damn good attempt. But after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the historical process resumed its normal pace with a vengeance. Fukuyama was not just wrong, he was dead wrong. Lol.


The reason why he and others got it so wrong is probably a discussion in itself.

For now I'll content myself with the observation that once again it is the Western self-referential mindset that was simply giddy with triumphalism with the destruction of the USSR and the crushing and looting of Russia, the Warsaw Pact countries being absorbed into NATO/EU, the destruction of Yugoslavia, and last but not least, Saddam Hussein's premature geopolitical revisionism that led Iraq to conquer Kuwait temporarily.
#15111487
annatar1914 wrote:The reason why he and others got it so wrong is probably a discussion in itself.

For now I'll content myself with the observation that once again it is the Western self-referential mindset that was simply giddy with triumphalism with the destruction of the USSR and the crushing and looting of Russia, the Warsaw Pact countries being absorbed into NATO/EU, the destruction of Yugoslavia, and last but not least, Saddam Hussein's premature geopolitical revisionism that led Iraq to conquer Kuwait temporarily.


I look at the situation now-just watched today's explosion in Beirut-and I know in my heart that History has returned (not that it could ever truly leave at this or any point of mankind's existence, but man's hubris in thinking so) with a vengeance. Take the Middle East for example, ISIS alone managing to destroy the frontiers of Syria and Iraq for a time, punching a hole in the world's consensus reality that Sykes-Picot was basically eternal. Turkey will not hold to the treaty of Lausanne, and so forth. Much uncertainty in the world, good thing there's much more that we can't see or understand.

What I do understand is that Israel is in an existential war for it's survival now, and much we think we see is related to that war, vis-a-vis Islamic revival and so forth.
#15112203
annatar1914 wrote:I look at the situation now-just watched today's explosion in Beirut-and I know in my heart that History has returned (not that it could ever truly leave at this or any point of mankind's existence, but man's hubris in thinking so) with a vengeance. Take the Middle East for example, ISIS alone managing to destroy the frontiers of Syria and Iraq for a time, punching a hole in the world's consensus reality that Sykes-Picot was basically eternal. Turkey will not hold to the treaty of Lausanne, and so forth. Much uncertainty in the world, good thing there's much more that we can't see or understand.

What I do understand is that Israel is in an existential war for it's survival now, and much we think we see is related to that war, vis-a-vis Islamic revival and so forth.


Reflecting on recent events that i've previously mentioned, it only makes sense from outside a Magian/Monotheist paradigm, a cluster of related worldviews that are increasingly under attack.

(Before I get too ahead of myself, I'm not suggesting a kind of Magian/Monotheist ''alliance'' of some sort by the way, because of these attacks, that would be impossible)

No, what I'm detecting is a kind of warfare that indicates a very real hatred for Monotheism in general, disguised as a hatred for Islam, as if Islam were the real face of the whole Magian/Monotheistic cultural and spiritual grouping. But the war against Islam is covertly the war against the Jews, and the true Christians also.

For the war is the war between Pagan and Godly, Polytheism and Monotheism, Image and Idol, Athens and Jerusalem, materialism versus the spiritual. For those on one side it might be more a spiritual and philosophical warfare, but the reality is still on the ground, in perceived physical reality. And that's where we usually perceive it, dimly. And why ''dimly?'' Because it shouldn't have to take a Moslem Qutb or a Shariati to remind a Monotheist in the West that we should hate the same things they did in many cases, even if our response would differ perhaps because of our creed. Some reasons for this attitude in the past of seeing the real or at least more serious enemies might be illustrative;

Tsar Ivan Grozny refused the Papal Nuncio's offers and refused an alliance to war against the Moslem Turks, even while taking Moslem Kazan

Some East Romans said; ''better the Turban than the Tiara'' before Constantinople fell in 1453 AD, and after too. Among those that didn't and fled to the more congenial West were persons like Gemisthos Plethon and the like, a Polytheist;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemistus_Pletho

From his ''Nomoi'', we learn;

Plethon's own summary of the Nómoi also survived, amongst manuscripts held by his former student Bessarion. This summary, titled Summary of the Doctrines of Zoroaster and Plato, affirms the existence of a pantheon of gods, with Zeus as supreme sovereign, containing within himself all being in an undivided state; his eldest child, motherless, is Poseidon, who created the heavens and rules all below, ordaining order in the universe. Zeus' other children include an array of "supercelestial" gods, the Olympians and Tartareans, all motherless. Of these Hera is third in command after Poseidon, creatress and ruler of indestructible matter, and the mother by Zeus of the heavenly gods, demi-gods and spirits. The Olympians rule immortal life in the heavens, the Tartareans mortal life below, their leader Kronos ruling over mortality altogether. The eldest of the heavenly gods is Helios, master of the heavens here and source of all mortal life on earth. The gods are responsible for much good and no evil, and guide all life towards divine order. Plethon describes the creation of the universe as being perfect and outside of time, so that the universe remains eternal, without beginning or end. The soul of man, like the gods is immortal and essentially good, and is reincarnated in successive mortal bodies for eternity at the direction of the gods.[14]


An actual Pagan, at the very root of the Western ''Renaissance''.
#15112454
annatar1914 wrote:The reason why he and others got it so wrong is probably a discussion in itself.

For now I'll content myself with the observation that once again it is the Western self-referential mindset that was simply giddy with triumphalism with the destruction of the USSR and the crushing and looting of Russia, the Warsaw Pact countries being absorbed into NATO/EU, the destruction of Yugoslavia, and last but not least, Saddam Hussein's premature geopolitical revisionism that led Iraq to conquer Kuwait temporarily.


So why did they get it so wrong? I know hindsight is 20/20, but anyone with wisdom should have seen that perhaps Liberal Democracy and Neo-Liberal Capitalism didn't ''triumph'' as a superior system in 1989-1991, and it should have been as clear then as it is in 2020.

Well, it's bullshit, these pronunciations of the ''end of history''. It's as simple as that. Somebody had to write the panegyric of the system to cover the uglier and messier details, and so it was written and spoken of.

What it could have been though, is the beginning of the end of recognizable modern political ideologies altogether. If modern Socialism and Communism failed, if Fascism failed, and Liberal democratic Capitalism has failed, what lies beyond?

Whatever works and is in accordance with lived reality. And for a clue as to what that is, we might have to look back in order to look forwards.
#15112715
annatar1914 wrote:So why did they get it so wrong? I know hindsight is 20/20, but anyone with wisdom should have seen that perhaps Liberal Democracy and Neo-Liberal Capitalism didn't ''triumph'' as a superior system in 1989-1991, and it should have been as clear then as it is in 2020.

Well, it's bullshit, these pronunciations of the ''end of history''. It's as simple as that. Somebody had to write the panegyric of the system to cover the uglier and messier details, and so it was written and spoken of.

What it could have been though, is the beginning of the end of recognizable modern political ideologies altogether. If modern Socialism and Communism failed, if Fascism failed, and Liberal democratic Capitalism has failed, what lies beyond?

Whatever works and is in accordance with lived reality. And for a clue as to what that is, we might have to look back in order to look forwards.


So i'm looking back... All the way to the ancient past of 1979, 10 years before the end of the Cold War to see what transpired to provide a new ideological framework. Except that it isn't very ''Ideological'' in the modern sense at all. I'm talking about the Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979, in my opinion as important as and as much a counterpoint to the Russian Revolution in 1917.

Both rejected Western modernity, although the Russian Revolution was officially and explicitly Modernist in form it's consequences were very much contrary to the general universal trend.

But back to the Iranian Revolution in 1979. I remember watching the Ayatollah Khomeini getting off the plane in Tehran;



And I was watching it with my grandmother (a deeply conservative in the American sense woman, ironically) who remarked that he looked like Abraham; ''and probably wants everybody to go back to living like Abraham too". ''Abraham'', stepping off a jet plane onto a tarmac full of western dressed men...

And I knew then that our world would never be quite the same, for better or for worse. This sort of thing had to be contained before it got out of hand. Enter Saddam Hussein and the Iran-Iraq war, and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and a man claiming to be the Islamic Mahdi taking over the Grand Mosque in Mecca before being shot down by disguised French Commandos.

We Americans were too angry about the US embassy hostage crisis of 444 days to see clearly what was going on with the Iranian Islamic Revolution. I lived through a time of burning hatred for It in America, between that hostage crisis, the humiliation of the failed rescue attempt (''Desert One'') and the Marine Barracks bombing of 1984 by adherents of the Ayatollah in Lebanon, in which it wasn't really allowed to understand (''bomb them back to the stone age if they really want it so bad''). And yet, I knew people with a broader understanding, and I knew enough.

What do they want? And why does that illicit some deep and visceral responses here in the West? Will reaction to it in the West spawn a pre-modern revolution in the West also? That's what I'm going to try to cover my next post, and work into some of the larger themes of some of my more recent posts to gain some understanding of this spiritual phenomena.
#15112874
annatar1914 wrote:

...What do they want? And why does that illicit some deep and visceral responses here in the West? Will reaction to it in the West spawn a pre-modern revolution in the West also? That's what I'm going to try to cover my next post, and work into some of the larger themes of some of my more recent posts to gain some understanding of this spiritual phenomena.

ri

''What do the Islamic revivalists want?''

Well, they want the triumph of Islam as a religious way of life for one thing, but really that is pretty much the case anywhere with any monotheistic religion although it has more to do with Eschatology than a particular geopolitical effort in those non-Muslim cases. There it is more explicit.

''And why does that illicit some deep and visceral responses in the West?''

I would say that it goes beyond a Christian response to Islam but also and more importantly, because the Islamic critique of the West hits a nerve that lies a little too deep; namely monotheism versus polytheism, and that the West in the Islamic estimation is polytheistic/pagan in essence.

Isn't that what I've been writing about for some time now, as an Orthodox Christian?

Strictly speaking, the Moslems get the idea of the Godhead of the Christian Holy Trinity wrong, but in effect with the Western Christian Subordinationism of the Holy Spirit and it's general innate Arianism and exaltation of the BVM Mary the Theotokos beyond Orthodox bounds, they are not too far off on a practical level with their critique within the Faustian/Greco-Roman revival civilization.

This is why Mormonism is a very important American cultural/spiritual reaction against not only Christian Monotheism, but Monotheism as a whole. With Evolution encoded into the Western cultural DNA as a primary belief, the conception of the eternity of the universe and assumptions of infinite and eternal progress, the ''gods'' are reborn with a slight Christian veneer and even wedded to notions of Western/American liberal representative democracy and capitalism as perfect political and socio-economic forms as well. Gemistos Plethon and Joseph Smith (and the whole Western esoteric tradition of the magical and hermetic teachings) would have understood each other.
#15113586
Earlier I wrote that;

the Islamic critique of the West hits a nerve that lies a little too deep; namely monotheism versus polytheism, and that the West in the Islamic estimation is polytheistic/pagan in essence.


What I mean to say is strictly this in a post-Christian European and European-American West, not an endorsement of the Iconoclast heresy or of the Protestant variety of Iconoclasm. That is not to say that the florid imagery of the Latins is correct either, in fact I fully expect it's revival in the centuries to come as I'll expand on later.


Strictly speaking, the Moslems get the idea of the Godhead of the Christian Holy Trinity wrong, but in effect with the Western Christian Subordinationism of the Holy Spirit and it's general innate Arianism and exaltation of the BVM Mary the Theotokos beyond Orthodox bounds, they are not too far off on a practical level with their critique within the Faustian/Greco-Roman revival civilization.


This is related to the errors relating to the Trinity to be sure, and I'll show an article link from the modern Orthodox thinker Jay Dyer about the ''Filoque Procedit'' and it's Arian/Subordinationist implications, and also a an LDS video on their Tritheism/Polytheism to provide some color and context;

https://souloftheeast.org/2017/06/02/fi ... he-spirit/




This is why Mormonism is a very important American cultural/spiritual reaction against not only Christian Monotheism, but Monotheism as a whole. With Evolution encoded into the Western cultural DNA as a primary belief, the conception of the eternity of the universe and assumptions of infinite and eternal progress, the ''gods'' are reborn with a slight Christian veneer and even wedded to notions of Western/American liberal representative democracy and capitalism as perfect political and socio-economic forms as well. Gemistos Plethon and Joseph Smith (and the whole Western esoteric tradition of the magical and hermetic teachings) would have understood each other.


In short, I expect Mormonism to come into the full religious patrimony of Roman Catholicism at it's maximum extent historically, including possession of Rome of course and Western Europe but also the entire Americas. The Americanization of Europe will proceed apace, but it will gradually reflect a Europe of an earlier era, as America is the reflection of that era-the Middle Ages.
#15114147
annatar1914 wrote:


In short, I expect Mormonism to come into the full religious patrimony of Roman Catholicism at it's maximum extent historically, including possession of Rome of course and Western Europe but also the entire Americas. The Americanization of Europe will proceed apace, but it will gradually reflect a Europe of an earlier era, as America is the reflection of that era-the Middle Ages.


Edit; I re-wrote my earlier post, it wasn't upon reflection where I wanted to really take my thoughts. I am rather captivated by Oswald Spengler's ''Second Religiousness'' which comes about as a move to rigidly protect a Civilization's cultural and spiritual patrimony.

But there's no need for Mormonism as a product to do that, to serve as a religion for the West, when the Roman Church has been there as it's foundation from the beginning. It'll be there for it's end. So is there the possibility for a synthesis, a syncretic religion for the new Imperium? Very possible, and that is what I will be looking at with my next posts.
#15114401
annatar1914 wrote:Edit; I re-wrote my earlier post, it wasn't upon reflection where I wanted to really take my thoughts. I am rather captivated by Oswald Spengler's ''Second Religiousness'' which comes about as a move to rigidly protect a Civilization's cultural and spiritual patrimony.

But there's no need for Mormonism as a product to do that, to serve as a religion for the West, when the Roman Church has been there as it's foundation from the beginning. It'll be there for it's end. So is there the possibility for a synthesis, a syncretic religion for the new Imperium? Very possible, and that is what I will be looking at with my next posts.


I saw a certain obscure set of trends for years and knew what it likely meant on a larger scale, but I refused to see it in a way, because it's ramifications are so bad in my opinion. I castigate others here on PoFo for refusing to see what is happening, being blinded by the flaws in their own ideology,as yet while i've been too complacent with my air of being at a remove from the whole thing-when i'm most emphatically not but rather very close to the crisis indeed. Refusing to see what is really happening. ''Don't look at what people are saying, look at what they are doing or not doing'', I tell people. ''Physician, heal thyself''...

Belarus, Syria, the Ukraine, Iran, Venezuela, China/Hong Kong, Greece, Libya, America.

No, the New World Order is the same as the Old World Order, the ''Ancien Regime''/''Holy Alliance'', just that they've become better at hiding it;

''Mundus Vult Decipi, Ergo Decipiatur''
, I think is how it goes. And what a bigger fool I have been when I've been closer to the problem with my insights than some possibly.

A new Synthesis will not be necessary for the Western Elites and their objects and the resurgence of Nationalism is limited within very narrow constraints that have larger geopolitical objectives. Some are thinking in terms of decades if not centuries, while others are looking at the picture from a four or eight year length of time and don't notice the continuities and are hung up on anomalies that are anything but anomalies at all.

Hard to explain, it's like seeing something, and then you find it's impossible to ''un-see''. Better posts to come, more spirituality in a time of spiritual crisis to be sure.
#15114475
annatar1914 wrote:I saw a certain obscure set of trends for years and knew what it likely meant on a larger scale, but I refused to see it in a way, because it's ramifications are so bad in my opinion. I castigate others here on PoFo for refusing to see what is happening, being blinded by the flaws in their own ideology,as yet while i've been too complacent with my air of being at a remove from the whole thing-when i'm most emphatically not but rather very close to the crisis indeed. Refusing to see what is really happening. ''Don't look at what people are saying, look at what they are doing or not doing'', I tell people. ''Physician, heal thyself''...

Belarus, Syria, the Ukraine, Iran, Venezuela, China/Hong Kong, Greece, Libya, America.

No, the New World Order is the same as the Old World Order, the ''Ancien Regime''/''Holy Alliance'', just that they've become better at hiding it;

''Mundus Vult Decipi, Ergo Decipiatur''
, I think is how it goes. And what a bigger fool I have been when I've been closer to the problem with my insights than some possibly.

A new Synthesis will not be necessary for the Western Elites and their objects and the resurgence of Nationalism is limited within very narrow constraints that have larger geopolitical objectives. Some are thinking in terms of decades if not centuries, while others are looking at the picture from a four or eight year length of time and don't notice the continuities and are hung up on anomalies that are anything but anomalies at all.

Hard to explain, it's like seeing something, and then you find it's impossible to ''un-see''. Better posts to come, more spirituality in a time of spiritual crisis to be sure.


Yesterday I noticed that one of the demands of the Western backed protestors in Belarus was for an ''independent Belarus Orthodox Church'', just as those behind the Maidan in the Ukraine wanted and got a ''Independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church'', which is practically Uniate already and is as obviously as Crypto-Papist as can be.

Then it came to me. There was not this wave of ethno-particularity and desire for Orthodox Autocephaly among the Orthodox Christians until the 19th century, while at the same time Ecumenism drew many of the clergy closer to Rome. Traditional Orthodox withdrew from such efforts, but they continue, right along the fault lines of the civilizational frontiers of Russia herself, part of the ''hybrid warfare'' that has been waged for decades (if not centuries) now against Russia.

Timing is everything. All of this has accelerated since Pope Francis has been in the Vatican. And if this acceleration and tension has been going on along the civilizational fault lines of the West vs. the Islamic world and the West vs. Orthodox Christianity, one can bet that it had been planned this way and one can also be sure that similar effort has been expended within the West itself to create favorable changes for the Vatican and certain Western Elites.
#15115357
annatar1914 wrote:Yesterday I noticed that one of the demands of the Western backed protestors in Belarus was for an ''independent Belarus Orthodox Church'', just as those behind the Maidan in the Ukraine wanted and got a ''Independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church'', which is practically Uniate already and is as obviously as Crypto-Papist as can be.

Then it came to me. There was not this wave of ethno-particularity and desire for Orthodox Autocephaly among the Orthodox Christians until the 19th century, while at the same time Ecumenism drew many of the clergy closer to Rome. Traditional Orthodox withdrew from such efforts, but they continue, right along the fault lines of the civilizational frontiers of Russia herself, part of the ''hybrid warfare'' that has been waged for decades (if not centuries) now against Russia.

Timing is everything. All of this has accelerated since Pope Francis has been in the Vatican. And if this acceleration and tension has been going on along the civilizational fault lines of the West vs. the Islamic world and the West vs. Orthodox Christianity, one can bet that it had been planned this way and one can also be sure that similar effort has been expended within the West itself to create favorable changes for the Vatican and certain Western Elites.


And yet, at the very heart of the older Western religious narrative, is a new Western religious narrative, seemingly put on ice for now so to speak, but offering an opportunity for a tactical shift for the Western Elites. Decades of a change in religious conditioning could have only come about from the very top of the Vatican Hierarchy, and only as a result of things happening that have eventually to be addressed. The question is; how can the Vatican adapt to the shift, unless it basically was the author of the shift collectively speaking? And I'll begin by asking some more questions;

What is the real truth behind the Fatima apparitions and the secrets of those series of apparently supernatural events?

What is the meaning behind the push for a ''new'' and yet supposedly ''Christian'' mythology with Rennes-les-Chateau, the Priory of Sion, the Dan Brown novels, the Knights Templar, Rosslyn Chapel, and all that? Is it connected to the Fatima apparitions and other ''Marian'' apparitions?

Is Mormonism connected to this? Is political Fascism, Ariosophy, and various kinds of White esoteric racism connected to these phenomena?

@Potemkin , I'm interested in your input regarding this, with your European/British Isles experience and perhaps knowledge about some of what i've mentioned.
#15115544
annatar1914 wrote:And yet, at the very heart of the older Western religious narrative, is a new Western religious narrative, seemingly put on ice for now so to speak, but offering an opportunity for a tactical shift for the Western Elites. Decades of a change in religious conditioning could have only come about from the very top of the Vatican Hierarchy, and only as a result of things happening that have eventually to be addressed. The question is; how can the Vatican adapt to the shift, unless it basically was the author of the shift collectively speaking? And I'll begin by asking some more questions;

What is the real truth behind the Fatima apparitions and the secrets of those series of apparently supernatural events?

What is the meaning behind the push for a ''new'' and yet supposedly ''Christian'' mythology with Rennes-les-Chateau, the Priory of Sion, the Dan Brown novels, the Knights Templar, Rosslyn Chapel, and all that? Is it connected to the Fatima apparitions and other ''Marian'' apparitions?

Is Mormonism connected to this? Is political Fascism, Ariosophy, and various kinds of White esoteric racism connected to these phenomena?

@Potemkin , I'm interested in your input regarding this, with your European/British Isles experience and perhaps knowledge about some of what i've mentioned.


I begin this post with the knowledge that I'm in the time of the Dormition Fast in Orthodox Christianity, and that just as one can say too little of Mary the Blessed Virgin Mother of God, one can also say too much, and assuredly the West has historically, to the near point of raising her to part of the Godhead almost, as with the condemned heresy of Collyridianism. God Himself will not allow in His Church those who say too much, as too little.

Oswald Spengler made her the center of the West's Christianity, not Christ, in the minds of the Faustian civilization. What I am suggesting is that at the core of the Vatican Elite this Collyridianism, this belief in the Pre-existence of her soul from eternity in God, are related to the primary Trinitarian errors of the West particularly against the Holy Spirit and lead to a practical de facto Arian Tritheism and indeed Polytheism. This is the answer to all the questions on the esoterica and the apparitions and all, with Germanic and Classical pagan roots and thus no ''need'' for Mormonism specifically as the cultural religious expression of the West in our day, not necessarily... As it would not change or modify in the slightest the trajectory of Western religious thought. It's just a protestant ''dumbing down'' and secularization of a kind of the Latin-Germanic theology, specific to America.

The Vatican's embrace of the Fatima Marian Apparitions and the sainthood of the Fatima seers as with the other innovations and apparitions with mystical seers within living memory seemed at one point in my spiritual reflections to be almost besides the point when it comes to the West's modern life. On the contrary not only is it timely, it actually spurs on the modern development to it's denouement. When the time comes the Fatima secrets will when revealed by the Vatican create a spiritual and political earthquake of monumental proportions, because by then the groundwork would have already been prepared. Prepared by theology like this, from ''Blessed Anna Katharine Emmerich'';

THE INFUSING OF MARY’S SOUL AND HER BIRTH.

4.1 THE UNITING OF MARY’S SOUL AND BODY. I had a vision of the creation of Mary’s most holy soul and of its being united to her most pure body. In the glory by which the Most Holy Trinity is usually represented in my visions I saw a movement like a great shining mountain, and yet also like a human figure; and I saw something rise out of the midst of this figure towards its mouth and go forth from it like a shining brightness. Then I saw this brightness standing separate before the Face of God, turning and shaping itself— or rather being shaped, for I saw that while this brightness took human form, yet it was by the Will of God that it received a form so unspeakably beautiful. I saw, too, that God showed the beauty of this soul to the angels, and that they had unspeakable joy in its beauty. I am unable to describe in words all that I saw and understood. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/emmerich/lifemary.vi.html


That is, Emmerich ''saw'' the pre-existence of Mary created from eternity in God, before creation and the angels themselves.

Consider also that with the Lourdes apparitions, there is this problem; At the apparitions in Lourdes, ''Mary'' did not say to ''St.Bernadette'' that "I was immaculately conceived" which is not true Orthodox dogma, but rather even more troubling this; "I am the Immaculate Conception", making what she is said to have received from God as her very name.... And the ''I AM'' is the formal Name of God in the Christian and Jewish religions.

Polish Priest ''Saint'' Maximilian Kolbe goes further and denotes the pre-existence of the soul of Mary and says that the ''Immaculate Conception'' is Divine. Kolbe himself and thus his ideas has also been promoted heavily since the days of Pope ''Saint'' John Paul II.

Therefore, I think the real ''Fatima secret'' is likely to be more of the same, in greater form. If they believe in this why hide it? And yet if they do not, why canonize those who obviously do?

Those questions I'll try to address in my next post.
  • 1
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 35

Even Barr seems to have finally had enough of The […]

Tyson vs Roy Jones Jr

Tyson won it handily. The 5th round was the only r[…]

Rethinking the Electoral College

You did read the title of this thread, right? […]

Election 2020

At least my country is already out of the Covid-1[…]