[Rich]

the same reason many believe 9/11 was an inside job.

Well we know three things for certain about 9/11.

1 It wasn't done by Muslims. No real Muslim would ever contemplate such an act.

2 It had nothing to do with Islam. Islam is a religion of peace. Both W Bush and Obama could at least agree on that. They were just following the science.

3 They received no help from any Pakistani or Saudi government official. We know this because the American government has never prosecuted any.

Unless you're some sort of hate filled wing nut and are going to start questioning the above self evident truths, I have to say an inside job sounds like the most plausible theory to me.

[annatar1914]

It gets worse. Suicide bombers and the like are actually useful to certain parties in order to sell a narrative, the same reason many believe 9/11 was an inside job. I find it curious though, that these allegations of assassinations and false-flag terrorist operations could as easily be pointed at Russia, but it is western elites in your crosshairs.



Washington Post

The Americans have their own axe to grind, but that itself doesn't make them wrong.

@MadMonk :

There are Western elites, and then there are non Western elites who are Western in their thinking and want a basically Western life for their country, consciously or otherwise.

So any critique of the West would necessarily include such Comprador elites as these.

[annatar1914]

I'm not worthy to even write, but I won't write at all at Christmas. And I feel the need to write now.

How anyone takes anything Holy these days, with a diminished sense of the Sacred, such that we render the operation of God the Holy Spirit as that of Satan, as Leon Bloy once wrote:

" This incredible Visitor, anticipated by me for four thousand years, will have no friends and His poverty will make beggars seem like emperors.

He will be the very manure where the indigent Idumean scraped his ulcers. One will lean over Him to see the depths of Suffering and Abjection.

On His approach, the sun will darken and the moon will turn to blood: proud rivers will flow backwards, running away like crazed horses, the walls of palaces and public baths will sweat with anguish.

The decaying carcases in putrification will be inundated by powerful perfumes purchased from temerarious navigators, to preserve them from His pestilence and, in the hopes of escaping contact with Him, the empoisoners of the poor or the assassins of children will beg mountains to fall on them.

After having exterminated pity, disgust will murder anger even, and this Proscript of all proscripts will be condemned silently by the magistrates with an irreproachable gentleness.

Jesus obtained nothing from the Jews but their hatred, but what a hatred! Christians will make generous gifts to the Paraclete of what is beyond hatred...."

And much more mad and terrible words. For Bloy knew inside I think where the Real Absence was, not the Real Presence so much.

Evil sins because it is evil, not becoming evil because it sins. Bloy being Pelagian and somehow seeing Christ as being held back from returning because of our sins, denying Sovereignty to God, could not see this. No surprise, Bloy hated Jansenists.

Of course one would despair if they saw all the volition belonging to man and not God. And would not the Evil see that which is wrong as being something right? I think so. Only thing that can change that is God, God entering within us and purifying us, with us and never without us. But He begins and ends the work.

The Magi are made to see, and to travel, moved to worship the Uncreated Light in form of the Incarnate God. Did many others see the Light? Or care if they did?

The West is exhausted. The power in this world lies with Islam, with exceptions. For a time. We will see.

I am going to continue reading this weekend: a smorgasbord of Orestes Brownson, Rene Guenon, and Bishop Cornelius Jansen's " "Augustinus "(or at least a excerpt from that mighty tome)

@Potemkin ;

Afterwards God willing I'll even try to discuss the Grail, the Templars, Dante and the "Fedeli D' Amore", the Sacred Heart and the Jesuits, it's all connected to the themes of this thread.

[ckaihatsu]

3 They received no help from any Pakistani or Saudi government official. We know this because the American government has never prosecuted any.

So the Orwellian geopolitical order must have started *there*, then -- with U.S. - Pakistani - Saudi collusion to make it all happen. (I've noted elsewhere that *other* 'meta-state' pan-national 'regions' are currently around [1] the European energy crisis (Germany, Russia, UK, U.S., Italy) and [2] the Middle East (Syria, Iraq, Lebanon).

The 2000 dotcom crash was the end of domestic material productivity and the beginning of China's 'workshop / sweatshop to the world' -- which is *itself* Orwellian because the U.S. would just front 'intellectual property' as the basis for its exploitation of Chinese labor.

Unless you're some sort of hate filled wing nut and are going to start questioning the above self evident truths, I have to say an inside job sounds like the most plausible theory to me.

Any comment on how the towers instantly turned into *dust*, allowing the buildings to fall down at *free-fall* speed -- ?

7 World Trade Center

According to Richard Gage, 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC), a 47-story high-rise building that was part of the World Trade Center complex and collapsed in the afternoon on September 11, 2001, is the "smoking gun" of September 11,[46][55] providing the most compelling evidence that something was suspect about the building's collapse that had not been told to the public.[56][57] Gage also described 7 WTC as "the most obvious example of controlled demolition."[58] According to Gage, the only way to bring a building down with free-fall acceleration would be to remove its columns, which provide resistance to the force of gravity.[59]

"The rest of the columns could not have been destroyed sequentially so fast to bring this building straight down into its own footprint," he says.[28] Gage argues that skyscrapers that have suffered "hotter, longer lasting and larger fires" have not collapsed.[55] "Buildings that fall in natural processes fall to the path of least resistance," says Gage, "they don't go straight down through themselves."[60]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architect ... 9/11_Truth

[annatar1914]

So the Orwellian geopolitical order must have started *there*, then -- with U.S. - Pakistani - Saudi collusion to make it all happen. (I've noted elsewhere that *other* 'meta-state' pan-national 'regions' are currently around [1] the European energy crisis (Germany, Russia, UK, U.S., Italy) and [2] the Middle East (Syria, Iraq, Lebanon).

The 2000 dotcom crash was the end of domestic material productivity and the beginning of China's 'workshop / sweatshop to the world' -- which is *itself* Orwellian because the U.S. would just front 'intellectual property' as the basis for its exploitation of Chinese labor.





Any comment on how the towers instantly turned into *dust*, allowing the buildings to fall down at *free-fall* speed -- ?

@ckaihatsu and @Rich :

*edited for anger and irritation*

I shouldn't get too irritated. It's almost Christmas, and us poor souls all have a voice, all want to be heard. I don't know perhaps what 9-11 has to do with some of the themes and issues I bring up gentlemen, but I do know that 9-12 certainly does. Forgive me folks, I wasn't listening, I had a failure of the imagination.

[annatar1914]

Today with the highest Angels and humble Peasants, and sinners like me, we together cry out the Incarnation of God as Man:

" Christ is Born, glorify Him!"

[annatar1914]

@ckaihatsu , @Rich , @Verv , @ness31 , and other contributors and friends posting on my other thread:

This is not a standard reply, not what I planned to begin the thread with, more of a subjective comment or intuition, which is the result of reading a particular story....

It comes from the Magian or Monotheistic complex of cultures. During the preparations for King Xerxes invasion of Greece, a storm threatened his ship. Persian nobles jumped overboard to save their king, not ordered to do so but silently bowing to their king and going over the railing. Alexander Herzen calls this the " Persian Thermopylae", grander and deeper of meaning.

And thinking of the Magi who faithfully followed the Star, who were from that same Persia, who went to pay obeisance to the true Shahinshah of All. Duty and Obedience. This is the cornerstone of the " Byzantinism" as Leontiev called it, which is so alien to the Romano-Germanic/Faustian West. Alien to what " Autocracy" is all about, Orthodoxy.

But didn't I speak before of freedom, and " Barbarism", when speaking of the Magi and other matters? Yes I did, and those are true under their proper aspects. Turns out there is no true universal " common good" republicanism as Orestes Brownson believed. It's all personal and private, human. Quite different than the understanding of the Western liberal bourgeoisie. As it turns out the charismatic rule of a " Despot", ruling by Divine signs and favors and anointing , is more favorable to Truth and the human condition than all this modern intellectual nonsense. That is, there is an element of what some would call a transcendental egoism, where the personal individual Soul is more important, and the next life more than this one, the battlefield of the cosmic war leading to paradise or perdition.

At an absolute Abyss from this worldview is that attitude exemplified by say, Carducci and his " Hymn to Satan", where Modernity and this world are what is important, material pleasures and desires...

Obedience. That's the starting point of this thread.

@Potemkin , @Verv , and others:

Beginning with obedience, as I said, is no easy task. I was once a Monarchist and almost a Fascist myself years ago, of a particular and Westernized sort.But obedient to Truth, I rejected de Maistre and Juan Donoso y Cortes, Louis Bonald and Chateaubriand. I rejected the Jacobinism of the " Right" , and began trying to seek some justice for man in this world, all men, in reaction to my earlier arid " Throne and Altar" traditionalism. But in the meantime I expanded my mind and examined everything Modern thought had to offer.

It was then that I desired to " raise the black flag" so to speak, and take on the modern enemies of mankind from a refined and safe intellectual perch. But this thread is something different. It's about others raising their own kind of flags, flags that represent systems of belief alternative to my own but pre modern for all that. It's also also about a change in direction concerning the world and it's reality, and the reality of the Holy Spirit, the Divine Third Person and His work of salvation and glory within the human person.

I shift my emphasis. I am caring still, but less so about the prospects for earthly Felicity via political and socio economic reorganizing of human society. More about personal, well, spirituality. The world is what it is.

[ckaihatsu]

It's about others raising their own kind of flags, flags that represent systems of belief alternative to my own but pre modern for all that.

You're touting *pre-modern* 'belief systems', meaning patchwork *feudalism* and medieval regional 'flavors' of religion.


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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Localism_(politics)

[annatar1914]

You're touting *pre-modern* 'belief systems', meaning patchwork *feudalism* and medieval regional 'flavors' of religion.


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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Localism_(politics)

@ckaihatsu :

You are speaking from an entirely naturalistic, materialist and atheist perspective. That is by analogy, trying to gaze at the horizon from standing at the bottom of a well. This section of the forum, and this thread, is simply not for you and you should follow the recommendation listed for this section. There is no common ground. I understand you, because I very much live in the world, but you don't understand me nor do you wish to, judging from your posts on this thread.

[ckaihatsu]

@ckaihatsu :

You are speaking from an entirely naturalistic, materialist and atheist perspective. That is by analogy, trying to gaze at the horizon from standing at the bottom of a well. This section of the forum, and this thread, is simply not for you and you should follow the recommendation listed for this section. There is no common ground. I understand you, because I very much live in the world, but you don't understand me nor do you wish to, judging from your posts on this thread.

Well, you *used* a material word, 'pre-modern', so I'm wondering what it is about 'pre-modern' society that you're so enamored with.

[annatar1914]

@Potemkin , @Verv , and others:

Beginning with obedience, as I said, is no easy task. I was once a Monarchist and almost a Fascist myself years ago, of a particular and Westernized sort.But obedient to Truth, I rejected de Maistre and Juan Donoso y Cortes, Louis Bonald and Chateaubriand. I rejected the Jacobinism of the " Right" , and began trying to seek some justice for man in this world, all men, in reaction to my earlier arid " Throne and Altar" traditionalism. But in the meantime I expanded my mind and examined everything Modern thought had to offer.

It was then that I desired to " raise the black flag" so to speak, and take on the modern enemies of mankind from a refined and safe intellectual perch. But this thread is something different. It's about others raising their own kind of flags, flags that represent systems of belief alternative to my own but pre modern for all that. It's also also about a change in direction concerning the world and it's reality, and the reality of the Holy Spirit, the Divine Third Person and His work of salvation and glory within the human person.

I shift my emphasis. I am caring still, but less so about the prospects for earthly Felicity via political and socio economic reorganizing of human society. More about personal, well, spirituality. The world is what it is.

@Verv , @Potemkin :

Anyway, as I said: " the world is what it is", and reality doesn't care about ideology, all of which is spun from a safe Bourgeoisie perch. We all know the slogans. We know that in reality the world without Christ, even the world of " Christian" heresy and schism, is Atheist. That's right: most people even in organized religion are Atheist in relation to the One True God. Maybe not " Antitheists", God haters, but still.... And there are those perhaps out of the formal structure somewhat, that are not Atheist. But most people are these days, truthfully. But the fallen human disorder, the fallen world, exists because of the Theist reality, which is to redeem it. Because for all the Atheism, one cannot fully abolish the image of the rational Logos within them.

For what I know is the Mystery of the Cosmic Christ, the Universal Logos that makes all the Particulars cohere and make sense in an ineffable Order, a sense only understood in the Person of Jesus Christ. I know the sin of the First Adam and the sacrifice of the Second Adam.

Juxtaposed with this is yet another pre modern narrative that will likewise outlast the modern one for a time: the world of Islam. In time, only two narratives but only one is right.

[annatar1914]

@Potemkin , @Verv :

I got to thinking about something Konstantin Leontiev wrote, about " Byzantinism". Something to think about from the " Russian Nietzsche":

" ... If we visualize Byzantinism, we see before us a rigidly defined, clear blueprint for a structure both extensive and substantial. We know, for example, that Byzantinism in the state means Autocracy. In religion it means Christianity with certain features which distinguish it from the Western churches, from heresies and schisms. In the moral realm, we know that the Byzantine ideal does not have that lofty, and in many cases extremely exaggerated, concept of the earthly human personality, as recorded in the history of Germanic Feudalism; we know the inclinations of the Byzantine moral ideal towards disappointment in all earthly things, in happiness, in the stability of our purity, in our ability to attain complete moral perfection here on earth. We know that Byzantinism ( as well as Christianity in general) rejects any hope for the general welfare of all peoples: being thus the strongest antithesis to the idea of all-mankind in the sense of earthly equality, earthly libertarian freedom, earthly total perfection and contentment."

" Byzantinism also provides very clear ideas in the realm of art or aesthetics conceived more generally: fashion, customs, tastes, clothing, architecture, utensils: and given all this it is easy to imagine oneself a little more or less Byzantine ".

Now, this is pretty much the Magian complex of cultures, which lives today and is eternal. That is, what Spengler speculated upon Leontiev verified as a living reality steming from Orthodox Christianity and the Roman world's contact with it, followed by the conversion of Holy Rus.

So is Leontiev right about Byzantinism and a culture immune to either Western progressive notions or Western reaction, in Leontiev's belief in a Tsar having to see the necessity of leading Socialism, much like the later Mladorossi with their" Tsar and Soviets!"?

While I have always admired Leontiev, and marvel at his predictions of the future, I wonder if it's his concept of timeless Byzantinism that bears thinking about, more than his musings on Socialism being a conservative and authoritarian force that could save Imperial Russia? Because it didn't save Tsarist Russia, simply put.

Or will it?

In any case, I have reasons for asking these questions, as part of issues I have raised or will raise on this thread. A work in progress. Things to learn.

[ckaihatsu]

his musings on Socialism being a conservative and authoritarian force that could save Imperial Russia?

The *opposite*, in actuality:

Revolutionary activity lasted about eight days, involving mass demonstrations and violent armed clashes with police and gendarmes, the last loyal forces of the Russian monarchy. On 27 February O.S. (12 March N.S.) the forces of the capital's garrison sided with the revolutionaries. Three days later Tsar Nicholas II abdicated, ending Romanov dynastic rule and the Russian Empire. The Russian Provisional Government under Prince Georgy Lvov replaced the Council of Ministers of Russia.

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

[annatar1914]

The *opposite*, in actuality:

@ckaihatsu :

Konstantin Leontiev knew his history. And Nicholas wasn't Tsar when Leontiev was alive. Point is is that socialism nor tsarism need have taken the paths they did.

Tsarism isn't around. Socialism isn't too healthy either. Somehow I think people took a wrong turn. Tsarists from bourgeoisie sympathies, Socialists from the rampant bourgeoisie affectation of formal Atheism.

[ckaihatsu]

@ckaihatsu :

Konstantin Leontiev knew his history. And Nicholas wasn't Tsar when Leontiev was alive. Point is is that socialism nor tsarism need have taken the paths they did.

Tsarism isn't around. Socialism isn't too healthy either. Somehow I think people took a wrong turn. Tsarists from bourgeoisie sympathies, Socialists from the rampant bourgeoisie affectation of formal Atheism.

Are you being *anti-science* here, Annatar -- ?

A pessimist, Leontiev made several predictions that turned out to come true. He prophesied that in the 20th century, there would be a bloody revolution in Russia led by an "anti-Christ" that would be socialist and tyrannical in nature and whose rulers would wield even more power than their tsarist predecessors. He said, "Socialism is the feudalism of the future".[4] He felt that only the harshest reaction could prevent that scenario.

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

It's *convenient* for your conservative politics that your position takes no account of what the respective 'leaderships' -- tsarism vs. revolutionism -- were *for*: Dynastic rule versus industrialization and parity with the West.


History, Macro-Micro -- Political (Cognitive) Dissonance

Spoiler: show

[annatar1914]

Are you being *anti-science* here, Annatar -- ?







It's *convenient* for your conservative politics that your position takes no account of what the respective 'leaderships' -- tsarism vs. revolutionism -- were *for*: Dynastic rule versus industrialization and parity with the West.


History, Macro-Micro -- Political (Cognitive) Dissonance

Spoiler: show

@ckaihatsu :

Again, you are showing that you still haven't grasped a single thing of what I write. You show that by labelling me by the Western term " conservative". What is it that I'm " conserving"? What I believe to be eternal and true, ever young and timeless, needs no helping on my part to " conserve" what It is. And what I believe to be finite and bound by time , contingent and provisional, I acknowledge to be things that slip through one's hands in any case. If you had the slightest idea of what I'm about, " conservative" is not something that should come to mind.

When you come into this thread, understand that ideology has no real place here. Nor Atheism, for this is a " Spirituality" thread. Politics? Absolutely, because the affairs of the City, the Polis, are important to many people, whether or not it should be is another question.

So it comes down to this, to not divert the thread: is it possible to adopt Socialism, not out of any ideological reasons, but simply because it's the supernatural result of living a Christian life, for example? That " Byzantinism" logically accepts the organic development of " Mir" and " artel" and other laboring and agricultural communal arrangements? How does the logic of Authority and Sovereignty apply to these arrangements?

Western political categories fail when we realize that political power is by reason and necessity both one and sovereign? Maybe I borrow Western language to interpret: Carl Schmidt said that " sovereign was he that decided the exception" . The emergency that goes beyond any kind of consistitutional boundary written or unwritten, paradoxically to sustain that very order.

[ckaihatsu]

political power is by reason and necessity both one and sovereign?

That's *claptrap*, of course, because you're hearkening back to the age of monarchs. *Since* that time there's been 'democracy', and more -- Wilde speaks to this kind of matter best of all:

Individualism, then, is what through Socialism we are to attain to. As a natural result the State must give up all idea of government. It must give it up because, as a wise man once said many centuries before Christ, there is such a thing as leaving mankind alone; there is no such thing as governing mankind. All modes of government are failures. Despotism is unjust to everybody, including the despot, who was probably made for better things. Oligarchies are unjust to the many, and ochlocracies are unjust to the few. High hopes were once formed of democracy; but democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people. It has been found out. I must say that it was high time, for all authority is quite degrading. It degrades those who exercise it, and degrades those over whom it is exercised. When it is violently, grossly, and cruelly used, it produces a good effect, by creating, or at any rate bringing out, the spirit of revolt and Individualism that is to kill it. When it is used with a certain amount of kindness, and accompanied by prizes and rewards, it is dreadfully demoralising. People, in that case, are less conscious of the horrible pressure that is being put on them, and so go through their lives in a sort of coarse comfort, like petted animals, without ever realising that they are probably thinking other people’s thoughts, living by other people’s standards, wearing practically what one may call other people’s second-hand clothes, and never being themselves for a single moment. ‘He who would be free,’ says a fine thinker, ‘must not conform.’ And authority, by bribing people to conform, produces a very gross kind of over-fed barbarism amongst us.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/arch ... /soul-man/

[ckaihatsu]

Edward Gibbon, the first English historian to write a full history of the Byzantine Empire in his The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776–1789), was a sharp critic of the Empire.[13] Jacob Burckhardt, an influential 19th-century historian shared Gibbon's view:

At its summit was despotism, infinitely strengthened by the union of churchly and secular dominion; in the place of morality it imposed orthodoxy; in the place of unbridled and demoralized expression of the natural instincts, hypocrisy and pretense; in the face of despotism there was developed greed masquerading as poverty, and deep cunning; in religious art and literature there was an incredible stubbornness in the constant repetition of obsolete motifs.

— Jacob Burckhardt, The age of Constantine the Great[14]


Critics pointed out that the Byzantine Empire and its successors were uninfluenced by such major shifts in Western philosophy as the Investiture Controversy, the Reformation and the Renaissance;[6] and reduced the Byzantine political culture to caesaropapism and authoritarian political culture, described as authoritarian, despotic, and imperialistic.[13][14]

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

[annatar1914]

[quote="ckaihatsu"][/quote]

@ckaihatsu :

Are you a real Socialist? Because your latest trolling posts are really typical white Western racist narrative: cultural colonialist bias, bourgeoisie imperialist justification, you name it it's there. Get the Devil out of my spirituality discussion thread, I can tolerate a lot, but a fundamental dishonesty when even presenting yourself in conversation is the straw that broke the camel's back. Kindly leave please.

[ckaihatsu]

@ckaihatsu :

Are you a real Socialist? Because your latest trolling posts are really typical white Western racist narrative: cultural colonialist bias, bourgeoisie imperialist justification, you name it it's there. Get the Devil out of my spirituality discussion thread, I can tolerate a lot, but a fundamental dishonesty when even presenting yourself in conversation is the straw that broke the camel's back. Kindly leave please.

Those are some *serious* mischaracterizations, all without any supporting evidence.

I'm not here to 'prove' my political credentials to you, but I'll be glad to sustain a topic of discussion -- if *you* can.