[Patrickov]

I chose the title of this thread carefully, for this is an ''Age of Devilry'', and one of the diabolical elements of this Age is the phenomena of ''Predictive Programming''. Watch, you'll see;

And this was in 2017, after he'd retired.

Mathematically, if there are enough size of different predictions, the probability of having one hitting is very high.

For example, if we have 10,000 predictions, each with a possibility of 1 in 10,000 being true, then the probability of having at least one true is 63%.

[annatar1914]

Mathematically, if there are enough size of different predictions, the probability of having one hitting is very high.

For example, if we have 10,000 predictions, each with a possibility of 1 in 10,000 being true, then the probability of having at least one true is 63%.

As you said; ''If'' there are enough size of different predictions. But more than that, the very manner of death too.

[annatar1914]

Elsewhere on another thread I posted this about the Iranian Revolution and how It would over time attempt to become the Revolution of a new ''Left'' worldwide;

viewtopic.php?p=15060056#p15060056

Which was pretty much the dream of persons such as Ali Shariati.

I believe that this attempt has entered an energetic and dangerous phase with the death of General Soleimani and the raising of the Red Flag of Martyrdom in the Twelver Shia holy city of Qom;

https://www.westernjournal.com/iran-hoi ... holy-city/

Everywhere it is the Shia who are actively engaged in armed struggle with the forces generally considered by Leftists and Liberals as the ''Capitalist World Order'', the ''Right Wing/Reaction'' etc...

[annatar1914]

Usually my thoughts tend to gradually come together in a curious kind of dialectic, what seems to be unrelated or even senseless as part of a larger theme to some, I later show a strong connection, patterns relating seemingly disparate concepts. Without dropping the thread of the past few posts, I'm musing about Beethoven, and Napoleon. Hear this, Beethoven's 5th Symphony;

And look upon this painting of Napoleon crossing the Alps by Jacques Louis David;

[img]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_ ... aison2.jpg[/img]

This is the Western Civilization symbolized....

[annatar1914]

So what's the interplay, the inner dialectical struggle, between the last two posts? It's the nature of the kind of civilization that both Iran and America are representative today.

Napoleon and Beethoven, both Enlightenment figures, Faustian men, representative of a Type perhaps more spiritually active in America than in Europe today, but of a mind that one can change Destiny, understand Causality, bend Nature to one's will, optimistically progress onwards forever, exercise a free will un-limited by anyone, even God. It's not for nothing that Napoleon was bound for America before he was captured by the British and sent to St. Helena. He is the person that symbolizes best the modern Western man in my opinion. Napoleon, the father of the modern Western Bourgeoisie...

On the other hand, you have a Magian Civilization, in which the chains of Cause and Effect are known only to God, Fate rules. In which anything can literally truly happen should God so will it, and in which Western Science is in it's basis impossible, and/or even Satanic. Determinism is the primary factor of reality, everything happens as it does and must and not otherwise. And who best symbolizes the Magian man today? In my opinion, that archetypal person is best symbolized in other's minds today (for illustrative purposes) by the figure of the Ayatollah Khomeini. Why? Precisely because of the opposition to Western Civilization on his part. Ayatollah Khomeini, whose Revolution kind of knocked a large gaping hole into the facade of late 20th/early 21st century Western reality...

[annatar1914]

So what's the interplay, the inner dialectical struggle, between the last two posts? It's the nature of the kind of civilization that both Iran and America are representative today.

Napoleon and Beethoven, both Enlightenment figures, Faustian men, representative of a Type perhaps more spiritually active in America than in Europe today, but of a mind that one can change Destiny, understand Causality, bend Nature to one's will, optimistically progress onwards forever, exercise a free will un-limited by anyone, even God. It's not for nothing that Napoleon was bound for America before he was captured by the British and sent to St. Helena. He is the person that symbolizes best the modern Western man in my opinion. Napoleon, the father of the modern Western Bourgeoisie...

On the other hand, you have a Magian Civilization, in which the chains of Cause and Effect are known only to God, Fate rules. In which anything can literally truly happen should God so will it, and in which Western Science is in it's basis impossible, and/or even Satanic. Determinism is the primary factor of reality, everything happens as it does and must and not otherwise. And who best symbolizes the Magian man today? In my opinion, that archetypal person is best symbolized in other's minds today (for illustrative purposes) by the figure of the Ayatollah Khomeini. Why? Precisely because of the opposition to Western Civilization on his part. Ayatollah Khomeini, whose Revolution kind of knocked a large gaping hole into the facade of late 20th/early 21st century Western reality...

Funny thing, the Dialectical process. By the phenomenon known as the ''negation of the negation'', what is old reappears somewhat modified as something new, while what is new is actually old if not dead (or something actually other than what it appears). On this thread which is spiritual after all, I repeat;

''Napoleon and Beethoven, both Enlightenment figures, Faustian men, representative of a Type perhaps more spiritually active in America than in Europe today, but of a mind that one can change Destiny, understand Causality, bend Nature to one's will, optimistically progress onwards forever, exercise a free will un-limited by anyone, even God. It's not for nothing that Napoleon was bound for America before he was captured by the British and sent to St. Helena. He is the person that symbolizes best the modern Western man in my opinion. Napoleon, the father of the modern Western Bourgeoisie...''

In the spiritual realm, not long after Beethoven and Napoleon, and coming from that most Faustian of the Faustian Civilization's Nations-America-we have a similar Promethean figure in Joseph Smith, the founder of the religion of Mormonism. I have gone back and forth on what best represents the Spenglerian phase of the 'Second Religiousness' of this Civilization, Roman Catholicism or Mormonism, and I am satisfied that Mormonism will be Roman Catholicism's Inheritor in all things, right down to the Vatican and every RCC church in Europe, and every Roman Catholic and Protestant in time. There is a mechanism which will enable this to happen which I will discuss later, but for now this certainty will have to stand as is

And I also wrote this, too;

''On the other hand, you have a Magian Civilization, in which the chains of Cause and Effect are known only to God, Fate rules. In which anything can literally truly happen should God so will it, and in which Western Science is in it's basis impossible, and/or even Satanic. Determinism is the primary factor of reality, everything happens as it does and must and not otherwise. And who best symbolizes the Magian man today? In my opinion, that archetypal person is best symbolized in other's minds today (for illustrative purposes) by the figure of the Ayatollah Khomeini. Why? Precisely because of the opposition to Western Civilization on his part. Ayatollah Khomeini, whose Revolution kind of knocked a large gaping hole into the facade of late 20th/early 21st century Western reality...''

Likewise, the Twelver Shia sect will absorb all of the Islamic world, it will in fact be Islam, it's peculiarities and those of the one I call it's 'second founder' (the Ayatollah Khomeini) becoming dogma with the whole Islamic Ummah within a matter of decades.

[annatar1914]

@Potemkin , and others;

I had promised to further explain something I wrote in my last post on this thread;

" I have gone back and forth on what *best* represents the Spenglerian phase of the 'Second Religiousness' of this Civilization, Roman Catholicism or Mormonism, and I am satisfied that Mormonism will be Roman Catholicism's Inheritor in all things, right down to the Vatican and every RCC church in Europe, and every remaining Roman Catholic and Protestant in time. There is a mechanism which will enable this to happen which I will discuss later, but for now this certainty will have to stand as is''

For those who might be incredulous of a spiritual explanation for what I believe is going to happen, I would point to the historical examples of Syncretism which typify the periods of a ''Second Religiousness'' throughout history, such as the Cult of Serapis in Egypt under the Ptolemies and in the Roman period;

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

Details of course are important in each historical instance of this phenomena, I don't deny.

But since this is a spiritual thread in essence I personally explain at least to myself if nobody else (the future incorporation/replacement of Roman Catholicism into Mormonism) by venturing my belief that both are false religions and both come from the same heresy-creating source to begin with. The same Preturnatural Intelligences that showed the golden plates to Joseph Smith and granted him visions were the same behind the false Fatima apparitions which today's Roman Catholic Church endorses. And speaking of Fatima and the events of 1917, I am of the opinion that the ''Fatima Secret'' is actually related direct to the Mormon doctrine of the ''Heavenly Mother'', which is why it continues to be a secret, for now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavenly_ ... (Mormonism)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_F%C3%A1tima

Nor can I forget the apparition of ''Mary'' at Lourdes in France;

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

In which she told the seer an obvious blasphemy; ''I AM the Immaculate Conception'', ''I AM'' being God's Holy Name

Nor are the recent Roman Catholic moves in the direction of further exhaltation of ''Mary'' without significance in this scheme;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary,_Med ... _All_Grace


Mormon theology in this regard can easily be integrated in the future into the modern Roman Catholic often Fatima-inspired Cult of Mary, which is a heretical Collyridian exaltation of the Mother of God. ''Mary'' in Mormon theology can easily be identified with their ''Heavenly Mother'', and trends suggest that she can be merged into the figure of God the Holy Spirit, or the Incarnation thereof. These are future trends I see, not something I approve of at all of course, but history does record examples of heretics working together and in some cases effecting a sort of merging of beliefs, long before Ecumenism, as with Nestorians and Pelagians, Donatists and Semi-Arians.

And the irony of this is, if it is indeed irony in effect, is that the Muslims pretty much believe that the Christian Trinity is indeed composed of the Father, Son, and ''Mary''. This is of course a blasphemy and very untrue of Orthodox Christianity, but ever since the ''Filioque Procedit'' insertion into the Creed by the Popes in the 11th century, I think that this exaltation of ''Mary'' is the ultimate trajectory of that particular Trinitarian error, after all.

[annatar1914]

@Potemkin , and others;

I had promised to further explain something I wrote in my last post on this thread;



For those who might be incredulous of a spiritual explanation for what I believe is going to happen, I would point to the historical examples of Syncretism which typify the periods of a ''Second Religiousness'' throughout history, such as the Cult of Serapis in Egypt under the Ptolemies and in the Roman period;

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

Details of course are important in each historical instance of this phenomena, I don't deny.

But since this is a spiritual thread in essence I personally explain at least to myself if nobody else (the future incorporation/replacement of Roman Catholicism into Mormonism) by venturing my belief that both are false religions and both come from the same heresy-creating source to begin with. The same Preturnatural Intelligences that showed the golden plates to Joseph Smith and granted him visions were the same behind the false Fatima apparitions which today's Roman Catholic Church endorses. And speaking of Fatima and the events of 1917, I am of the opinion that the ''Fatima Secret'' is actually related direct to the Mormon doctrine of the ''Heavenly Mother'', which is why it continues to be a secret, for now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavenly_ ... (Mormonism)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_F%C3%A1tima

Nor can I forget the apparition of ''Mary'' at Lourdes in France;

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

In which she told the seer an obvious blasphemy; ''I AM the Immaculate Conception'', ''I AM'' being God's Holy Name

Nor are the recent Roman Catholic moves in the direction of further exhaltation of ''Mary'' without significance in this scheme;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary,_Med ... _All_Grace


Mormon theology in this regard can easily be integrated in the future into the modern Roman Catholic often Fatima-inspired Cult of Mary, which is a heretical Collyridian exaltation of the Mother of God. ''Mary'' in Mormon theology can easily be identified with their ''Heavenly Mother'', and trends suggest that she can be merged into the figure of God the Holy Spirit, or the Incarnation thereof. These are future trends I see, not something I approve of at all of course, but history does record examples of heretics working together and in some cases effecting a sort of merging of beliefs, long before Ecumenism, as with Nestorians and Pelagians, Donatists and Semi-Arians.

And the irony of this is, if it is indeed irony in effect, is that the Muslims pretty much believe that the Christian Trinity is indeed composed of the Father, Son, and ''Mary''. This is of course a blasphemy and very untrue of Orthodox Christianity, but ever since the ''Filioque Procedit'' insertion into the Creed by the Popes in the 11th century, I think that this exaltation of ''Mary'' is the ultimate trajectory of that particular Trinitarian error, after all.

I think that I was a little imprecise, or that I had indeed went too far as to say that ''Mormonism'' will inherit everything that the Roman Catholic Church is or was. It is more in keeping with my general trend of thought to say that ''A Mormonism'' will BE the Roman Catholicism of the future, the culmination of changes within that Institution.

This is because as I tried to clearly say on another thread, that Western theological thinking courses along certain channels created by it's original deviation from it's parental root source of Spirituality and Religion, this in the West being the ''Filioque Procedit'' that was inserted into the Creed by the first Roman Catholic Popes of Old Rome after 1054 AD. Adherents of Mormonism, as with Protestantism, carried this into their own belief systems and went further... Firstly, but not last.

So by the time of the Spenglerian ''Second Religiousness'' in the West peaks, all these Sects will have given way to their Mother Church, in many ways ''traditional'' by then, while showing signs of the continuous doctrinal development that has been the case all along.

[annatar1914]

Bearing this in mind then (notification for @Potemkin ;

This is because as I tried to clearly say on another thread, that Western theological thinking courses along certain channels created by it's original deviation from it's parental root source of Spirituality and Religion, this in the West being the ''Filioque Procedit'' that was inserted into the Creed by the first Roman Catholic Popes of Old Rome after 1054 AD. Adherents of Mormonism, as with Protestantism, carried this into their own belief systems and went further... Firstly, but not last.

Next few posts on this thread will involve how the false view inserted into the Christian Creed influenced a false view of the Dialectic, which generated Dualism and Idealism in Western Philosophy.

[annatar1914]

As promised, my first post about how the Filioque has distorted the reality of Western Civilization from it's birth, at present some preliminary remarks.

Firstly, from the ''Filioque'' article in Orthodoxwiki.org;

The filioque distorts Orthodox Triadology by making the Spirit a subordinate member of the Trinity. Traditional Triadology consists in the notion that for any given trait, it must be either common to all Persons of the Trinity or unique to one of them. Thus, Fatherhood is unique to the Father, while begottenness is unique to the Son, and procession unique to the Spirit. Godhood, however, is common to all, as is eternality, uncreatedness, and so forth. Positing that something can be shared by two Persons (i.e., being the source of the Spirit's procession) but not the other is to elevate those two Persons at the expense of the other. Thus, the balance of unity and diversity is destroyed.

That is we have differentiation of the Persons, subordinationism, a hierarchy within the Godhead which leads to the Tritheism of the Mormons on an everyday level, within every Filioquist sect whether Roman Catholic or Protestant. Or even Ditheism/Arianism, where the Son is subordinate to the Father, and the Holy Spirit doesn't exist as a Person... Leading to an exaggeration of the due respect paid to the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God.

Given the previous objection, the repercussions to the acceptance of the filioque into church life are potentially massive. Because how we relate to God is significantly affected by what we believe about him, false beliefs lead to damaging spirituality. One objection often raised about Filioquist theology is that it undermines the role of the Holy Spirit in the Church. Thus, with his role being denigrated, his traditional ministries are effaced or replaced. The Church's unity becomes dependent on an office, spirituality becomes adherence to the letter of the law rather than its spirit, sacraments come to be understood in terms of validity, and a spirit of legalism prevails.

Exactly. And with confusion in the Godhead came confusion in the perception of reality, Hierarchy, subordination, and Conflict and not Equality, Unity, and Communion, being the lens through which everyone in the West sees things. Thus was given birth the false Dialectic, based on a Triadology of Strife instead of a Triadology of underlying Unity and Resolution.

[annatar1914]

@Potemkin , and others;

Last night I couldn't sleep well, and so I watched ''Waterloo'' (1970 movie with Rod Steiger and Christopher Plummer), and I recalled where I got the phrase ''raising the black flag'' from for this thread.

Marshal Blucher is arriving with his Prussians on the field of Waterloo @ 1:50:06

''Raise high the black flags, children. No pity! No prisoners! I'll shoot any man I see with pity in him! Forward!''

Those Germans...

Sometimes the roles of Progress and Humanity and the role of Reaction and Tyranny get reversed, without any real change in the inner being of man necessary for the workings of fate and destiny. Blucher and his Prussians were who they were, Napoleon was who he was. Napoleon with his escape from Elba was trying to reverse with another mighty effort the whole course of human history which had decisively moved against him with his retreat from Moscow, and the Spanish war against the French occupiers with the aid of the Duke of Wellington. The Cause of Freedom was carried by the Tsar, the King of Prussia, the Emperor of Austria, and the Prince-Regent of England, and their forces. One cannot turn back the wheel of time, that path is the path of Death.

A tremendous irony. But not an entirely inexplicable one. Everything that is in this fallen world contains the seeds of conflict and strife, of good and of evil, progress and reaction. One plays a role for one or the other and then leaves the stage. If one does not, one is forced from the stage. Mankind had to break free of the spell of Napoleon and his military genius, and so he had to be decisively beaten on the field of battle not so much by men as by that whole web of interrelated circumstances that shows the wisdom of Divine Providence.

[annatar1914]

@Potemkin , and others;

Today I'm going to write a little about Russia and Revolution in the persons of Vladimir Lenin and Leo Tolstoy. I will do so by ''replying'' to Lenin's article on Tolstoy; ''Tolstoy as the Mirror of the Revolution'', and then carrying on with a conclusion of my own, that both men were Revolutionaries, and that both were ''Mirrors'' of the One Revolution.

Lenin writes this in 1908;

''To identify the great artist with the revolution which he has obviously failed to understand, and from which he obviously stands aloof, may at first sight seem strange and artificial. A mirror which does not reflect things correctly could hardly be called a mirror. Our revolution, however, is an extremely complicated thing. Among the mass of those who are directly making and participating in it there are many social elements which have also obviously not understood what is taking place and which also stand aloof from the real historical tasks with which the course of events has confronted them. And if we have before us a really great artist, he must have reflected in his work at least some of the essential aspects of the revolution.''

It is also true that Lenin, failing to understand the revolutionary role of Tolstoy, himself did not realize that the Revolution is much more complicated than even he saw.

The legal Russian press, though its pages teem with articles, letters and comments on Tolstoy’s eightieth birthday, is least of all interested in analysing his works from t.he standpoint of the character of the Russian revolution and its motive forces. The whole of this press is steeped to nausea in hypocrisy, hypocrisy of a double kind: official and liberal. The former is the crude hypocrisy of the venal hack who was ordered yesterday to hound Leo Tolstoy, and today to show that Tolstoy is a patriot, and to try to observe the decencies before the eyes of Europe. That the hacks of this kind have been paid for their screeds is common knowledge and they cannot deceive anybody. Much more refined and, therefore, much more pernicious and dangerous is liberal hypocrisy. To listen to the Cadet Balalaikins[1] of Rech, one would think that their sympathy for Tolstoy is of the most complete and ardent kind. Actually, their calculated declamations and pompous phrases about the “great seeker after God” are false from beginning to end, for no Russian liberal believes in Tolstoy’s God, or sympathises with Tolstoy’s criticism of the existing social order. lie associates himself with a popular name in order to increase his political capital, in order to pose as a leader of the nation-wide opposition; he seeks, with the din and thunder of claptrap, to drown the demand for a straight and clear answer to the question: what are the glaring contradictions of “Tolstoyism” due to, and what shortcomings and weaknesses of our revolution do they express?

Absolute truth from Lenin here; the hypocrisy of Liberalism then as now, and Lenin laying out his questions;

1. What are the ''contradictions'' of Tolstoyism?

2. What shortcomings and weaknesses of the Russian Revolution (1905) does It express?

The contradictions in Tolstoy’s works, views, doctrines, in his school, are indeed glaring. On the one hand, we have the great artist, the genius who has not only drawn incomparable pictures of Russian life but has made first-class contributions to world literature. On the other hand we have the landlord obsessed with Christ. On the one hand, the remark ably powerful, forthright and sincere protest against social falsehood and hypocrisy; and on the other, the “Tolstoyan”, i.e., the jaded, hysterical sniveller called the Russian intellectual, who publicly beats his breast and wails: “I am a bad wicked man, but I am practising moral self-perfection; I don’t eat meat any more, I now eat rice cutlets.” On the one hand, merciless criticism of capitalist exploitation, exposure of government outrages, the farcical courts and the state administration, and unmasking of the profound contradictions between the growth of wealth and achievements of civilisation and the growth of poverty, degradation and misery among the working masses. On the other, the crackpot preaching of submission, “resist not evil” with violence. On the one hand, the most sober realism, the tearing away of all and sundry masks; on the other, the preaching of one of the most odious things on earth, namely, religion, the striving to replace officially appointed priests by priests who will serve from moral conviction, i. e., to cultivate the most refined and, therefore, particularly disgusting clericalism. Verily:

Thou art a pauper, yet thou art abundant,
Thou art mighty, yet thou art impotent—
—Mother Russia![2]

Lenin here lauds Tolstoy for calling out the evils of Tsarist pre-revolutionary Russia, but dismisses all this talk of Christ and spiritual renewal of Russian Orthodoxy, and non-resistance to evil.

''That Tolstoy, owing to these contradictions, could not possibly understand either the working-class movement and its role in the struggle for socialism, or the Russian revolution, goes without saying. But the contradictions in Tolstoy’s views and doctrines are not accidental; they express the contradictory conditions of Russian life in the last third of the nineteenth century. The patriarchal countryside, only recently emancipated from serfdom, was literally given over to the capitalist and the tax-collector to be fleeced and plundered. The ancient foundations of peasant economy and peasant life, foundations that had really held for centuries, were broken up for scrap with extraordinary rapidity. And the contradictions in Tolstoy’s views must be appraised not from the standpoint of the present-day working-class movement and present-day socialism (such an appraisal is, of course, needed, but it is not enough), but from the standpoint of protest against advancing capitalism, against the ruining of the masses, who are being dispossessed of their land— a protest which had to arise from the patriarchal Russian countryside. Tolstoy is absurd as a prophet who has discovered new nostrums for the salvation of mankind—and therefore the foreign and Russian “Tolstoyans” who have sought to convert the weakest side of his doctrine into a dogma, are not worth speaking of. Tolstoy is great as the spokesman of the ideas and sentiments that emerged among the millions of Russian peasants at the time the bourgeois revolution was approaching in Russia. Tolstoy is original, because the sum total of his views, taken as a whole, happens to express the specific features of our revolution as a peasant bourgeois revolution. From this point of view, the contradictions in Tolstoy’s views are indeed a mirror of those contradictory conditions in which the peasantry had to play their historical part in our revolution. On the one hand, centuries of feudal oppression and decades of accelerated post-Reform pauperisation piled up mountains of hate, resentment, and desperate determination. The striving to sweep away completely the official church, the landlords and the landlord government, to destroy all the old forms and ways of landownership, to clear the land, to replace the police-class state by a community of free and equal small peasants—this striving is the keynote of every historical step the peasantry has taken in our revolution; and, undoubtedly, the message of Tolstoy’s writings conforms to this peasant striving far more than it does to abstract “Christian Anarchism”, as his “system” of views is sometimes appraised. ''

The Revolution of 1905 failed because it was a ''Peasant Bourgeoisie Revolution'' according to Lenin, in essence. And of course he's dismissive of ''Christian Anarchism''.

''On the other hand the peasantry, striving towards new ways of life, had a very crude, patriarchal, semi-religious idea of what kind of life this should be, by what struggle could liberty be won, what leaders it could have in this struggle, what was the attitude of the bourgeoisie and the bourgeois intelligentsia towards the interests of peasant revolution, why the forcible overthrow of tsarist rule was needed in order to abolish landlordism. The whole past life of the peasantry had taught it to hate the landowner and the official, but it did not, and could not, teach it where to seek an answer to all these questions. In our revolution a minor part of the peasantry really did fight, did organise to some extent for this purpose; and a very small part indeed rose up in arms to exterminate its enemies, to destroy the tsar’s servants and protectors of the landlords. Most of the peasantry wept and prayed, moralised and dreamed, wrote petitions and sent “pleaders”—quite in the vein of Leo Tolstoy I And, as always happens in such cases, the effect of this Tolstoyan abstention from politics, this Tolstoyan renunciation of politics, this lack of interest in and under standing of politics, was that only a minority followed the lead of the class-conscious revolutionary proletariat, while the majority became the prey of those unprincipled, servile, bourgeois intellectuals who under the name of Cadets hastened from a meeting of Trudoviks to Stolypin’s ante room, and begged, haggled, reconciled and promised to reconcile—until they were kicked out with a military jack- boot. Tolstoy’s ideas are a mirror of the weakness, the short comings of our peasant revolt, a reflection of the flabbiness of the patriarchal countryside and of the hidebound cowardice of the “enterprising muzhik”.''

Obviously to him there was no real Revolution with such human clay as the Russian Peasantry.

''Take the soldiers’ insurrections in 1905-06. In social composition these men who fought in our revolution were partly peasants and partly proletarians. The proletarians were in the minority; therefore the movement in the armed forces does not even approximately show the same nation-wide solidarity, the same party consciousness, as were displayed by the proletariat, which became Social-Democratic as if by the wave of a hand. Yet there is nothing more mistaken than the view that the insurrections in the armed forces failed because no officers had led them. On the contrary, the enormous progress the revolution had made since the time of the Narodnaya Volya[3] was shown precisely by the fact that the “grey herd” rose in arms against their superiors, and it was this self-dependency of theirs that so frightened the liberal landlords and the liberal officers. The common soldier fully sympathised with the peasants’ cause; his eyes lit up at the very mention of land. There was more than one case when authority in the armed forces passed to the mass of the rank and file, but determined use of this authority was hardly made at all; the soldiers wavered; after a couple of days, in some cases a few hours, after killing some hated officer, they released the others who had been arrested, parleyed with the authorities and then faced the firing squad, or bared their backs for the birch, or put on the yoke again— quite in the vein of Leo Tolstoy!

Tolstoy reflected the pent-up hatred, the ripened striving for a better lot, the desire to get rid of the past—and also the immature dreaming, the political inexperience, the revolutionary flabbiness. Historical and economic conditions explain both the inevitable beginning of the revolutionary struggle of the masses and their unpreparedness for the struggle, their Tolstoyan non-resistance to evil, which was a most serious cause of the defeat of the first revolutionary campaign.''

This is the crux of what Lenin is against, non-resistance to what he sees as evil.

'' It is said that beaten armies learn well. Of course, revolutionary classes can be compared with armies only in a very limited sense. The development of capitalism is hourly changing and intensifying the conditions which roused the millions of peasants—united by their hatred for the feudalist landlords and their government—for the revolutionary- democratic struggle. Among the peasantry themselves the growth of exchange, of the rule of the market and the power of money is steadily ousting old-fashioned patriarchalism and the patriarchal Tolstoyan ideology. But there is one gain from the first years of the revolution and the first reverses in mass revolutionary struggle about which there can be no doubt. It is the mortal blow struck at the former softness and flabbiness of the masses. The lines of demarcation have become more distinct. The cleavage of classes and parties has taken place. Under the hammer blows of the lessons taught by Stolypin, and with undeviating and consistent agitation by the revolutionary Social-Democrats not only the socialist proletariat but also the democratic masses of the peasantry will inevitably advance from their midst more and more steeled. fighters who will be less capable of falling into our historical sin of Tolstoyism! ''

And from Lenin, an uuncompromising unyielding call for Bolshevik Revolution.

But then in 1917, Lenin's appeal was Tolstoyan; ''Peace, Land, Bread''

So what am I trying to say? Am I a Leninist? Am I a Tolstoyan? No, and not quite, but I see what both are saying and I cannot disagree with the truths they're both revealing.

Tolstoy's Revolution was the February ''Revolution'', when the whole rotten ediface of Romanov Tsarism collapsed almost without violence, but then Prince Lvov (a Disciple of Tolstoy, btw) gave way to Kerensky... And the ''Provisional Government'' was anything but a real government, while the Soviets were an organic development from the masses, including those Peasant masses Lenin decried for their ''flabbiness''.

Who is the more profound and complete radical Revolutionary, and who is the more Utopian, Lenin or Tolstoy? This is what I will discuss, with additional musings about Russia's Westernization under the Romanovs and how Lenin's and Tolstoy's Revolution succeeded in freeing Holy Rus from total destruction during World War One.

[annatar1914]

But first, a quick statement on this news article from Interfax;

Home / Religion / > News

News

11 February 2020, 18:30
CPRF doesn't mind mentioning God in Russian constitution Moscow, February 11, Interfax - The Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF) does not mind mentioning God in the preamble to the Russian constitution, CPRF leader Gennady Zyuganov said.

At a press conference at Interfax's central office, Zyuganov answered a question about the possibility of mentioning God in the preamble to the constitution, saying, "It's an image that is in line with the main moral and spiritual values of our state." God is also mentioned in the Russian national anthem, he said.

According to Zyuganov, biblical themes have become a part of communist ideology. "When I studied the Bible, the Epistles of Paul the Apostle [...] it contains the main slogan of communism: 'He who does not work, neither shall he eat,'" Zyuganov said.

"As a matter of fact, we borrowed a lot in the Moral Code of the Builder of Communism from the Bible. And if anyone tries to say otherwise, they just have to put those documents side by side," he said.

Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia earlier put forward an initiative to include mentions of God in the Russian constitution.

Russian State Duma Committee on State Building and Legislation Chairman Pavel Krasheninnikov has opposed this initiative.

Zyuganov comments in bold for emphasis. Seems to me that I'm not an outlier out in the world at large, only in America, which itself is something of a unique society which preserves the essence of Western Faustian Man quite well...

Will there come a day when the only Christians left will be Orthodox Christians who are Socialists in their socio-economic life? Will there come a day when the only Socialists left are Orthodox Christians? And will it come to pass that the only Christians and Socialists then will be of the former Soviet Union/Russian Empire?

[Potemkin]

Seems to me that I'm not an outlier out in the world at large, only in America, which itself is something of a unique society which preserves the essence of Western Faustian Man quite well...

I agree with you about the fact that you are only an outlier in the context of modern American society, which (it seems to me) has chosen to worship Mammon rather than God. The so-called "prosperity gospel" is, in fact, a parody of Christianity, an attempt on the part of the American masses to reconcile the irreconcilable. Once that fake 'reconciliation' between Mammon and God has occurred, then there is no limit to the vulgar blasphemies which that society can commit....

Will there come a day when the only Christians left will be Orthodox Christians who are Socialists in their socio-economic life? Will there come a day when the only Socialists left are Orthodox Christians? And will it come to pass that the only Christians and Socialists then will be of the former Soviet Union/Russian Empire?

I think you are being unduly pessimistic. The truth is, after all, the truth, and will always ultimately prevail over lies and delusions. The mills of God grind slow, but they grind exceedingly fine....

[annatar1914]

@Potemkin , you said;

I agree with you about the fact that you are only an outlier in the context of modern American society, which (it seems to me) has chosen to worship Mammon rather than God. The so-called "prosperity gospel" is, in fact, a parody of Christianity, an attempt on the part of the American masses to reconcile the irreconcilable. Once that fake 'reconciliation' between Mammon and God has occurred, then there is no limit to the vulgar blasphemies which that society can commit....

Oh absolutely, one need only see something like this;

And you know these bastards are headed for the eternal fire if they don't repent.

I think you are being unduly pessimistic. The truth is, after all, the truth, and will always ultimately prevail over lies and delusions. The mills of God grind slow, but they grind exceedingly fine....

Well, perhaps I am being ''pessimistic'' in a way, but I think that when Christ returns to set up His eternal Kingdom it's going to be a bit different than what some like Jesse Duplantis and Kenneth Copeland expect . There really are a lot of good people out there, so I should be more hopeful, thanks.

On a related note, I had read the 12 principles of the Builder of Communism before, and Zyuganov's comments reminded me that they really do stem from a secularized set of beliefs that all men of Good Will follow no matter their times and other circumstances, but with Christianity at it's Foundation;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Cod ... _Communism

1. Loyalty to Communism, and love of the socialist Motherland and other socialist countries.

2.Conscious work for the good of the society: One who doesn't work, doesn't get to eat.


3.Care for the collective property, as well as the multiplying of this property.

4.High consciousness of the social responsibilities, and intolerance to the violation of the social interests.

5.Collectivism and comradery: All for one and one for all.

6.Humane relationships between human beings: One human being is a friend, a comrade and a brother to another human being.

7.Honesty, ethical cleanliness, as well as simplicity and modesty both in private and public life.

8.Mutual respect in the family, and care for the upbringing of the children.

9.Intolerance to the injustice, social parasitism, unfairness, careerism, and acquisitiveness.

10.Friendship and brotherhood with all the nations of the USSR, intolerance to all racial and national dislike.

11. Intolerance to the enemies of communism, peace and freedom of peoples of the world.

12.Brotherly solidarity to all workers of all countries and nations.

Anything a Christian could argue against, if they really examined and thought about it?

I mean, #2 there is a direct reference to St. Paul's admonition in 2nd letter to the Thessalonians chapter 3 verse 10; ''For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.''

And Zyugunov says this is the foundational principle of Communism... For Capitalists do not truly work, but yet they do receive from the labor of others.

[annatar1914]

Saving my ruminations on Lenin and Tolstoy's role in the overthrow of Tsarist Russia for later. Suffice it to say that for now, it means in my opinion Russia is slowly since 1917 AD, returning to her roots after being overwhelmed by the Western-influenced ''Pseudomorphosis '' (as Spengler would put it) of 1654-1666AD which led to the Split with the Old Believer Orthodox... And an enforced from the top Westernization of a superficial sort which created an upper class absolutely cut off from their native culture and spirituality, but alienated enough that western revolutionary forms were followed as means to transform society.

Just as important important as a whole (but definitely related) is the drama Russia and America are both involved in in the heart of what Spengler also called the Magian Civilization in contradistinction to the Faustian Civilization of the West. Every true Christian, Jew, and Muslim is drawn to this struggle which is in fact a struggle of those Civilizations, and finds their way into the heart of the Magian worldview. This is why you find Iran and Russia on one side and America and Israel on the other at this point for example, for Russia is headed away from the Faustian and towards the Magian by a re-embrace of Orthodox Christianity, and Israel/World Jewry is largely moving away from the Magian after Baruch Spinoza, interestingly in the same period (1600's) as the Russian ''Raskol'' and the adoption of Shia Islam by the Persian Safavids...

Battle on many levels is being joined, and sides will need to be taken if they already haven't been. This is Life versus Death, and Good over Evil, Light against Darkness.

[Potemkin]

Saving my ruminations on Lenin and Tolstoy's role in the overthrow of Tsarist Russia for later. Suffice it to say that for now, it means in my opinion Russia is slowly since 1917 AD, returning to her roots after being overwhelmed by the Western-influenced ''Pseudomorphosis '' (as Spengler would put it) of 1654-1666AD which led to the Split with the Old Believer Orthodox... And an enforced from the top Westernization of a superficial sort which created an upper class absolutely cut off from their native culture and spirituality, but alienated enough that western revolutionary forms were followed as means to transform society.

Just as important important as a whole (but definitely related) is the drama Russia and America are both involved in in the heart of what Spengler also called the Magian Civilization in contradistinction to the Faustian Civilization of the West. Every true Christian, Jew, and Muslim is drawn to this struggle which is in fact a struggle of those Civilizations, and finds their way into the heart of the Magian worldview. This is why you find Iran and Russia on one side and America and Israel on the other at this point for example, for Russia is headed away from the Faustian and towards the Magian by a re-embrace of Orthodox Christianity, and Israel/World Jewry is largely moving away from the Magian after Baruch Spinoza, interestingly in the same period (1600's) as the Russian ''Raskol'' and the adoption of Shia Islam by the Persian Safavids...

Battle on many levels is being joined, and sides will need to be taken if they already haven't been. This is Life versus Death, and Good over Evil, Light against Darkness.

At the time, the Jewish community excommunicated Spinoza for his numerous heresies. They were, of course, correct to do so - even the Christian authorities in Amsterdam banned his writings, which were regarded as scandalous. Yet in time, both the Jewish people and the Christians have come to implicitly accept most of his 'heresies' as being true.

[annatar1914]

At the time, the Jewish community excommunicated Spinoza for his numerous heresies. They were, of course, correct to do so - even the Christian authorities in Amsterdam banned his writings, which were regarded as scandalous. Yet in time, both the Jewish people and the Christians have come to implicitly accept most of his 'heresies' as being true.

Interesting thing about Spinoza and his alleged ''atheistic rationalism'' is that the man was more a Panentheist than anything else in my opinion, when previous researchers suspected he was an Atheist or Pantheist. ''Panentheism'' is that God is immanent within Creation but that God is well above and beyond Creation also, more like Creation is ''embedded'' within God, actually. Spinoza says some things I dislike and find untrue (but not really about Matter and Substance!) but he is the perfect and final example of a ''Magian'' man living entirely within Western/Faustian Civilization, that even his Determinism and Rationalism has Magian features;

Spinoza was a thoroughgoing determinist who held that absolutely everything that happens occurs through the operation of necessity. For him, even human behaviour is fully determined, with freedom being our capacity to know that we are determined and to understand why we act as we do. By forming more "adequate" ideas about what we do and our emotions or affections, we become the adequate cause of our effects (internal or external), which entails an increase in activity (versus passivity). This process allows us to become both more free and more like God, as Spinoza argues in the Scholium to Prop. 49, Part II. However, Spinoza also held that everything must necessarily happen the way that it does. Therefore, humans have no free will, despite strongly believing that they do. This illusionary perception of freedom stems from human consciousness, experience, and indifference to prior natural causes. Humans think they are free, but they ″dream with their eyes open″. For Spinoza, our actions are guided entirely by natural impulses. In his letter to G. H. Schuller (Letter 58), he wrote: "men are conscious of their desire and unaware of the causes by which [their desires] are determined."[97]

From the Wiki article;

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

For those who don't know him. Personally, I'm more of a Compatibilist than Spinoza in my determinism, but then that's the influence of another Magian, St. Augustine, upon me.

But after Spinoza and Sabbatai Zevi, European Jewry began that long process of simultaneous secularism and assimilation that made them as Western as any Western Gentile, if not more so.

[Donna]

From what I understand Kobe Bryant overused private helicopter services or became dependent on them somehow and this was known to his fans for several years.

[annatar1914]

From what I understand Kobe Bryant overused private helicopter services or became dependent on them somehow and this was known to his fans for several years.

But for those same people to come to believe he would die in using those private helicopter services is a bit of a stretch. And those people who made that cartoon they were no friends or fans of the man; I wouldn't claim them were I Kobe Bryant.