annatar1914 wrote:We have lives, brother. As it happens, life perhaps can lend some answers and/or greater insight of some kind in the interim, before we engage in conversation.
Thank you for your patience.
annatar1914 wrote:It seems to me even more so than when we first began this line of discussion. My recent posts are a kind of (perhaps angry) reaction to the obvious-in-hindsight propaganda with which my generation in particular was subjected to.
Our generation as well I think.
annatar1914 wrote:Well, of the Greek philosophers Plato definitely was of a mind to discern that there could be nothing disordered in the passions of the Holy, and that the Pagan mythology was therefore a scandalous lie. I think that this was even brought up by Blessed St. Augustine himself, but I can't remember where in his writings just now.
In this case what would you consider the extent to which Greek philosophers were able to discern truth and the extent to which they weren't?
annatar1914 wrote:Yes, I believe that they did, Stalin in particular. Interestingly the one who appeared to be entirely Atheist was Adolf Hitler despite some official nods to religion, although it was more about having no rival to his inordinate love of self with him.
Yes, he seemed to look down with disdain even upon efforts to reconstruct paganism, but I have seen other sources which suggest he was in fact deeply influenced by pagan and occult thinking. I think religion was just a tool for his evil ends. All of it was ultimately just a ideological tool for him.
annatar1914 wrote:Yes, I think that while we are less limited maybe than we realize in our effect on others, the best we can do is seek God's will and then faithfully follow it. St. Abraham didn't know where exactly God was leading him, nor how he would become ''the father of many nations'' at his age and barren state of his marriage. And having St. Isaac as his son, he had to trust in God even with a seemingly contrary command that might render his promise apparently impossible. But nothing is impossible with God.
Which suggests a type of futility in that we can't divert ourselves from our ultimate destiny. But yet it is assuring to know that whatever happens we all have a destiny and are walking on the road of life, we just must follow it as best as we can in line with the commandments and injunctions of the Lord.
annatar1914 wrote:This is an awesome resource that includes that;
Thank you for this!
annatar1914 wrote:Pretty incredible, isn't it, the rigid conformity of people sunk into what the world system tells them how to be, who to be?
No one is free from conformity. Everyone conforms to some social norms and values. It's just a question of what these are at any given time.
annatar1914 wrote:Bouncing from one thing to another, ''remembering nothing and forgetting nothing'', as Talleyrand once said of the Bourbons.
A lot of what people discuss is topical, most of it is fueled by what the journalists or opinion makers are saying. Even the pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine discussions are largely framed around what the opinion makers have set out for everyone to think and talk about.
annatar1914 wrote:I agree, philosophy in one sense isn't worth the time, while the real existential matters, issues of ultimate concern, are ''answered'' I think by one in a state of ''lived receptivity''.
Each man can explore such subjects to the extent he is capable, as well, because these existential questions are divorced from a man but accessible to him regardless of his intellect.
annatar1914 wrote:Absolutely right. Poverty might make some receptive, as I said before, as poverty in the pre-modern sense is totally necessary I think, a life where people don't know or have what they allegedly ''lack'', but seek what they need
Or if not poverty at least the memory of it.
annatar1914 wrote:It's a good question and a fair one, that I've tried to wrap my mind around for a long time. They were good men, as were many of those in the White movement in general, even the very best. But I think they were too beholden to their allies in the West and Japan in the eyes of the common people, and that the common fear was that a White post-bolshevik Russia would be a dismembered and dying Russia. This is a more difficult and complex issue, tied as it is with modern events today, than many people realize. Of course General Denikin and Admiral Kolchak could not see all that far either, and could not refuse help in the existential struggle. I think that it helps the Russian people to know, now that the Soviet period is over, that there was an alternative which lost then, but possibly still exists today, which was at the core of White Anti-Bolshevik resistance. We should discuss this more I believe.
I agree. They didn't seem to realise, or perhaps they did, that a lot of their allies were not sincere friends of Russia and that they had their own agenda in helping the Whites. As far as I know Denikin refused to accept Western proposals that in return for increased aid he would have to agree to the dismemberment of Russia. Some people think that the Whiets would have been Western puppets if they had won the struggle but I am not certain of this. They would never have agreed to the partitioning of Russian and this would have put them in conflict with the Germans, English, Americans Japanese sooner or later. I have heard that some scholars have put forward the theory that the Whites could have industrialised Russia successfully in time for WWII, if it had still happened in such an alternate timeline. Who knows, maybe White Russia could have extended to Berlin in an alternative mid 20th century. I can imagine Kolchak being some type of industrialising modernising dictator.
annatar1914 wrote:Yes, I like ''Danila'' a lot. Non-Russians and particularly Americans might not understand so much, but it really resonated with me, and apparently many Russians of my era.
I've never quite understood why the movie would be difficult to understand considering many American movies operate along a similar plot line and have similar types of characters. Perhaps it was because the film was slightly less polite than other such movies, and portrayed a less than savoury image of some elements in US society.
annatar1914 wrote:You're right. So much more is vitally important. Love/the Spirit/the Blood/the Land. All these things tend to die from the love of money.
Even money itself is no guarantee of a comfortable material life. Today one may have money, tomorrow he may not. We can only survive every 24 hours and plan for the future as much as we can, but even then one can never really plan for any future because fate isn't in our hands. But we can do our best.
annatar1914 wrote:I have been thinking about the notion of the State, and of Anarchy.
Anyone who reads my posts knows that I've called myself a ''Statist'', and certainly I have railed against what I call ''Anarchism''.
But there are some caveats to this. I do not think of the modern state in what I've called ''Statism'', and the ''Anarchy'' I have railed against is not the natural and organic Anarchy common to all freedom-loving mankind.
What I believe in a positive and worldly sense is in nationalism, in communitarianism/socialism, and in true anarchism. The ''State'' in this view is the Unity and Icon of the Social Love, of the striving for the Common Good, Person and Community not the Individualistic Ego separated from the aforementioned.
This is all a state needs to do, it does not need to serve any purpose other than to ensure the common good and social stablity of the entire country. Ideological readings in which an ideology attempts to do something divert from the true purpose of governance which is the social cohesion and common prosperity of the nation, both in a material and spiritual sense.
Marxism, for example, posits that the purpose of the socialist state is to establish the rule of the working class over the bourgeoisie and then from this to build socialism. This is wrong because classes should not be at war but should instead exist in harmonious relationship guided by the state. Class warfare will always lead to instability. Marxists will argue that class struggle can't be avoided but I think we can at least lessen its intensity.
Libertarianism is similarly problematic because it again projects onto the state a certain role, that is to say the defender of individual liberties. But this line of thinking doesn't take into account the fact that a state's role is muh more than protecting liberties. The state's role is to serve as a paternal caretaker for all the citizens within the borders of the country.
And of course fascism was a disaster because it wanted to turn the state into a war machine to expand the borders and engage in permanent warfare as an end in itself. Naturally this does not lend itself to stability or harmony. It was completely contrary to any sense of Christian love or gentleness and as a result led to the destruction of Europe.
There doesn't need to be a narrative or reading of a certain role and purpose of the state, but only that everyone has a roof over their head, heating, good material to listen to and see in media, and security for the people. The state must provide a safe place for the family to exist so that people can grow up in a safe environment and one that allows people to even have a family in the first place. The state must provide the conditions for man to develop his spiritual life and inner world.
If all of this requires socialism, so be it. It most certainly will. But it should not be the doctrinaire socialism that puts dogma over pragmatism in economics.
Have you read the discussion in 'Brothers Karamazov' in which they argue whether or not the church should become the state? I am reluctant to comment on this but I always lean more to the opinion that the church is too sacred to be in such close contact with worldly matters as politics. But this is a different question entirely.
Potemkin wrote:The state does not embody the social love, nor is it even a symbol of that love. It is a mechanism for maintaining a certain social order, usually at the expense of some class of people or other. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's.
Can the state not cultivate such a social love, Potemkin? I think it is possible to balance the interests of all classes and communities, one need not rule over the other. Very few countries have attempted to do this successfully. In England for example the entire social discouse is about allocation of resources and is in many ways class based. Did no one ever consider that perhaps it could be possible to balance between poor and rich?
annatar1914 wrote:Potemkin, perhaps I can refine my earlier comment somewhat. The State as such should be the embodiment of the common good, and a sword in the hand of the common people against the other political tendency which is Oligarchy.
Edit; otherwise aside from those circumstances, I think that government should be communitarian and localized as much as possible, an organic bottom-up development rather than top-down if it can be at all helped.
The ''Anarchism'' I have been most against is not the communal kind of Anarchism, so much as the individualist ''Anarchism'' which Americans call Libertarianism and which is a disguised screen for the aforementioned Oligarchy I spoke of. A classic historical example of such an Oligarchical rule would be what was the case with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of the 1600's and 1700's, to illustrate.
I've not understood why this notion of the commmon good was not the central slogan of any political force in the 20th century. Everyone developed such elaborate theories, but no one put forward 'the common good' as the main slogan or banner to form a party. All policies should have been derived from this desire for the common good, no matter how nebulous such a proposal could seem. Everyone had some Marxist tracts or drivel written by people like the fascists and it never really led to the common good, but to ulterior projects that in the end caused a lot of suffering and problems for the people they governed.