[annatar1914]

@Hakeer , and @Potemkin , @Verv :

I've been thinking for some time about the Orthodox Christian theology of Sophia

https://images.app.goo.gl/er5krXEtATkiGJbD6

So I will be working on my next post for a couple days.

@Potemkin , and @Verv :

I'll circle back to this discussion later, but for now I noticed something. When I talk about shifting alliances and how fateful it will be, I'm talking about real meta historical patterns.

What reminded me:

https://x.com/CitizenFreePres/status/18 ... 3536646351

Iran is called a Russian ally. Trump has been called one too. Trump has been called an ally of Israel, and Israel is said to be antithetical to Russian interests. I believe that none of this is true.

Fascist Italy opposed Nazi Germany in Austria. Imperial Japan was an ally of Ethiopia and opposed Fascist Italys interests there. Yet all were, seemingly incongruously, allied together with Hitler as the Axis powers of WW2, to the bitter end.

World War 1, Italy turned against Germany and Austria-Hungary her Central Powers confederates, while Imperial Germany failed to maintain the Drei Kaiser Bund of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Tsarist Russia.

This is why in today's WW3, the larger patterns I see suggest to me that it would be unwise to assume that what is, will resemble what will be.

Because these alliances happen when spiritual essences coincide with geopolitical realities

[annatar1914]

@Potemkin , @Verv , @Hakeer , and others:

I wanted to state, as if I haven't before, some of my views that have made this thread, which is intensely political, something which rightly belongs in the Spirituality sub forum.

I often say or write things like: " in the beginning was the State". What I mean, whether or not it fully expresses any standard meaning of a word, is that the State which I define as the physical embodiment of the power of the Sovereign, comes from God and was part of the human condition from the start. God Himself mandates the State.

In this fallen sinful world, a private group or entity, basically a " club", which doesn't possess the Sovereignty and therefore is in a condition of lawlessness in relation to the State, time and again proves incapable of fully beating or overcoming any State no matter how weak. Only a State can destroy a State.

It's not just a matter of organization although that's probably part of it, but a matter of something within every human person which rejects on an interior ontological level being put in a condition of fighting or resisting a State and it's Sovereign power without the backing of another and/or possibly higher Sovereign power.

THIS is why groups like Hezbollah and Hamas and Ansarallah CANNOT prevail over a Nation State like Israel, or any other State for that matter, whatever their wealth or any other material considerations. The Taliban on the other hand are a State entity, they formed a State, Iran did likewise, etc ....

However because of sin, the natural human tendency is also towards trying to reach something approximating at least the Minarchism of Ayn Rand and her Objectivist followers, or even Anarcho Capitalism.

Hence the instability of the political World.

I say: " Only a State can destroy a State". What about a Revolution? A Revolution is the replacement of one Sovereign power by another. Whereas, a Rebellion is against the Sovereign power. Consider that I'm hard pressed to recall where anywhere at any time a Rebellion has ever succeeded....

So the February " Revolution" of 1917 was a Coup de Etat against the Sovereign Tsar, and the " Provisional Government" so called found itself at odds with the Soviets, where the Sovereignty legitimately resided after the Tsar fell. The October Revolution of 1917 was real Revolution not Rebellion.

How then do I interpret the events of January 7th 2020 in the United States in the aftermath of the elections there?

That was Rebellion, not a conflict between political parties and opponents, but against the Sovereign power of the US Federal Government and the exercise of that State power, even if the election had been rigged as some say this still would have been the case. And it doesn't matter how lame or chaotic or incompetent that Rebellion may or may not have been. I might also point out that a State should try not to essentially abolish itself, even if it comes down to rigging one of its own elections if it comes to that.

And Rebellion is a Sin, it is treason, and the penalty is death which the sovereign power may or may not mercifully commute down to a milder punishment:

" For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and as idolatry to refuse to obey".

Going back to rebellions It's the same though therefore on the other hand regarding organization, with the American Civil War of 1860-65, where the Rebellion was highly organized into a simulacrum of a State: " the Confederate States of America". Doesn't matter, they weren't a legitimate sovereign state because the very act of their formation was a Rebellion.

This is why too that the " Third Reich" of Nazi Germany did not prevail, because in my opinion They did not constitute a true Sovereign State but in fact had abolished it by way of the personal oath of allegiance to Adolf Hitler as German Fuhrer.

This was an exception to my rule about Rebellion, and thus deserves it's own discussion as to why it is an exception. A Usurpation of State power occurred when the head of the sovereign State power illegitimately turned over that power to a private individual and group,who had no intention of utilizing that power in a legitimate way. Nazism and Fascism are not the apotheosis of the State as some claim but it's abolition in favor of war and strife as ends unto themselves as central to the Nazi idealogy. Why Communism doesn't violate that is another discussion. How then did the Third Reich prevail against France or Poland and the Low Countries? I'll get to that: the State abolished itself in each case or totally relinquished it's sovereignty, as a State, and only a State, can do.

Usurpation is the attempted seizure of the sovereign authority outside the legitimized norms, and to move against the Usurping party is not rebellion.

[Hakeer]

@Potemkin , @Verv , @Hakeer , and others:

I wanted to state, as if I haven't before, some of my views that have made this thread, which is intensely political, something which rightly belongs in the Spirituality sub forum.

I often say or write things like: " in the beginning was the State". What I mean, whether or not it fully expresses any standard meaning of a word, is that the State which I define as the physical embodiment of the power of the Sovereign, comes from God and was part of the human condition from the start. God Himself mandates the State.

In this fallen sinful world, a private group or entity, basically a " club", which doesn't possess the Sovereignty and therefore is in a condition of lawlessness in relation to the State, time and again proves incapable of fully beating or overcoming any State no matter how weak. Only a State can destroy a State.

It's not just a matter of organization although that's probably part of it, but a matter of something within every human person which rejects on an interior ontological level being put in a condition of fighting or resisting a State and it's Sovereign power without the backing of another and/or possibly higher Sovereign power.

THIS is why groups like Hezbollah and Hamas and Ansarallah CANNOT prevail over a Nation State like Israel, or any other State for that matter, whatever their wealth or any other material considerations. The Taliban on the other hand are a State entity, they formed a State, Iran did likewise, etc ....

However because of sin, the natural human tendency is also towards trying to reach something approximating at least the Minarchism of Ayn Rand and her Objectivist followers, or even Anarcho Capitalism.

Hence the instability of the political World.

I say: " Only a State can destroy a State". What about a Revolution? A Revolution is the replacement of one Sovereign power by another. Whereas, a Rebellion is against the Sovereign power. Consider that I'm hard pressed to recall where anywhere at any time a Rebellion has ever succeeded....

So the February " Revolution" of 1917 was a Coup de Etat against the Sovereign Tsar, and the " Provisional Government" so called found itself at odds with the Soviets, where the Sovereignty legitimately resided after the Tsar fell. The October Revolution of 1917 was real Revolution not Rebellion.

How then do I interpret the events of January 7th 2020 in the United States in the aftermath of the elections there?

That was Rebellion, not a conflict between political parties and opponents, but against the Sovereign power of the US Federal Government and the exercise of that State power, even if the election had been rigged as some say this still would have been the case. And it doesn't matter how lame or chaotic or incompetent that Rebellion may or may not have been. I might also point out that a State should try not to essentially abolish itself, even if it comes down to rigging one of its own elections if it comes to that.

And Rebellion is a Sin, it is treason, and the penalty is death which the sovereign power may or may not mercifully commute down to a milder punishment:

" For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and as idolatry to refuse to obey".

Going back to rebellions It's the same though therefore on the other hand regarding organization, with the American Civil War of 1860-65, where the Rebellion was highly organized into a simulacrum of a State: " the Confederate States of America". Doesn't matter, they weren't a legitimate sovereign state because the very act of their formation was a Rebellion.

This is why too that the " Third Reich" of Nazi Germany did not prevail, because in my opinion They did not constitute a true Sovereign State but in fact had abolished it by way of the personal oath of allegiance to Adolf Hitler as German Fuhrer.

This was an exception to my rule about Rebellion, and thus deserves it's own discussion as to why it is an exception. A Usurpation of State power occurred when the head of the sovereign State power illegitimately turned over that power to a private individual and group,who had no intention of utilizing that power in a legitimate way. Nazism and Fascism are not the apotheosis of the State as some claim but it's abolition in favor of war and strife as ends unto themselves as central to the Nazi idealogy. Why Communism doesn't violate that is another discussion. How then did the Third Reich prevail against France or Poland and the Low Countries? I'll get to that: the State abolished itself in each case or totally relinquished it's sovereignty, as a State, and only a State, can do.

Usurpation is the attempted seizure of the sovereign authority outside the legitimized norms, and to move against the Usurping party is not rebellion.

Illiberal democracy...

"In the United States, the Republican Party has in recent years faced criticism that it is becoming increasingly illiberal under the leadership of former President Donald Trump.[39][40][41] According to a 2020 study by the V-Dem Institute, the Republican Party has become more illiberal and populist in the last decade with a large increase under the leadership of Donald Trump.[42][43] Trump's populist style of governance has been considered by some to be a dangerous risk to the heart of liberal democracy, as well as indifference towards traditional democratic allies and praising other "strongman rulers" in the world like Putin.[44]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illiberal ... n%20exists.

The risk of democracy is that it allows a Revolution without bloodshed and guns. Hitler did not come to power through a military coup. The Enabling Act, which destroyed what was left of functioning democracy in Germany at the time, was done legally without any military force.

Trump’s Project 2025 would likewise transform our country from democracy to autocracy through legislation and executive orders. By 2028, it would not be possible to have free and fair elections. Once an autocrat assumes power, the electoral system is high on his agenda among democratic institutions to be destroyed.

The independence of the courts from the executive branch is another. Trump has already taken a big step in that direction with the 6-3 Republican majority on the Supreme Court that on July 1, 2024 declared that he would have absolute immunity for criminal actions he takes through official actions.

Democratic governments around the world are under similar threats from far-right political movements that, if they gain control of democratic institutions, will destroy them from within.

[annatar1914]

Illiberal democracy...

"In the United States, the Republican Party has in recent years faced criticism that it is becoming increasingly illiberal under the leadership of former President Donald Trump.[39][40][41] According to a 2020 study by the V-Dem Institute, the Republican Party has become more illiberal and populist in the last decade with a large increase under the leadership of Donald Trump.[42][43] Trump's populist style of governance has been considered by some to be a dangerous risk to the heart of liberal democracy, as well as indifference towards traditional democratic allies and praising other "strongman rulers" in the world like Putin.[44]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illiberal ... n%20exists.

The risk of democracy is that it allows a Revolution without bloodshed and guns. Hitler did not come to power through a military coup. The Enabling Act, which destroyed what was left of functioning democracy in Germany at the time, was done legally without any military force.

Trump’s Project 25 would likewise transform our country from democracy to autocracy through legislation and executive orders. By 2028, it would not be possible to have free and fair elections. Once an autocrat assumes power, the electoral system is high on his agenda among democratic institutions to be destroyed.

The independence of the courts from the executive branch is another. Trump has already taken a big step in that direction with the 6-3 Republican majority on the Supreme Court that on July 1, 2024 declared that he would have absolute immunity for criminal actions he takes through official actions.

Democratic governments around the world are under similar threats from far-right political movements that, if they gain control of democratic institutions, will destroy them from within.

@Hakeer :

For a variety of reasons, I am not Liberal either, but not in the fashion people like Trump are. I definitely believe that an illiberal and even authoritarian socialist democracy is not only possible, but absolutely necessary. All Liberalism does is enable Fascism, because the essential components of Liberalism are not so much the socio political institutions as the capitalist economic ones.

As I said, the German State abolished itself and allowed a Nazi rebellion (not a revolution!) to temporarily succeed. The Enabling Act was part of the abolition, but the final nail in the coffin was the personal oath to Hitler by the military, as the military is the concentrated embodiment of the physical expression of force as the sword and shield of the sovereign power, the last bastion of the State.

Nazism among other ideologies by their very nature overthrow the State.

[Hakeer]

@Hakeer :

For a variety of reasons, I am not Liberal either, but not in the fashion people like Trump are. I definitely believe that an illiberal and even authoritarian socialist democracy is not only possible, but absolutely necessary. All Liberalism does is enable Fascism, because the essential components of Liberalism are not so much the socio political institutions as the capitalist economic ones.

As I said, the German State abolished itself and allowed a Nazi rebellion (not a revolution!) to temporarily succeed. The Enabling Act was part of the abolition, but the final nail in the coffin was the personal oath to Hitler by the military, as the military is the concentrated embodiment of the physical expression of force as the sword and shield of the sovereign power, the last bastion of the State.

Nazism among other ideologies by their very nature overthrow the State.

I could not disagree more as to the “essential component” of democracy.
The dictionary definition: “a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.”

I would add that ideally a democracy functions best when there is wide participation in elections by a well-informed electorate.

If you have an autocratic ruler essentially controlling all governing decisions and who cannot be removed from office by free and fair elections, you do not have a democracy. You have a dictatorship by one man. He may be a fascist, a capitalist, or a communist, but whatever the economy, he remains a dictator.

“The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.” Frederick Douglas. The voters in a democracy are responsible for keeping men like Trump out of power. We did it for over 248 years of capitalism, but they are always lurking and looking for opportunity. Hence, the call for vigilance.
=========

What begins as a rebellion can turn into a Revolution and produce a new State. It happened both in America and Nazi Germany. The difference is that we did it by military force, and Hitler did it legally without guns and bloodshed. The military came onboard after the dictatorship was already legally established by the Enabling Act. If Trump succeeds, it will be a similar process.

[annatar1914]

I could not disagree more as to the “essential component” of democracy.
The dictionary definition: “a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.”

I would add that ideally a democracy functions best when there is wide participation in elections by a well-informed electorate.

If you have an autocratic ruler essentially controlling all governing decisions and who cannot be removed from office by free and fair elections, you do not have a democracy. You have a dictatorship by one man. He may be a fascist, a capitalist, or a communist, but whatever the economy, he remains a dictator.

“The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.” Frederick Douglas. The voters in a democracy are responsible for keeping men like Trump out of power. We did it for over 248 years of capitalism, but they are always lurking and looking for opportunity. Hence, the call for vigilance.
=========

What begins as a rebellion can turn into a Revolution and produce a new State. It happened both in America and Nazi Germany. The difference is that we did it by military force, and Hitler did it legally without guns and bloodshed. The military came onboard after the dictatorship was already legally established by the Enabling Act. If Trump succeeds, it will be a similar process.

@Hakeer :

When the Rich vote, sure they vote like everyone else that is eligible, but also buy up the votes of many others through bribery, force, and fraud. That's a " Democracy" in name only, and you know that, don't you?

America experienced a legitimate Revolution and not a execrable Rebellion, because the British Crown withdrew it's protection from the Colonies and made war on them as if they and their inhabitants were a foreign belligerent, and signed the treaty ending the war with them as if they were an independent and therefore legitimate nation state.

Germany's government on the other hand brought in Hitler to end itself, an inherently treasonous and rebellious act considering that Hitler was more ready to seize power by ballot or bullet but was quite alright with decree as well. And what's more there was some guns and bloodshed involved, the mailed fist under a velvet glove came from a Reichswehr that was committed to a victorious renewal of the war began in 1914 but suspended that wish for a time...

Trump knows his class interests better than most. If he calls his enemies Communists and Marxists it's because he knows where things are threatening to be headed overall.

[Hakeer]

@Hakeer :

When the Rich vote, sure they vote like everyone else that is eligible, but also buy up the votes of many others through bribery, force, and fraud. That's a " Democracy" in name only, and you know that, don't you?

America experienced a legitimate Revolution and not a execrable Rebellion, because the British Crown withdrew it's protection from the Colonies and made war on them as if they and their inhabitants were a foreign belligerent, and signed the treaty ending the war with them as if they were an independent and therefore legitimate nation state.

Germany's government on the other hand brought in Hitler to end itself, an inherently treasonous and rebellious act considering that Hitler was more ready to seize power by ballot or bullet but was quite alright with decree as well. And what's more there was some guns and bloodshed involved, the mailed fist under a velvet glove came from a Reichswehr that was committed to a victorious renewal of the war began in 1914 but suspended that wish for a time...

Trump knows his class interests better than most. If he calls his enemies Communists and Marxists it's because he knows where things are threatening to be headed overall.

We have a democracy. It is far from perfect, but it is a democracy. The billionaires have their party and we have ours. We beat Trump in 2020, and hopefully again in 2024. If the billionaires ran the country, they would get rid of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, public education, practically all regulation of their corporations, and more but — MOST OF ALL — GET RID OF DEMOCRACY so they wouldn’t have to keep donating huge sums to keep Republicans in office to give them their billions in tax cuts and protect them from Democrats taking back the money!

There are plenty of people who would like us all to believe that it is hopeless to fight for democracy or pretend it no longer exists, or that all elections are “rigged” so don’t bother to vote.
========
The point I am trying to make is that Nazi Germany was not created the way fascism was created in Italy, for example, by a military coup. They got enough of their party elected to get Hitler appointed to office by the president, and he later used that position to get the Enabling Act to establish himself dictator. In the end, Nazi Germany was a State as much as Italy’s government was a State. Hitler got there working inside the government through legal process rather than overthrowing the government by military force. It is a model for Trump to follow, or Trump’s champion of illiberal democracy in Hungary.

[annatar1914]

We have a democracy. It is far from perfect, but it is a democracy. The billionaires have their party and we have ours. We beat Trump in 2020, and hopefully again in 2024. If the billionaires ran the country, they would get rid of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, public education, practically all regulation of their corporations, and more but — MOST OF ALL — GET RID OF DEMOCRACY so they wouldn’t have to keep donating huge sums to keep Republicans in office to give them their billions in tax cuts and protect them from Democrats taking back the money!

There are plenty of people who would like us all to believe that it is hopeless to fight for democracy or pretend it no longer exists, or that all elections are “rigged” so don’t bother to vote.
========
The point I am trying to make is that Nazi Germany was not created the way fascism was created in Italy, for example, by a military coup. They got enough of their party elected to get Hitler appointed to office by the president, and he later used that position to get the Enabling Act to establish himself dictator. In the end, Nazi Germany was a State as much as Italy’s government was a State. Hitler got there working inside the government through legal process rather than overthrowing the government by military force. It is a model for Trump to follow, or Trump’s champion of illiberal democracy in Hungary.

@Hakeer :

No I'm sorry, there were people in Germany who opposed Hitler and the camarilla of President Hindenburg's advisors like Von Papen, and were fully prepared to oppose Hitler, but with Von Papen's crew assuring the President that they could control Hitler, and with Hitler whispering into Hindenburg's ear about a German Bolshevik Revolution unless he was appointed Chancellor, the old man took Hitler in.

And he didn't have to, either, because the Nazis were actually losing support in the Reichstag and in the streets.

Hitler effectively abolished the German State, as Sebastian Haffner and others well documented. One of his books is a favorite for me on my historiographical reflections on the life and legacy of Hitler, makes it plain what he did:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Meaning_of_Hitler

These people grow out of a liberal society mellieu, intrepid and cruel and entirely modernist, and will not be stopped until the petri dish of toxic Western thought is done away with.

[annatar1914]

We have a democracy. It is far from perfect, but it is a democracy. The billionaires have their party and we have ours. We beat Trump in 2020, and hopefully again in 2024. If the billionaires ran the country, they would get rid of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, public education, practically all regulation of their corporations, and more but — MOST OF ALL — GET RID OF DEMOCRACY so they wouldn’t have to keep donating huge sums to keep Republicans in office to give them their billions in tax cuts and protect them from Democrats taking back the money!

There are plenty of people who would like us all to believe that it is hopeless to fight for democracy or pretend it no longer exists, or that all elections are “rigged” so don’t bother to vote.
========
The point I am trying to make is that Nazi Germany was not created the way fascism was created in Italy, for example, by a military coup. They got enough of their party elected to get Hitler appointed to office by the president, and he later used that position to get the Enabling Act to establish himself dictator. In the end, Nazi Germany was a State as much as Italy’s government was a State. Hitler got there working inside the government through legal process rather than overthrowing the government by military force. It is a model for Trump to follow, or Trump’s champion of illiberal democracy in Hungary.

@Hakeer :

No I'm sorry, there were people in Germany who opposed Hitler and the camarilla of President Hindenburg's advisors like Von Papen, and were fully prepared to oppose Hitler, but with Von Papen's crew assuring the President that they could control Hitler, and with Hitler whispering into Hindenburg's ear about a German Bolshevik Revolution unless he was appointed Chancellor, the old man took Hitler in.

And he didn't have to, either, because the Nazis were actually losing support in the Reichstag and in the streets.

Hitler effectively abolished the German State, as Sebastian Haffner and others well documented. One of his books is a favorite for me on my historiographical reflections on the life and legacy of Hitler, makes it plain what he did:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Meaning_of_Hitler

You might also like the documentary inspired by it, here's a movie review of it:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movie ... 0-4081643/

Fascism, ironically, ends the State by hypertrophic militarism and privatization of all its functions: Todt organization, the SS, IG Farben, etc....

These people grow out of a liberal society mellieu, audacious and cruel and entirely modernist, entirely bourgeois, and will not be stopped until the petri dish of toxic Western thought they feed upon is done away with.

[Hakeer]

@Hakeer :

No I'm sorry, there were people in Germany who opposed Hitler and the camarilla of President Hindenburg's advisors like Von Papen, and were fully prepared to oppose Hitler, but with Von Papen's crew assuring the President that they could control Hitler, and with Hitler whispering into Hindenburg's ear about a German Bolshevik Revolution unless he was appointed Chancellor, the old man took Hitler in.

And he didn't have to, either, because the Nazis were actually losing support in the Reichstag and in the streets.

Hitler effectively abolished the German State, as Sebastian Haffner and others well documented. One of his books is a favorite for me on my historiographical reflections on the life and legacy of Hitler, makes it plain what he did:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Meaning_of_Hitler

You might also like the documentary inspired by it, here's a movie review of it:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movie ... 0-4081643/

Fascism, ironically, ends the State by hypertrophic militarism and privatization of all its functions: Todt organization, the SS, IG Farben, etc....

These people grow out of a liberal society mellieu, audacious and cruel and entirely modernist, entirely bourgeois, and will not be stopped until the petri dish of toxic Western thought they feed upon is done away with.

Yes, Hitler abolished the State and all its democratic institutions and replaced it with a fascist dictatorship.

If you don’t want to call Nazi Germany a State, I won’t argue the point.

What I have been trying to say is that there are TWO ways for a society to transition from democracy to fascism. One is with guns and bloodshed. Didn’t Hitler try that first and went to prison? Then he succeeded by getting himself appointed to office by the president. I never said he had no political opponents at the time, but he nonetheless prevailed, and then consolidated his power through the Enabling Act. It was all done legally with military acquiescence and eventually loyalty. That is exactly what I worry about with Trump.

[annatar1914]

Yes, Hitler abolished the State and all its democratic institutions and replaced it with a fascist dictatorship.

If you don’t want to call Nazi Germany a State, I won’t argue the point.

What I have been trying to say is that there are TWO ways for a society to transition from democracy to fascism. One is with guns and bloodshed. Didn’t Hitler try that first and went to prison? Then he succeeded by getting himself appointed to office by the president. I never said he had no political opponents at the time, but he nonetheless prevailed, and then consolidated his power through the Enabling Act. It was all done legally with military acquiescence and eventually loyalty. That is exactly what I worry about with Trump.

@Hakeer :

When speaking about Trump, I am reminded of the thinker John Lukacs, and his views on Hitler in his groundbreaking " The Hitler of History" published in 1997. About it and Lukacs:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lukacs

Despite being a " Soviet" ( and not ever a Western " Left" in any case) , I am actually influenced by Lukacs, and also Owen Barfield who was important to Lukacs as well ( I came to Barfield though not by John Lukacs but instead via my reading JRR Tolkien, CS Lewis , Charles Williams and the other Inklings, of whom Barfield was the last):

Owen Barfield:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Barfield

You might have read his most important book in my opinion:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saving_the_Appearances

Although " poetic diction" is a good book too.

And no, not a follower of Rudolf Steiner, an Anthroposophist...

Anyway, I came away from thinkers like Lukacs ( who would loathe Trump!) and others highly convinced that Americanization of the world goes hand in hand with Bourgeoisie Modernity, and Populism, Nationalism, and Racism are closely linked together as well.

One might then think that my views are incongruous with my almost aristocratic elitism, but not really. Having the blood of the Rurikids, the Premyslids, the Piast, Obodrite, and of the Danish Estridson dynasties in my veins I suppose that it comes not only from my religion but a bred in sense of "Noblesse Oblige", poor or rich, if you will.

I do get your point, but mine is such that I believe that Fascism is the inevitable outcome of the vulgar and brutally stupid " massification" of Western society. I really couldn't say it any better although I tried, and I coincidentally saw this a while ago:

https://youtube.com/shorts/Bmh6bREi1ZU? ... ywqO9jZa-8

He said it much better and more succinctly. And who else is the embodiment of an Populist American " Gangsta" Oligarch but Donald Trump?

By rebellion in the streets, by ballots or by appointment, doesn't matter.

[Hakeer]

@Hakeer :

When speaking about Trump, I am reminded of the thinker John Lukacs, and his views on Hitler in his groundbreaking " The Hitler of History" published in 1997. About it and Lukacs:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lukacs

Despite being a " Soviet" ( and not ever a Western " Left" in any case) , I am actually influenced by Lukacs, and also Owen Barfield who was important to Lukacs as well ( I came to Barfield though not by John Lukacs but instead via my reading JRR Tolkien, CS Lewis , Charles Williams and the other Inklings, of whom Barfield was the last):

Owen Barfield:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Barfield

You might have read his most important book in my opinion:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saving_the_Appearances

Although " poetic diction" is a good book too.

And no, not a follower of Rudolf Steiner, an Anthroposophist...

Anyway, I came away from thinkers like Lukacs ( who would loathe Trump!) and others highly convinced that Americanization of the world goes hand in hand with Bourgeoisie Modernity, and Populism, Nationalism, and Racism are closely linked together as well.

One might then think that my views are incongruous with my almost aristocratic elitism, but not really. Having the blood of the Rurikids, the Premyslids, the Piast, Obodrite, and of the Danish Estridson dynasties in my veins I suppose that it comes not only from my religion but a bred in sense of "Noblesse Oblige", poor or rich, if you will.

I do get your point, but mine is such that I believe that Fascism is the inevitable outcome of the vulgar and brutally stupid " massification" of Western society. I really couldn't say it any better although I tried, and I coincidentally saw this a while ago:

https://youtube.com/shorts/Bmh6bREi1ZU? ... ywqO9jZa-8

He said it much better and more succinctly. And who else is the embodiment of an Populist American " Gangsta" Oligarch but Donald Trump?

By rebellion in the streets, by ballots or by appointment, doesn't matter.

I did not know of Barfield, but seems to track Kant, C.S. Peirce, phenomenologists, etc. with his own twist.

Tony Blair was a guest on Zakaria this morning. He makes an interesting point about democracy. He says the challenge to democracy is efficacy. To show the citizens that it can work to “get things done”. The autocrat comes in and says this is not working and “only I can fix this for you.” That’s an exact quote from Trump. So the political strategy of the populist is to obstruct things from getting done that benefit the populace then claim themselves as the savior. Republicans focus on blocking every damn thing a Democratic president attempts to do — even on what they claim themselves to want such as Trump ordering Johnson to block the bi-partisan immigration bill, because he wants to preserve his campaign issue about all the murders, rapists, etc. pouring into our country. Same tactic as Hitler fear-mongering about Jews, communists, etc.

[annatar1914]

I did not know of Barfield, but seems to track Kant, C.S. Peirce, phenomenologists, etc. with his own twist.

Tony Blair was a guest on Zakaria this morning. He makes an interesting point about democracy. He says the challenge to democracy is efficacy. To show the citizens that it can work to “get things done”. The autocrat comes in and says this is not working and “only I can fix this for you.” That’s an exact quote from Trump. So the political strategy of the populist is to obstruct things from getting done that benefit the populace then claim themselves as the savior. Republicans focus on blocking every damn thing a Democratic president attempts to do — even on what they claim themselves to want such as Trump ordering Johnson to block the bi-partisan immigration bill, because he wants to preserve his campaign issue about all the murders, rapists, etc. pouring into our country. Same tactic as Hitler fear-mongering about Jews, communists, etc.

I wanted to bring you in on this, @Potemkin , and @Verv

@Hakeer :

Creating a crisis that only you can solve is a definite Fascist move. But this goes deeper:

" I really support Israel, you Jews should support me in your true best interest, and to not do so will mean the doom of Israel and of the Jewish people. "

Earlier you will note my discourse on spiritual essences coinciding with geopolitical realities, so that historically all the chief bad guys try to maneuver themselves into one alliance, or else evil is by evil undone.... Satan's kingdom is not divided really, in truth.

Of course, perhaps it's the case that Zionists always try to make: Israel or the Holocaust, there the Jews can make a stand and fight.

But this is more personal to a supreme egotist, I'm sure.

And yet Jews aren't having children, they're assimilationists in the modern Western world, secularized and largely atheistic. Religion has no hold on them anymore than it does with most in the Papist assembly:

https://apnews.com/article/pope-francis ... 83de427b27

But then, Bergoglio himself is one who sets the stage, literally, for indifference when it comes to religion, and the true one:

Childless, Modernity will die but something will inherit, and least for a time.

[Hakeer]

I wanted to bring you in on this, @Potemkin , and @Verv

@Hakeer :

Creating a crisis that only you can solve is a definite Fascist move. But this goes deeper:

" I really support Israel, you Jews should support me in your true best interest, and to not do so will mean the doom of Israel and of the Jewish people. "

Earlier you will note my discourse on spiritual essences coinciding with geopolitical realities, so that historically all the chief bad guys try to maneuver themselves into one alliance, or else evil is by evil undone.... Satan's kingdom is not divided really, in truth.

Of course, perhaps it's the case that Zionists always try to make: Israel or the Holocaust, there the Jews can make a stand and fight.

But this is more personal to a supreme egotist, I'm sure.

And yet Jews aren't having children, they're assimilationists in the modern Western world, secularized and largely atheistic. Religion has no hold on them anymore than it does with most in the Papist assembly:

https://apnews.com/article/pope-francis ... 83de427b27

But then, Bergoglio himself is one who sets the stage, literally, for indifference when it comes to religion, and the true one:

Childless, Modernity will die but something will inherit, and least for a time.

I had a professional clinical psychologist tell me, “Trump is a textbook example of narcissistic personality disorder.” Anyone who doesn’t love ❤️ him and vote for him is his enemy and, as he says about Jews “ought to have their head examined.”

The Pope at age 87 is like Biden at 81. They will try to get him to resign. What he says is completely contrary to Catholic teaching and theology. Even I can remember that much about it.

[annatar1914]

I had a professional clinical psychologist tell me, “Trump is a textbook example of narcissistic personality disorder.” Anyone who doesn’t love ❤️ him and vote for him is his enemy and, as he says about Jews “ought to have their head examined.”

The Pope at age 87 is like Biden at 81. They will try to get him to resign. What he says is completely contrary to Catholic teaching and theology. Even I can remember that much about it.

@Hakeer :

There's more to it I think, far more. In keeping with recent posts theme I saw this:

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/2 ... e-00181367

Iran, the Ukraine.... Trump is pivoting as his sort do. And they to him.

I'll make some remarks shortly about the Papacy. But yeah, there will be a strategic shift back so to speak.

[annatar1914]

@Potemkin , @Verv , and @Hakeer :

Interesting and timely article from Alexander Dugin:

Nasrallah’s Death Marks Israel’s Apocalyptic Rise


01.10.2024
Alexander Dugin
The confirmed death of Hezbollah leader Sheikh Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah is a colossal blow to the entire structure of the Axis of Resistance.

The term “Resistance” is used to refer to the most radically anti-Israeli forces in the Middle East. These include, primarily, the Yemeni Houthis (the Ansar Allah movement, which controls the northern part of Yemen), the Syrian forces led by Bashar al-Assad, the Palestinian movement as a whole (primarily Hamas), and the most radical, predominantly Shia, forces in Iraq.

The Axis of Resistance developed under the significant influence of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which was its main pillar. The deceased Hassan Nasrallah, as the leader of Hezbollah, represented the vanguard of anti-Israeli resistance for the entire Islamic (primarily Shia) world. Therefore, the blows that Israel has dealt to Hezbollah in recent weeks, ultimately killing its leader, represent a powerful strike against the entire Axis of Resistance.

Taking into account the relatively recent strange helicopter crash that resulted in the death of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, who actively supported the Axis of Resistance, the picture of Israel’s attack on its regional opponents appears truly epic.

Israel, thanks to the support of the collective West and using its latest technological tools (and they have been and remain pioneers in the field of digital technologies), operates very effectively, precisely, and cohesively. And it is very difficult to imagine how one could respond to this, especially considering that many people from various countries, who are at the forefront of high-tech processes, could at any moment turn out to be Israeli citizens and, together with their codes and technologies, head to Israel.

In other words, Israel relies on a vast network of supporters, people who share the principles of political and religious Zionism in all countries of the world. This gives Israel a major advantage as a networked structure, not just a state.

It is precisely this Zionist structure that subjected the population of Gaza to mass genocide. And now it has carried out a similar terrorist attack on Lebanon, achieving the death of Hezbollah’s leader, the charismatic spiritual and political leader of the Shia vanguard of the Axis of Resistance.

Let me remind you that earlier, in January 2020, the Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, also one of the leaders of the Axis of Resistance, was similarly eliminated. But the assassination of Sheikh Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, whom Shias worldwide now consider a martyr and shahid, is truly an unprecedented event.

By acting in this manner, Israel is setting goals to create a great state. This is being done in anticipation of the coming and enthronement of the Messiah, who will subject all countries and peoples of the world to Israel (in the Christian and Muslim understanding, this figure is the false messiah, the Antichrist, or Dajjal). One can imagine what is happening now in the minds of far-right Zionists who see their successes. They can only interpret this as the nearness of the Messiah, and the current actions of Israel’s far-right government under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are seen as paving the way for his reign.

As of today, practically all obstacles to the destruction of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem have been removed. In the very near future, Israeli far-right forces, buoyed by their triumphant mood, may act on this, after which they will begin the construction of the Third Temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. The collective West supports all of this, allowing for the mass extermination of innocent people who stand in the way of “Greater Israel.” This includes attacking them using any technical means.

This is a serious matter. It is no longer just a war in the Middle East. In fact, the very existence of the Axis of Resistance is now in question. The leaders of the Shia world are bewildered, but even more confused are the Sunnis, who cannot remain silent on what has happened.

On the one hand, the Sunnis cannot side with Israel, as this would be a complete betrayal of even the most basic notions of Islamic solidarity. On the other hand, the military efficiency and harshness of Israel’s far-right Zionist policy places them in an extremely difficult position, as it is unclear how to counter Israel. Especially considering that Israel’s missiles can strike wherever they want, while the missiles and drones of its opponents are effectively intercepted by the Iron Dome missile defense system at Israel’s borders.

It is possible that Israel will now follow up with a ground invasion of Lebanon and beyond, with the aim of creating a “Greater Israel” from sea to sea. No matter how utopian or extremist the projects of Netanyahu and his even more far-right ministers, Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, may appear, they are being carried out right before our eyes.

Only a force that is comparable in strength, equipment, and determination to violate all possible laws and cross any red lines can fight such an iron enemy. And whether such a force exists, we will soon find out.

On one hand Dugin is correct about the actual facts on the ground and Israeli successes. On the other hand, it indicates a real assumption that the hoped for Eurasian alliance of the BRICS and the Islamic (defined in essence as Shia!) world is something good for countries like Russia and China and India.

Now for the eschatological angle: drawing on the teachings of the Church Fathers with a superficial reading, I can't disagree with Dugin too much. Much though is still unclear. Indeed, one is on more solid ground to believe that there is still a wide gulf between today's geopolitical realities and the End Times denouement. Saints Irenaeus and Hippolytus among others write that the Antichrist is Gentile, albeit one of Israelite heritage from the tribe of Dan. Other indications paint a more complex picture and are not without symbolic and allegorical interpretation.

I have my own personal ideas on these matters, although drawn from the works of many others in substance and involving a fair amount of historical revisionism on my part.

And, this is also how I will draw " Sofia" back into the conversation:

[Hakeer]

@Potemkin , @Verv , and @Hakeer :

Interesting and timely article from Alexander Dugin:




On one hand Dugin is correct about the actual facts on the ground and Israeli successes. On the other hand, it indicates a real assumption that the hoped for Eurasian alliance of the BRICS and the Islamic (defined in essence as Shia!) world is something good for countries like Russia and China and India.

Now for the eschatological angle: drawing on the teachings of the Church Fathers, I can't disagree with Dugin too much. Much though is still unclear.

If BRICS ever adopts an ironclad mutual defense pact like article 5 of the NATO charter, the stage is set for a world war between these two alliances, and Israel would be a small player. Today, they are the biggest fish in a small pond. There are much bigger fish in the ocean!

[annatar1914]

If BRICS ever adopts an ironclad mutual defense pact like article 5 of the NATO charter, the stage is set for a world war between these two alliances, and Israel would be a small player. Today, they are the biggest fish in a small pond. There are much bigger fish in the ocean!

@Hakeer :

I agree on the simple practical and purely material and geopolitical considerations. A Garrison State, so to speak.

[Hakeer]

@Hakeer :

I agree on the simple practical and purely material and geopolitical considerations. A Garrison State, so to speak.

I guess what I am saying is that Israel would not be very important in the big picture if it were BRICS vs. NATO in an all-out military clash. I’m not sure how that would square with your religious end of the world expectations.

[SpecialOlympian]

Little late to the party here, but OP you have to write your post in a blue color. Governments can’t read blue ink, if they print it out.

From one Freeman of the Land to another, I am giving you legal counsel. You read this so you owe me $50 now.