Just browsing through some google searches on audio lectures by certain syngergist philosophers and the search results brought up several Arminian pages. Everyone was framed on “why I am not a Calvinist.” Fair enough, I suppose, and I have my own problems with high Calvinism, but if I were wanting to leave Calvinism, I would leave it. I wouldn’t keep bringing it up. Kind of like Atheists with God and Vegans with everything.
I wrote this article five or six years ago, but I will update it via prefatory remarks. Had Putin not intervened in Syria, Assad would have fallen and ISIS/moderate rebels (and a moderate rebel is just a jihadi who hasn’t yet uploaded his beheading video) would have butchered Christians and Shi’ites.
Globalism died in the sands of Aleppo and we have Putin to thank, praise be to Thee, O Christ!
One has to be careful with “conspiritorial” views of history. It’s not that they are wrong-headed, but that given the nature of the case there is so much information that “just can’t be known.” Theologians who stand in traditionalist schools of thought (some Catholics, some Orthodox, maybe one or two Evangelicals) usually have a better angle on conspiracy history than the average “pop news” watcher. These theologians have some training in writing, have read and interacted with numerous footnoted and scholarly peer-reviewed books, and given the nature of their reading, and reading in general, they don’t have time to watch TV (which means they miss out or ignore what Fox News says).
Yes, the above title is a reference to the Lord of the Rings, particularly the movie version of the Fellowship…The Ring didn’t expect to be found by a Hobbit. The title represents another problem with conspiracy views–the unexpected often happens, and when this does, it shatters paradigms.
While it’s a controversial thesis, it seriously cannot be gainsaid that the Anglo-American bankers, particularly the Rothschilds and Rockefellers, have orchestrated European politics for over 100 years. The Rothschilds–with their Jewish agents in Thessaloniki– were behind the Armenian genocide of 1915. Some scholarship has been done on the connection between London/New York bankers and the rise of the Bolshevieks. Unfortunately, when the Bolsheviks became too powerful, the Regime needed a counter-weight, and they found one in the person of Adolf Hitler.
Unfortunately…well, the rest is history. The West became entangled in one huge dialectic–it was social engineering at its finest. When the Nazis were able to place key individuals in the “freedom-loving West,” essentially turning America into a military-industrial complex, the only entity powerful enough to stop them was Soviet Russia. Not really a happy array of choices. This is social dialectic at its starkest.
The bankers themselves weren’t too bothered. They were able to heavily invest in Soviet infrastructure.
I suppose even the most ardent socialist saw the coming demise of the USSR. However, given that Marxism and capitalism share the same root presuppositions, and that these economic forces control the Western countries (if you doubt that, google which entity contributed both to McCain and Obama’s campaign. When you are done, get back to me…), the fall of socialism presented no real problem to these elites. In fact, given there was no strong leadership in Russia, it was now possible to siphon trillions of dollars of Russian capital back to the West via Harvard university, the Carnegie Institutes, and others. Given that Yeltsin was a dying alcoholic, and that the Russo-Jewish mafia controlled Russia, the game went on as before.
But something happened which the ring did not expect. One of Yeltsin’s last moves to was appoint Vladimir Putin as his successor. Putin was not Yeltsin. Putin had his training in the security services. Long story short, Putin marginalized the Jewish Mafia in Russia, rebuilt the military, and was able to capitalize on Russia’s nigh-infinite oil reserves. In short, he brought Russia from a Third World Country to a First World Country in fewer than ten years.
Unfortunately for the Regime, Putin is a nationalist. While his Orthodoxy is not always perfect, and he has compromised on some issues, Russia has began a slow revival under Putin (and the Moscow Patriarchate). Putin’s moves have blocked the Regime in countless ways. The most obvious is when Putin prevented an Israeli-trained Georgian army from ethnically cleansing Russian citizens in South Ossetia.
Few realize just how major this was. For the first time in ten years, NATO-inspired military interests were stopped cold. America was clearly not in a position to react. Secondly, after the debacle in Kosovo in 1999 the Russian army demonstrated it could respond to highly sophisticated threats. For Americans, this meant that the Regime would wait a little longer before sending American boys to die in Iran (some suggest that Putin’s moves in Ossetia delayed a Zionist war against Iran).
I know there are some in the extreme “white nationalist” camp who think that Putin is a Zionist stooge and Putin supporters like Daniel Estulin are simply Zionists front-men. Besides questioning their IQ, I don’t know really what to say. If Putin were really a Zionist front-man, why has he been consistently thwarting Zionist designs? Further, for those who still think Putin is a front-man for the New World Order, why did the Bilderbergers try to kill him?
Merold Westphal suggests that the three great “masters of suspicion,” Nietzsche, Marx, and Freud, are actually theologians of original sin, if seen correctly. I share the same conclusion.
I’m not as thrilled about “contemplative meditation” as this site is, but it seems reasonably well-organized.
Heidegger is notoriously difficult, but once you decode him he is easy and there is a huge payoff. The following is more or less what I did.
I did some study notes on Heidegger that some might find helpful.
a) Jamie Smith’s *Desiring the Kingdom,* despite all of Smith’s goofiness, does a good job explaining what Heidegger was about.
b) I read Heidegger’s *Basic Writings* first. The upshot is that you get a glimpse of his finest writing. The downside is you really don’t understand his project until you read Being and Time.
c) My intellectual mentor, Matthew Raphael Johnson, has a good lecture on Heidegger.
d) The world-class British orator Jonathan Bowden did an outstanding lecture on Heidegger. He places Heidegger as the counter-opposite of Satre
Merold Westphal has a good introductory lecture. Here is a course he did. The audio is awful, but you might be able to make something out of it.
So what do I think on Trump? Relative to the domestic front, outstanding. But the problem is the foreign front. Granted, he is infinitely better than a McCain or Obama or Hillary, but I am not actually pleased.
If Trump is “America First,” as am I, then we should avoid suicidal entanglements in the ME and East Asia. This is what a Bush or Hillary would do. It doesn’t seem like Trump.
Which raises another question: what if Trump really isn’t that powerful? Simply electing a new president doesn’t negate the Deep State. Of course, over time one can weaken the Deep State and I think Trump will try to do something like that.
That would explain the Soros-like actions in the Middle East and Asia and the refusal to lift sanctions on Russia.
Part 1: Orientations
tradition: ruled by principles which transcend what is merely human. Ordered from above.
Evola’s approach is a negation of the bourgeois world (Evola 4). The modern world itself is a negation of a negation. What will be the result? Chaos? Nothingness? Or perhaps a new space for flourishing?
The end of a cycle: Ride the Tiger
Doctrine of the four ages:
Golden Age –> Iron Age –> Kali Yuga.
Kali Yuga is a dark age where the forces lead to dissolution. Kali herself symbolizes “cthonic” forces. This is why Evola says we must “Ride the tiger.”
When a cycle οί civilization is reaching its end, it is difficult to achieve anything by resisting it and by directly opposing the forces ίη motion. The current is too strong; one would be overwhelmed. The essential thing is not to let oneself be impressed by the omnipotence and apparent triumph οί the forces οί the epoch…. Thus the principle to follow could be that οί letting the forces and processes οί this epoch take their own course, while keeping oneself firm and ready to intervene when “the tiger, which cannot leap οη the person riding it, is tired οί running” (10)
My friend Jay Dyer wrote this piece. Sort of mirrors my own thoughts. I don’t think Trump is a conservative and I don’t care. There is nothing inherently holy about conservatism. Trump is fighting globalism, plain and simple. Is he real or is he fake in his fight? Would you give up the billionaire playboy lifestyle to be mocked on a daily basis?
A year ago I had one friend telling me Donald Trump was going to be president (and I think Ann Coulter said this, too), and I laughed. Nothing could be more ridiculous – and on top of that, the idea that Trump might actually believe and act on his nationalism, as if he genuinely opposed globalism, I would have laughed even harder. I was wrong: succumbing to a lot of cynicism and the prevalence of the right being co-opted and bought off – most notably the worthless libertarianism of the Pauls, it seemed as if opposition at some level of power was impossible.
Then, Trump started trolling the media hardcore, with the lamestream media daily convulsing over his “racism,” “Hitlerianism,” and any other nonsensical pejorative, at the same time as they all, with one accord, proclaimed each week his “meltdown” and “downfall.” A week later, a month…
View original post 2,815 more words
There is a thread on
gnosticboard Puritanboard about Wilson’s non-repentance. I just gave them the facts based on over a decade of interaction with the Wilsonistas/CREC. I then started quoting police documents, eyewitness testimony, etc. I said “hide ya womens” because they might get married off to child rapists and pedophiles.
I got a warning saying my post was deleted because it “scoffed.”
Ultimately, it shows you that no matter how much Puritanboard might reject Wilson’s theology, at the end of the day it doesn’t matter. You only see outlaws like me and others engaging the Wilsonistas (and keeping legal documentation of it as well). If you guys can’t handle a low-energy guy like me when it comes to just giving the facts, how on earth will you stand in a real debate? I think God said something like if running with men tires you, what will you do against the horses?
This is one of those great moments where a great student follows his master (Heidegger) yet gives us a new product and not simply a repetition of his master. In short, for Gadamer language is the horizon of being. As Kant was wrong to seek a thing-in-itself, so we also should beware of a “meaning-in-itself.”
Gadamer begins and ends his work on a strange note: the aesthetics and interpretation of art. It’s not that art determines how we interpret text, but art allows Gadamer to illustrate (no pun intended) the tension given that great works of art are considered “timeless,” yet they were produced in historical, finite circumstances. This tension points to the horizon, a key Gadamerian term.
Every experience has implicit horizons of before and after and finally fuses with the continuum of experiences present in the before and after to form a unified flow of experience (246). Df. horizon = not a rigid boundary but something that moves with and invites one to advance further. Everything that is given as existent is given in terms of a world and hence brings the world horizon with it. As a horizon phenomenon “world” is essentially related to subjectivity, and this relation means also that it exists in transciency.”
Hermeneutical circle: possesses an ontological positive significance. We have already fore-projected before we even approach the text. This creates an openness which situates our meaning with other meanings. Understanding is a participation in the event of tradition and not so much a subjective act (302).
Horizons are temporally-conditioned. Time is not a gulf to be crossed by a supportive ground in which the present is rooted. We cannot stand outside of our situation. “All self-knowledge arises from what is historically pre-given, what Hegel calls “substance’” (313). Horizon: every finite present has its limitations. Every situation represents a standpoint that limits the possibility of vision. Horizons move with us. When we understand something, we fuse the horizons between text and interpreter. Fusion of horizons: We regain concepts of a historical past in such a way that it also includes our own comprehension of them (382).
This will go down as one of those truly great books. Ground-breaking works. It’s not super-hard to read simply because it is well-written. However, he does presuppose a good bit of Hegel and Heidegger, so keep that in mind.
I’m currently on a continental philosophy kick, so I will be importing posts from some of my other blogs.