"Many ostensibly Christian allies of Russia in the West are actually motivated by the Gog v Magog prophecy and excited about the prospect of the world coming to an end because of WWIII and not out of solidarity with the Russian people."
This is a very true statement. I have had a couple conversations with people who are incredibly smart but have accepted an eschatological framework from a US-based commentary from roughly 100 years ago. This was called the Scofield Bible commentary. It proposes a Rube Goldberg theology system that makes Aquinas look simplified. Its called dispensationalism.
I read with interest some of the comments from the slavsphere on eschatology.I can't remember if it was you or Edward who listed some translations. I don't think eschatology is necessarily a spook production, but it can definitely be a tool to create purity rites and break apart coalitions.
Thank you. The more I look at the current situation, the more it resembles the two world wars (or one, with an intermezzo lull, if you prefer). In each case, but particularly the '14-'18 one, you have a closely similar situation to what you are describing here. From 1895 onwards, you had the infestation of government - primarily the British one - by the Rhodes/Milner imperialists, with the aim of destabilising Europe and picking up the pieces for a new world order. A propaganda narrative was carefully and astutely built up within the British media, which became wholly owned and directed by the Milnerites, to vilify Germany and portray it as our natural enemy, bent on challenging our empire and dominating Western Europe. Germany had for at least two centuries been our natural friends and allies, but our attitudes were transformed in the space of a dozen years, to view them with loathing. On the other hand, the notorious Triple Entente made allies of our historic opponents, France and Russia, and excluded Germany from the stability pact. At the same time, crucially, secret military agreements of mutual support in the event of German aggression were deliberately concealed even from the British Cabinet, until the die had been cast and we were plunging inexorably into war under the commitments of those assurances. The crucial weapon in creating the predicate for war was what i would call 'destructive diplomacy' - the whispering of contradictory lies and misdirections, aimed at luring both your chosen opponents and regional patsies into throwing themselves into the conflagration on the basis of wholly disingenuous encouragements from a small group of co-ordinated actors in the highest government positions, misrepresenting themselves as representing the agreed policies of that government.
That war was, notoriously, engineered, both in its inception and its otherwise inexplicable course of utter destruction through four transformative years. Not only that, but its eventual conclusion was also engineered to engender the next conflict.
I see the exact same thread now, running through the Ukraine conflict both in its inception and its conduct over the past couple of years. Infestation of power-institutions on all sides by actors co-ordinating to engender a conflict, by gross public provocations and media transformation of public attitudes, but also very likely, as you say, by entirely secret negotiations and agreements between parties. Culminating in a deliberate stand-down or inhibition of all attempts to rescue a peaceful, or at least non-conflictual, remedy for what had become an obvious movement to large-scale warfare. All intended to lure them into a futile, destructive, stale-mated and prolonged spilling of blood and treasure, as a prelude to imposing some or other new world order on an exhausted and demoralised polity and public.
'After' a conflict, media-control becomes history-control, and we may not know for some time what has been said and agreed in secret between the various blocs who are behind the current situation. However, on the basis that a leopard doesn't change its spots, we can at least make some good guesses on what has been going on. The main confusing factor for me, is to distinguish the vehicle from the driver, the elephant from the mahout. I think you're probably correct in your views, as there's plenty of evidence of the source of those ubiquitous infiltrations and infestations currently holding the power. However, I'm not even sure if it stops there, but the visibility problem becomes acute.
You make some good points on the first world war but your view misses a lot. The most glaring miss is the decision by Germany to build a large navy and explicitly challenge England's domination of the seas. In the whole 19th century, the English navy was as powerful as the next 6 or 7 navies combined. France had the second navy but the country was unstable hence England had nothing to fear from them. The construction of the German navy put a brutal end to a century of cozy rule of the seas. The decision by the Kaiser was a reasonable from Germany's point of view : the country had no access to oil, rubber, aluminium, and other resources required by the second industrial revolution; it had to import them over the ocean. Without a navy Germany would evolve into a state subordinate to England. They wanted to be truly independent, a real great power, hence the construction of a large navy to challenge England.
That made Germany and England rivals. England was allied with Prussia, not with Germany and Prussia had no naval ambitions. Once Germany was unified and decided to be a great power on land and sea, it became an enemy of England. The Rhodes/Milner party wanted a war sooner rather than later because Germany had a larger population and was experiencing huge economic growth that enabled their industrial production to overtake England's. The other English politicians were pacific because they were blind to those realities. The Irish problem was the central issue of the day around 1900. Yes, the war party was a small group that pushed England to war with Germany but the war was warranted on the objective rivalry between the great powers.
Thank you very much - I'm always open to correction by anyone who knows more about things than I do! I have only really seen this topic as a (very important) addendum to the earlier rampage across Southern Africa by Rhodes himself, and subsequently by his initial Inner Circle members, and in particular Milner. The havoc they created there was certainly done only with the partial knowledge and consent of the British government of the time, and appears to have been a (partially successful) campaign to revitalise the imperialism which had suffered significant but only partly understood reversals over the latter 19th century, particularly in India. It seems to have been conducted very much in the style of the much earlier duplicitous adventurism on the part of those who stirred up the Zulu Wars decades before.
Firstly , fuck the attention disorder retards and keep doing the in-depth long form stuff , they can go watch Jimmy Dore or some other drugged out shill/idiot. Secondly you Mr. Skywalker are the only person on this planet that I am resonating in agreement with. All my friends still believe the old "the eneny of my enemy is my friend " bullshit , right up to and including taking China , Iran and the North Koreans into their loving embrace , it is a form of madness that effects formerly sane and sensible people. The part of your rave that really struck home here was the observation that is a contest between Moscow , Kiev and Washington as to who can squeeze the most Jewreptiles into their swamp! Fantastic point made dude. The present Hamass/Izzyrael conflict only serves to highlight the situation. Now with Putin inviting Hamas to share his hearth do you think that presents a real danger for Putin , If any group have the resources to eliminate him it would be Mossad and the Russian Jewish oligarchs, me thinks it is a bit rash of him to be openly pro Hamas at this point in time , your view?
Russia just went hat in hand begging to North Korea, the Kremlin never actually wanted to be friends with them. Even if China was genuinely anti Zog West they wouldnt be able to trust Moscow because the Russian elite is pro Western. If China were seriously anti Western they would have even less reason to help Russia. The reality is that Chinas only big disagreement with the West is over Taiwan and other than that they just want stable relations with Zog. Just like with Russia.
Anyway Putin isn't openly pro Hamas, he just isn't anti Hamas to the same extent as Biden. You think he should be calling for Palestinian blood like Biden as a way to save himself?
No he definitely should not be baying for Palestininan blood , but he could have dealt with HAMAS at arms length which would have a better appearance to it. There has already been a threat of revenge on Russia from a Jew and as I said , he could be vulnerable if it he is perceived to be too far in bed with HAMAS. His alliance with Iran is already a red flag foe Israel. Whatever happens the Jewish/fiat money/capital system is firmly in place with no alternative in sight so all players are playing the same game.
Having been exposed to The Saker's and the Ancient (sub)Mariner's drivel prior to the SMO it takes a while for on-the-ground reality to dispel the aura of Russian military excellence (with attendant derived scurrilous intentions). As the fog clears, it becomes apparent that the Russian "General Staff" is riddled with corruption and perhaps has internal fiefdoms currying favor with preferred oligarchs and vying for more perks.
I have the vague impression of the generals being similar to pre-Shaka Zulu chiefs who engaged in "wars" where it was rare to suffer casualties. Honor was satisfied after much ceremonial performance and thereafter they would reminisce about their historic battles. Then Shaka introduced the delights of the Romanesque short-stabbing spear and retired the old fuddy-duddies. Russian generals give the impression that they have thrown too many empty glasses into the fireplace.
Now it seems most likely that Russia blundered into Ukraine, to settle a gang dispute as Rurik says but were out of touch (way overconfident) as well as infiltrated as the Ukies were not surprised. A good old-fashioned clusterflick.
What has happened since is consistent with factionalism, greed and incompetence. The manpower losses do make it seem that that aspect has become a feature not a bug. One really does have to wonder why WW1 tactics are employed with modern information technology.
"Many ostensibly Christian allies of Russia in the West are actually motivated by the Gog v Magog prophecy and excited about the prospect of the world coming to an end because of WWIII and not out of solidarity with the Russian people."
This is a very true statement. I have had a couple conversations with people who are incredibly smart but have accepted an eschatological framework from a US-based commentary from roughly 100 years ago. This was called the Scofield Bible commentary. It proposes a Rube Goldberg theology system that makes Aquinas look simplified. Its called dispensationalism.
I read with interest some of the comments from the slavsphere on eschatology.I can't remember if it was you or Edward who listed some translations. I don't think eschatology is necessarily a spook production, but it can definitely be a tool to create purity rites and break apart coalitions.
Thank you. The more I look at the current situation, the more it resembles the two world wars (or one, with an intermezzo lull, if you prefer). In each case, but particularly the '14-'18 one, you have a closely similar situation to what you are describing here. From 1895 onwards, you had the infestation of government - primarily the British one - by the Rhodes/Milner imperialists, with the aim of destabilising Europe and picking up the pieces for a new world order. A propaganda narrative was carefully and astutely built up within the British media, which became wholly owned and directed by the Milnerites, to vilify Germany and portray it as our natural enemy, bent on challenging our empire and dominating Western Europe. Germany had for at least two centuries been our natural friends and allies, but our attitudes were transformed in the space of a dozen years, to view them with loathing. On the other hand, the notorious Triple Entente made allies of our historic opponents, France and Russia, and excluded Germany from the stability pact. At the same time, crucially, secret military agreements of mutual support in the event of German aggression were deliberately concealed even from the British Cabinet, until the die had been cast and we were plunging inexorably into war under the commitments of those assurances. The crucial weapon in creating the predicate for war was what i would call 'destructive diplomacy' - the whispering of contradictory lies and misdirections, aimed at luring both your chosen opponents and regional patsies into throwing themselves into the conflagration on the basis of wholly disingenuous encouragements from a small group of co-ordinated actors in the highest government positions, misrepresenting themselves as representing the agreed policies of that government.
That war was, notoriously, engineered, both in its inception and its otherwise inexplicable course of utter destruction through four transformative years. Not only that, but its eventual conclusion was also engineered to engender the next conflict.
I see the exact same thread now, running through the Ukraine conflict both in its inception and its conduct over the past couple of years. Infestation of power-institutions on all sides by actors co-ordinating to engender a conflict, by gross public provocations and media transformation of public attitudes, but also very likely, as you say, by entirely secret negotiations and agreements between parties. Culminating in a deliberate stand-down or inhibition of all attempts to rescue a peaceful, or at least non-conflictual, remedy for what had become an obvious movement to large-scale warfare. All intended to lure them into a futile, destructive, stale-mated and prolonged spilling of blood and treasure, as a prelude to imposing some or other new world order on an exhausted and demoralised polity and public.
'After' a conflict, media-control becomes history-control, and we may not know for some time what has been said and agreed in secret between the various blocs who are behind the current situation. However, on the basis that a leopard doesn't change its spots, we can at least make some good guesses on what has been going on. The main confusing factor for me, is to distinguish the vehicle from the driver, the elephant from the mahout. I think you're probably correct in your views, as there's plenty of evidence of the source of those ubiquitous infiltrations and infestations currently holding the power. However, I'm not even sure if it stops there, but the visibility problem becomes acute.
Again, a very worthwhile piece, thank you.
You make some good points on the first world war but your view misses a lot. The most glaring miss is the decision by Germany to build a large navy and explicitly challenge England's domination of the seas. In the whole 19th century, the English navy was as powerful as the next 6 or 7 navies combined. France had the second navy but the country was unstable hence England had nothing to fear from them. The construction of the German navy put a brutal end to a century of cozy rule of the seas. The decision by the Kaiser was a reasonable from Germany's point of view : the country had no access to oil, rubber, aluminium, and other resources required by the second industrial revolution; it had to import them over the ocean. Without a navy Germany would evolve into a state subordinate to England. They wanted to be truly independent, a real great power, hence the construction of a large navy to challenge England.
That made Germany and England rivals. England was allied with Prussia, not with Germany and Prussia had no naval ambitions. Once Germany was unified and decided to be a great power on land and sea, it became an enemy of England. The Rhodes/Milner party wanted a war sooner rather than later because Germany had a larger population and was experiencing huge economic growth that enabled their industrial production to overtake England's. The other English politicians were pacific because they were blind to those realities. The Irish problem was the central issue of the day around 1900. Yes, the war party was a small group that pushed England to war with Germany but the war was warranted on the objective rivalry between the great powers.
Thank you very much - I'm always open to correction by anyone who knows more about things than I do! I have only really seen this topic as a (very important) addendum to the earlier rampage across Southern Africa by Rhodes himself, and subsequently by his initial Inner Circle members, and in particular Milner. The havoc they created there was certainly done only with the partial knowledge and consent of the British government of the time, and appears to have been a (partially successful) campaign to revitalise the imperialism which had suffered significant but only partly understood reversals over the latter 19th century, particularly in India. It seems to have been conducted very much in the style of the much earlier duplicitous adventurism on the part of those who stirred up the Zulu Wars decades before.
Firstly , fuck the attention disorder retards and keep doing the in-depth long form stuff , they can go watch Jimmy Dore or some other drugged out shill/idiot. Secondly you Mr. Skywalker are the only person on this planet that I am resonating in agreement with. All my friends still believe the old "the eneny of my enemy is my friend " bullshit , right up to and including taking China , Iran and the North Koreans into their loving embrace , it is a form of madness that effects formerly sane and sensible people. The part of your rave that really struck home here was the observation that is a contest between Moscow , Kiev and Washington as to who can squeeze the most Jewreptiles into their swamp! Fantastic point made dude. The present Hamass/Izzyrael conflict only serves to highlight the situation. Now with Putin inviting Hamas to share his hearth do you think that presents a real danger for Putin , If any group have the resources to eliminate him it would be Mossad and the Russian Jewish oligarchs, me thinks it is a bit rash of him to be openly pro Hamas at this point in time , your view?
Russia just went hat in hand begging to North Korea, the Kremlin never actually wanted to be friends with them. Even if China was genuinely anti Zog West they wouldnt be able to trust Moscow because the Russian elite is pro Western. If China were seriously anti Western they would have even less reason to help Russia. The reality is that Chinas only big disagreement with the West is over Taiwan and other than that they just want stable relations with Zog. Just like with Russia.
Anyway Putin isn't openly pro Hamas, he just isn't anti Hamas to the same extent as Biden. You think he should be calling for Palestinian blood like Biden as a way to save himself?
No he definitely should not be baying for Palestininan blood , but he could have dealt with HAMAS at arms length which would have a better appearance to it. There has already been a threat of revenge on Russia from a Jew and as I said , he could be vulnerable if it he is perceived to be too far in bed with HAMAS. His alliance with Iran is already a red flag foe Israel. Whatever happens the Jewish/fiat money/capital system is firmly in place with no alternative in sight so all players are playing the same game.
Having been exposed to The Saker's and the Ancient (sub)Mariner's drivel prior to the SMO it takes a while for on-the-ground reality to dispel the aura of Russian military excellence (with attendant derived scurrilous intentions). As the fog clears, it becomes apparent that the Russian "General Staff" is riddled with corruption and perhaps has internal fiefdoms currying favor with preferred oligarchs and vying for more perks.
I have the vague impression of the generals being similar to pre-Shaka Zulu chiefs who engaged in "wars" where it was rare to suffer casualties. Honor was satisfied after much ceremonial performance and thereafter they would reminisce about their historic battles. Then Shaka introduced the delights of the Romanesque short-stabbing spear and retired the old fuddy-duddies. Russian generals give the impression that they have thrown too many empty glasses into the fireplace.
Now it seems most likely that Russia blundered into Ukraine, to settle a gang dispute as Rurik says but were out of touch (way overconfident) as well as infiltrated as the Ukies were not surprised. A good old-fashioned clusterflick.
What has happened since is consistent with factionalism, greed and incompetence. The manpower losses do make it seem that that aspect has become a feature not a bug. One really does have to wonder why WW1 tactics are employed with modern information technology.
Politics and Religion have always been intertwined; the greatest trick the Enlightenment ever pulled was convincing the West that “secular” existed.
thanks for this rurik, fascinating as always.
i'm new in these parts so can't really offer much by way of commentary or insight, but curious about this bit:
'There are entire websites dedicated to unearthing the true political history of the USSA' - can you recommend a good one?
5Ders support the killing of Russians through their taxes, and offer "hope" as a form of compensation.