[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.