[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.