Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

5828re: re: whatever is going down in the Ukraine

Expand Messages
  • Robert Mason
    May 6, 2014
      I wrote:
      >>Let us try to discern what is really happening.
      . . . what is the real agenda at work here?<<
      Now, more than a week later, I am still baffled,
      maybe more so.  It gets more puzzling; I don't
      have an answer. 
      Data point:  President Obama of the USA
      recently said that the new putsch regime in the
      Ukraine is "duly elected":
      “What they cannot accept, understandably, is
      the notion that they are simply an appendage,
      an extension of Russia, and that the Kremlin has
      veto power over decisions made by a duly
      elected government in Kiev.”
      Is Obama really stupid enough to believe his
      own words, or did he make the cynical
      calculation that the lie would fly well enough
      to get him what he wants? -- This is a question
      mainly for the welfare of Obama's soul; for the
      rest of us, it hardy matters.  What matters is
      that he will do what his handlers want him to.
      For me, after years of reading and listening, it's
      a given for me that Obama, the EU, NATO, et al.
      are controlled by sinister political occultists. 
      Steiner talked about them a century ago, mostly
      in connection with the First World War.  More
      recently, Bondarev refers to this evolved (or
      devolved) power-complex as the *Atlanticists*
      or *Britannic-Americanists*, or some such.
      Putin is harder to figure (for me).  He came
      from the KGB, and he must have been initiated,
      to some extent anyway, into the power-occultism
      that was behind the KGB in the Soviet elite. 
      (Bondarev says that the Bolshevist occultism is
      Asuric, or quasi-Asuric.)
      After the so-called "collapse" of the Soviet
      state, and after the "shock therapy" of the
      Yeltsin era, Putin was maneuvered into place in
      a very suspicious way.  There were the
      murderous apartment bombings that were
      blamed on the Chechen rebels, but were more
      likely the work of the successors of the KGB. 
      Putin got credit for the more successful
      second Chechen war, and when he came into
      supreme (governmental) power, practically his
      first  act was to protect Yeltsin from
      prosecution for corruption.  (And as the
      years of power for Putin have gone on, there
      have been suspicious murders that were
      convenient for him.)
      Putin has made a big show of promoting Russian
      Orthodox Christianity, but this in itself is
      suspicious.  For years, no one could survive in
      the organization of the Russian Orthodox Church
      who was not a KGB agent, and even going back
      centuries that Church was effectively an
      instrument of Russian state power.  Given the
      demoralization of the Russian people after
      more than 70 years of Bolshevik rule, Putin
      needed some "ideology" to motivate the
      Russians and to prop up his rule.  That "prop"
      is in part the Orthodox Church; another part is
      Russian nationalism.  One perceptive observer
      put it this way:  "The tsars adhered to a
      messianic idea of Russia as the chosen people,
      and in many ways communism was a continuation
      of that idea. When Putin came back for his third
      term, he realized he had to find something
      unifying. He couldn't tap into communism, but
      he tapped into that pre-revolutionary idea of
      orthodoxy and autocracy." 
      (See <http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/putin-clamps-down-a-chilling-report-from-moscow-20140430>, worth
      reading in whole.)
      This article notes that even many of the
      Russian anti-Putin "dissidents" got some
      “pleasure” from the annexation of the Crimea. 
      They more than had their fill of "liberalism"
      under Yeltsin, and they blame the West for
      that misery and the perceived, ongoing
      "Western" campaign against Russia herself. 
      (And IMO, this perception is somewhat justified.) 
      So, Putin has a strong cynical, political motive 
      (on the domestic front anyway) for continuing
      to stoke Russian nationalism in the current
      Ukrainian crisis.
      According to Bondarev, there is in Russia an
      occult faction of "Eurasians", of which
      Aleksander Dugin is a public face.  He is a
      sometime advisor to Putin, although he has
      not always been satisfied with Putin.  Lately,
      Dugin has written a public letter to Westerners,
      urging us to stop meddling in the Ukraine.
      As I said before, a telltale sign is that Putin
      has still not yet destroyed the evil talisman of
      Lenin's body at the center of Russian state
      power.   This is a strong indicator that occult
      Bolshevism is yet powerful in Putin's Russia. 
      And then there is the occult faction of the
      Russian "Eurasians".  What really moves Putin?
      Well, it could be just plain greed, lust, and
      lust for power.  In the moral vacuum left after
      Bolshevism, these in themselves might explain
      a lot in the contemporary Russian power
      structure:  crony capitalism, gangsterism
      pure and simple.  And these gangsters need
      something to justify their rule to the Russian
      people, so there is Russian Orthdoxy, Russian
      nationalism, and the traditional Russian
      submission to strong-man rule. -- But this is
      only surface stuff. 
      Behind the obvious:  political occultism is at
      work, I presume.  The question that I still have
      is what faction has the power now:  the
      Bolshevist, Eurasian, or some other occultism?
      In Washington/Brussels there are killer crooks
      with nukes.
      In Moscow there are killer crooks with nukes.
      They face each other in the Ukraine. -- Do we
      have any reason to hope? -- We might almost
      hope, given that some of the power elite are
      restrained by the consideration that nuclear
      war might interfere with their enjoyment of
      their loot.  On the other hand, we should
      realize that people who think that crudely
      don't really pull the strings.
      Recently, Putin is said to have visited his
      "spiritual home" at the monastery of Valaam,
      presumably to get some inspiration for what
      to do about the Ukraine crisis.  (Or maybe he
      wanted to be among his fellow KGB workers
      there?)  Putin is said to have given copies of
      the books of Ivan Ilyin to his government
      ministers. -- Some part of me hopes that,
      somehow, somewhere behind all the evil,
      Putin has some faint glimmer of sincerity
      about his Christianity and/or his nationalism. 
      Maybe I'm a sucker . . . but I want to hope.
      And another part of me says:  don't be such
      a hapless sucker.
      As I write (May 6, 2014; 8;44 PM GMT), Russia
      has not yet invaded the Ukraine.  Why wouldn't
      have Putin ordered the invasion of the Ukraine
      by now?  I had thought that he would already
      have done that; he surely has had provocation
      -- and this provocation has been instigated
      from the top (or the public face of the top)
      in the West; e.g.  "IMF head Christine Lagarde
      said that the global body would ‘check
      regularly’ to see if Ukraine was keeping up
      with its commitments on which the loan deal is
      dependent. One of those commitments includes
      a vow to use military forces to repel Russian
      influence in the east of the country." 
      Why hasn't Putin taken the bait yet?  Maybe
      cold calculation is at work; maybe the
      US/EU/NATO side knows of some Russian
      weakness that is not readily apparent? --
      Or maybe, just maybe, Putin really doesn't
      want to see more bloodshed; maybe he really
      has the better interests of the Russian
      people at heart . . . in some little corner of
      his KGB-influenced heart? -- Or maybe his
      heart is thoroughly rotten, or maybe he is
      weak and indecisive, or . . . whatever.  I
      wish I knew.
      Maybe; maybe; I dunno.  There are so many
      *ifs*, and I have touched on only a few of
      them.  You can google around and find much
      more talk about all this (too much really),
      but I still haven't seen any real answers.
      Gemma Laming wrote:
      >>. . . . the dark brotherhoods are dealing with
      a power that is openly deceiving them as much
      as they are deceiving us! When these
      brotherhoods call on their saviour, their saviour
      may simpy [sic] turn around and tell them to get
      Robert writes:
      Yes, "the lie is different at every level", and
      the deepness of the dupedness is different at
      every level.  At the lower levels the baddies
      might want only loot, sex, and power -- at
      somewhat higher levels they might want
      "Ahrimanic immortality", and so on.  How
      high does the dupedness go?  Some might
      say, "If Ahriman were really so clever, he
      would realize that he can't win, and he would
      give it all up".  And above him there is
      Sorat, and on up still higher.  Steiner tells us
      that there are even "retarded" Seraphim. --
      It's a deep Mystery, one that's over my head. 
      Maybe some spirits have knowingly taken on
      the role of "opposition" as a "sacrifice".  Or
      maybe they are so blinded by hatred that
      they don't see.  It's over my head; Steiner,
      help us.
      Brett Berrington-Smith wrote:
      >>The task of the adversarial powers is to
      completely destroy life in this world, as far
      as I can understand.<<
      Robert writes:
      As far as I understand:  Lucifer wants to take
      us into his "spiritual" world of illusion;
      Ahriman wants to preserve the material world,
      but without free, human Egos; the Asuras want
      pure destruction.  Above that; I don't know,
      and could hardly imagine.  Let's call upon
      Steiner again?
      ECC wrote:
      >>I think that Putin is a more 'enlightened'
      man . . . . It's a Reverse Double Bluff. . . .
      It is also a distraction. . . . I side with
      Putin. Putin is my boy. KGB m-----------
      getting the job done. Can't f--- with that.
      Robert writes:
      Maybe all this would go easier if I were only
      J-M quoted RS:
      >>Just as mankind dreams away the life of
      feeling, so it dreams away the impulses of
      history. If we attempt to observe the historical
      life of mankind with the concepts which are
      excellent for natural science, we cannot truly
      grasp it: we observe it only on its surface. . . .
      the historical life of mankind is influenced not
      only by the so-called living, but by the souls of
      the dead, by the spirits with whom the
      so-called dead live<<
      Robert writes:
      Yeah, "mankind" is still dreaming, dreaming
      out now in a dim consciousness the events in
      the Ukraine.  The "spirits" are really calling
      the shots.  A century ago, so Steiner tells us,
      most of the "statesmen" in Europe didn't
      really want war; they stumbled and bumbled
      into it because they were possessed in dimmed
      consciousness by Ahrimanic spirits.  (A few on
      Earth really did want war.  For instance, they
      tried to kill Rasputin; they didn't quite
      succeed then, but they did do enough damage to
      remove him from court at the critical time. 
      And some exerted occult mind control over
      the British foreign minister Edward Grey at
      the critical time.  These few were more
      knowing, but I must wonder how conscious
      they really were.  Another question I can't
      Will the "statesmen" of today be possessed by
      adversarial spirits and bumble into real war? 
      Is the occult-political "unified center" that
      Bondarev posits planning that, or something
      else.?  Does anyone know; is anyone in control?
      God is in control; the Lord of Karma is in
      charge.  All things work together for the good
      of the sincere. -- None of which implies that
      we couldn't be in for a rough ride. 
      How rough? -- I don't know, and I have yet to
      see any real answers about the specifics.  I'm
      still listening here.
      Robert Mason