Wednesday, May 17, 2017

The Line: Drawn By God

Separate But Equal: the mantra of the segregationist view of the world. Both racist and culturally depthless, it is a belief, at least in America, which is shared by such groups as the Chicago Black Panther Party, an offshoot of the LA based black power movement espousing segregation, in unison with the White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, which also historically supports this extremist view. The reason I am mentioning this example is that these are examples of "man made" lines. If you belong to one of the two groups, well then, let me ask you, how do you think the Native American people feel about your division of their continent?

There is one line, however, whose establishment is actually a political observation of natural conditions, for the two sides resemble the fold of of a Rorschach Test with a respectable vision of equality persisting equal to the amount of time that each side chooses to observe the condition of the other with respect.

This line was initially drawn by Roman Emperor Diocletian in observance of the nature of the world, as well as those whom inhabited it then, and the continuing differences in their religious views, and views of art, culture, politics, literature, and military.

The line that was drawn was not defined by imperial decree more than by an informed determination to comprehend the world and define it by the differences in such things as geography and agriculture, for example, which caused those distinctions to take the two hemispheres into separate, but equal views of life, itself. 

By the year 285 CE, Roman Emperor Diocletian was contending with the increasing urgency to establish an authoritarian exercise over the Roman world in such a way as to better defend its vast expanse eastward into the frontiers of Alexander's eastern campaigns, as well as to be able to place enough resources in the Occident, or near it, that any western approach by the newly re-emerging Persian Empire could be confronted in a more comprehensive and decisive response.

This line, he reasoned, would not divide what it meant to be Roman, which in his eyes, as well as those of his contemporaries, meant urbanization, culture, order, literacy, and art, but it would establish a permanent Romanization of the eastern mindset, which gave us the Sumerian Empire, arguably the oldest empire in history.

Rome, in Diocletian's time, was experiencing threats from within as well as without. The period of unrest had no sign of relent during a time which had seen the Emperor's personal bodyguards, the elite Praetorian Guard, engaging in enough assassination that some historians assert that the line of Caesar produced emperors, and the sword of Praetorians determined which one's madness and demagoguery would persist at any given time.

The new religious sect, Christianity, quietly checked the Roman laws of worship, which were greatly enhanced in the case of Christianity due its singular threat as a converter of viewpoints.

While most religious differences were tolerated between the conquered and the conquerors of the ancient world, this resistance to the Roman character, which Christianity represented, was significant enough to see the persecution of Christianity until after the death of Diocletian in 311 CE and the rise of his successor by warfare, Constantine, whose Edict of Milan, in 313 CE, finally made Christianity the religion of the Empire.
The bust of Constantine, whose Byzantine Eastern Roman Empire wouldn't fall until 1453.

Threats routinely emerged from the east, but were evolving from the warfare of Persians, for instance, which emphasized the usage of cavalry and infantry troops combined with naval power, to the highly mobile light cavalry style of fighting which would be seen in years to come in the Hunnic peoples, and much, much later, the Khans of the Mongols. 

To understand the great age of the differences in the eastern and western mind, the history of Russia is a good and functional exercising of how these differences influenced the emergence of a new nation. The demonstration of functional differences is observable in how eastern invaders totally dominated the people of Russia until Ivan the Terrible ousted them, during a series of military campaigns between the 1540's and the 1550's.
The fascinating figure, Ivan the Terrible. The things I could write about him, his pure Eastern mind, and the Western bad translation of "formidable" to "terrible" adds to the mystique.

Until this time, the Slavic peoples simply absorbed both the Hunnic warlords, and later, the Mongolian rule, which was at times violent and particularly cruel to the Russians as it was at other times congenial.

But the Russian mind, upon the eastern side of the line, holds in its intricacies a feeling of having been suffering the effusion of Russian blood in order to insulate the western side of the line from the violent conquest of those eastern tribes whose threat to Russia was far more amplified than say, when the Khans invaded southern Austria during the 13th Century Mongolian invasion of Europe. What the Khans did manage to capture and rule was the eastern side of the line which Diocletian drew, and came to be called Byzantium, or the Byzantine Empire.

 In the case of Constantinople, however, and the greater portion of Byzantia, their emperors used bribes effectively to fend off both the Huns and the Mongols, sometimes it worked, still, other times, not so much...
The Church of Saint Sophia, an architectural wonder of the Byzantine world, fell into Muslim hands when the Ottomans laid siege, then conquered Byzantium during the reign of Constantine 12 in 1453. The New World would be discovered forty years later.

In summary, Russians see life as very hard, they tend, therefore, to find practicality as a cultural value, and view themselves as the older, more responsible sibling to the preferred west, as though the west were the prodigal son.

And this is a prime example of the differing values of those in the east and those in the west: they have had to suffer as a way of life, and it is very much an integral component of their view of the world. They suffer, while the western world is free to pursue a culture that is not subsistence-based. The west farms and feed their community, while they farmed and fed the Mongols, the Huns, the Vikings, or whomever led successful campaigns on their side of the line.

The very first Christian czars were engaged in a debate as to which of the two churches they would endorse, the pomp-based iconography- laden Western Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, or the Greek Church, also known as Eastern Orthodox Church. The two churches represented two starkly contrasting visions of the practice of venerating Christian values.

Upon visits to both Rome and also to Constantinople, capitol and center of the Byzantine world, the Russian Vladimir chose the latter due not to geography, but due to the similar sets of values and attitudes in general which predate Diocletian's edict creating the line. Vladimir, the very first Christian Czar,  made what he considered the only sane choice, and this is yet another example of how this line existed already.
Olga and Vladimir, the very first Christian rulers of Russia.

In the modern sense, these differences still remain very much intact. The eastern world, having figured prominently in the first wave of human evolution, which is the domestication of sheep and the planting of crops, held fast to these values almost entirely, throughout the Occident, which had been conquered by a series of despotic Mongol rulers. As they conquered, they were first exposed, then they were converted by those whom they conquered to the new faith in the region, Islam.

Islam had spread throughout the Occident and threatened even Byzantium. Islam appealed to the inhabitants of the area for whom forgiveness and veneration of a resurrected human seemed too cerebral, and saw the premises of law as best suited to the defense of sheep herders and farmers which were the two most prominent occupations of the Occidental inhabitants when, in 467 CE, Muhammad confirmed his new covenant by ascending into heaven.

With its eastern-centric practical observances, Islam came with something that makes it the most wicked abuse of the name of God as a potential result, because the Koran defines the differences between east and west in terms of decadence and idolatry, but also as potentially a roadblock to heaven if they are not converted, or dead. In essence, Islam valued conquest, and in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, had just been taught to conquerors, making the way for a deadly tradition of conflict between the east and the west, with Russian winter ofttimes protecting her people after Ivan the Terrible dispatched Mongol rule.

Thus Islam, uniquely in all world religions, demands the murders of non-believers, which in terms of eastern peoples and western peoples, defines their relationship as master for the east, and victim for those in the west. And this is the framework of the world view of all of Islam. There is no compromise providing tolerance for other religions. Rather than seeing this as a problem, Muslims tend to drift between carrying out these orders, or going to hell. Therefore Islam is perhaps the worst thing that ever happened to the Occident.

In modern terms, this spells out the arrogance of the current world order of Globalism. For by bringing Muslims into Europe, they have completed what their ancestors could not, a stronghold within Europe which provides a base of operations. This further illustrates the paradigm arrogance of the architects of EU for believing that their personal tolerance of Muslims shall certainly be reciprocated by the Muslims in some sort of consolidated effort to just destroy the faith of their fathers, which is also forbidden by the Koran.
The result of imposing your values upon another is clash, violence, and grief.

This is the stupidest effort ever done illustrating the more serious duplicitous motives, and or blatant ignorance, of modern Europeans. Multi-culturalism is, in reality, the biggest lie perpetrated by Europeans against other Europeans via fully-involved propaganda since the third reich, and can result in no less harm than that.

Projecting western values upon easterners, or eastern values upon westerners, is a defiance of natural order, and a violation of sanity. The kind of arrogance involved has never been seen in the earth except when this kind of arrogance attempted to juxtapose the nazi ideal upon the nations briefly falling under their occupation.

As further westward towards the United States EU arrogance approaches, the more we need to question why this idiocy has simply been tolerated by the Europeans whose compliance with EU is a total contradiction to history, and an insult to the graves of every European since Diocletian. Why, for instance, is there no attempt to both observe, and then intervene, in the processes of alienation which transgression of the line of divide is certainly bound to incur?

Meanwhile, in the US, the effort to insinuate that learning from the past is identical to the negative aspects of human endeavours has fallen-short in the importation of Muslims to these shores. However, the Muslims which already live here do so in the backdrop of the words of the Koran, which are written upon the banners of conquest from the times of the Ottomans till now, which read,
"Muslim! Who art thou to believe that thou art secured within the blessings of Allah, when thy neighbor, who is near unto thee, has not been converted? Convert him therefore by blood, of needs be, for then surely shalt thou both stand before Allah from the living to the dead."

So, as though the devil conspired, Islam fully exploits the differing values of the east and the west, and does so to the great harm of those whom refuse to capitulate to it. The lie is that these commands, which are venerated throughout the Koran, and the Muslim world, will be voluntarily suspended by each Muslim without offending their religious zeal. As throughout history, differing Muslim interpretations of the Koran, and then a rewriting of the Koran by the British resulted in the more western-friendly Wahhabism. Although the predominate view of Islam held by the Saudi Royals, whose relation to Britain in terms of education and business are simply obvious, thus convenient, it represents heresy in the eyes of many Muslims who began to question the origins of Wahhabism, and didn't like what they saw.
The book which may well result in the overthrow of the Saudi royal family. In it, British agent Hempher admits Wahhabism was an effort by British Freemasonry to subdue the parts of the Koran which firmly reassert the divisions between the east and the west.

So, the artificial attempts of 18th Century British agent Hempher, whose seminal role in the founding of Wahhabism automatically discredits it since the publication in 2001 of the memoirs recounting his working on behalf of the British, has begun a counter-movement against it. Right now, in Yemen, atrocities by Saudis against Yemeni Sunni Muslims, closely identified with the Arab Brotherhood which guided Nassir, and Hussein in Iraq, are not simply going to be murder the differences that separate them out of these people, whom the Saudis are visiting with such violence.
The quiet humanitarian crisis, no matter how often you hear about Yemen, nobody in the mainstream media will talk about it, without risking Saudi and Opec reprisals. Pray for Yemen.

Until the imposition of ReBush's ignorant and bloodthirsty exploitation of the reign of Saddam Hussein, the carefully balanced Muslim world held itself together, neither side within these internal divisions gaining nor losing.

Now, the working class of Europe is being offered like lambs to the slaughter, while Globalism and EU try, in vain, to either change other people, or more sinister in conception, dedicate a portion of the working class to population control by the religious zeal of future slaves whom have already had everything taken away, and their crisis should be resolved in the existence of Israel from whence it came, and was violently, and surreptitiously engaged.

There could be peace in the world, but first there must be a restoration of mutual respect between those whom dwell in the east and west, as well as observation of the line drawn by Diocletian so long, long ago.
But for as long as this insipid pursuit by EU of some forced vision of its values as to what events in the world truly mean, then it further goes to cement the notion that, no matter how I submit, I submit that EU, and Globalism, must be destroyed.

Thank you for not listening.

No comments:

Post a Comment

The Consequences

  What Happens When You Steal An Election? From straight out of the CIA regime-change handbook: capture the electoral process and the commun...