Cum funcționează Diavolul

45 Responses to Cum funcționează Diavolul

  1. Sorin Săndulache says:

    Mult Adevăr! Tare!
    Un mare pas înainte!
    De ruminat!

  2. polihronu says:

    Faust, poreclit si Isus.

    „Nu ziceam noi bine ca ai drac?”
    „N-am drac, eu cinstesc pe Tatal”, reinventindu-L.

  3. Bogdan Vodita says:

    Interesant ca in toata traditia iudeo-crestina, (poate si in alte cosmogonii…) ordinea e asociata cu D-zeu iar haosul cu Diavolul…

  4. polihronu says:

    Mihai Maci oxigeneaza un pic peisajul intelectual romanesc.

  5. polihronu says:

    Si niste oxigen cu accent feminin (ba chiar feminist si, in mod sigur, diabolic).

  6. polihronu says:

    Un excelent dialog in prima jumatate a unei emisiuni tv de acum citiva ani despre prim-satanistul Romaniei. Si despre cum un Isus canonizat e un Isus emasculat.

  7. Iar in Iudaism diavolul e o metafora pentru „inclinatia rea”. Crestinismul s-a nascut din patura ne-educata a iudaismului asa cum „neo-protestantismul s-a nascut din entuziasmul religios al maselor ne-educate.” (Beni Plesa). Satanismul curent este un act de trolling la adresa stupiditatii americanului comun.

  8. Pentru ca tot suntem la subiect, Dracul si-ar fi imaginat acum trei decenii ca neo-protestantii care se plangeau de intoleranta in Romania vor ajunge sa dicteze legi teocratice si sa impuna cenzura in scoli. Generatia romanilor emigrati in Apus pentru libertate religioasa nu va trece inainte ca secularii sa inceapa sa ceara azil politic din cauza persecutiilor neo-protestante/ortodoxe. Macar intelectualul orotodox are ceva clasa dar parlamentarii astia predicatori sunt mai agramati decat activistii de odinioara.

  9. polihronu says:

    Chiar despre asta discutam cu maica-mea recent – cum ca tarcul de libertate care putea fi biserica neoprotestanta in vremea comunismului romanesc poate, iata, sa devina tarcul de iliberalism care a fost, de altfel, dintotdeauna 🙂

  10. polihronu says:

    Da, se pare ca statuia lui Rhodes (cel cu bursele internationale de la Oxford) de la Oriel College sta sa intre si ea in eclipsa. Unul dintre argumentele plicticoase ale celor care vad in demantelarea asta simbolica o tentativa de a rescrie istoria e acela al decalajului axiologic care separa valorile noastre de valorile statuilor. De parca Rhodes n-a avut contestatari si printre contemporani. Iata-l pe Mark Twain in Following the Equator:

    The great bulk of the savages must go. The white man wants their lands, and all must go excepting such percentage of them as he will need to do his work for him upon terms to be determined by himself. Since history has removed the element of guesswork from this matter and made it certainty, the humanest way of diminishing the black population should be adopted, not the old cruel ways of the past. Mr. Rhodes and his gang have been following the old ways.—They are chartered to rob and slay, and they lawfully do it, but not in a compassionate and Christian spirit. They rob the Mashonas and the Matabeles of a portion of their territories in the hallowed old style of “purchase!” for a song, and then they force a quarrel and take the rest by the strong hand. They rob the natives of their cattle under the pretext that all the cattle in the country belonged to the king whom they have tricked and assassinated. They issue “regulations” requiring the incensed and harassed natives to work for the white settlers, and neglect their own affairs to do it. This is slavery, and is several times worse than was the American slavery which used to pain England so much; for when this Rhodesian slave is sick, super-annuated, or otherwise disabled, he must support himself or starve—his master is under no obligation to support him.

    The reduction of the population by Rhodesian methods to the desired limit is a return to the old-time slow-misery and lingering-death system of a discredited time and a crude “civilization.” We humanely reduce an overplus of dogs by swift chloroform; the Boer humanely reduced an overplus of blacks by swift suffocation; the nameless but right-hearted Australian pioneer humanely reduced his overplus of aboriginal neighbors by a sweetened swift death concealed in a poisoned pudding. All these are admirable, and worthy of praise; you and I would rather suffer either of these deaths thirty times over in thirty successive days than linger out one of the Rhodesian twenty-year deaths, with its daily burden of insult, humiliation, and forced labor for a man whose entire race the victim hates. Rhodesia is a happy name for that land of piracy and pillage, and puts the right stain upon it.

    Before the middle of July we reached Cape Town, and the end of our African journeyings. And well satisfied; for, towering above us was Table Mountain—a reminder that we had now seen each and all of the great features of South Africa except Mr. Cecil Rhodes. I realize that that is a large exception. I know quite well that whether Mr. Rhodes is the lofty and worshipful patriot and statesman that multitudes believe him to be, or Satan come again, as the rest of the world account him, he is still the most imposing figure in the British empire outside of England. When he stands on the Cape of Good Hope, his shadow falls to the Zambesi. He is the only colonial in the British dominions whose goings and comings are chronicled and discussed under all the globe’s meridians, and whose speeches, unclipped, are cabled from the ends of the earth; and he is the only unroyal outsider whose arrival in London can compete for attention with an eclipse.

    That he is an extraordinary man, and not an accident of fortune, not even his dearest South African enemies were willing to deny, so far as I heard them testify. The whole South African world seemed to stand in a kind of shuddering awe of him, friend and enemy alike. It was as if he were deputy-God on the one side, deputy-Satan on the other, proprietor of the people, able to make them or ruin them by his breath, worshiped by many, hated by many, but blasphemed by none among the judicious, and even by the indiscreet in guarded whispers only.

    What is the secret of his formidable supremacy? One says it is his prodigious wealth—a wealth whose drippings in salaries and in other ways support multitudes and make them his interested and loyal vassals; another says it is his personal magnetism and his persuasive tongue, and that these hypnotize and make happy slaves of all that drift within the circle of their influence; another says it is his majestic ideas, his vast schemes for the territorial aggrandizement of England, his patriotic and unselfish ambition to spread her beneficent protection and her just rule over the pagan wastes of Africa and make luminous the African darkness with the glory of her name; and another says he wants the earth and wants it for his own, and that the belief that he will get it and let his friends in on the ground floor is the secret that rivets so many eyes upon him and keeps him in the zenith where the view is unobstructed.

    One may take his choice. They are all the same price. One fact is sure: he keeps his prominence and a vast following, no matter what he does. He “deceives” the Duke of Fife—it is the Duke’s word—but that does not destroy the Duke’s loyalty to him. He tricks the Reformers into immense trouble with his Raid, but the most of them believe he meant well. He weeps over the harshly-taxed Johannesburgers and makes them his friends; at the same time he taxes his Charter-settlers 50 per cent., and so wins their affection and their confidence that they are squelched with despair at every rumor that the Charter is to be annulled. He raids and robs and slays and enslaves the Matabele and gets worlds of Charter-Christian applause for it. He has beguiled England into buying Charter waste paper for Bank of England notes, ton for ton, and the ravished still burn incense to him as the Eventual God of Plenty. He has done everything he could think of to pull himself down to the ground; he has done more than enough to pull sixteen common-run great men down; yet there he stands, to this day, upon his dizzy summit under the dome of the sky, an apparent permanency, the marvel of the time, the mystery of the age, an Archangel with wings to half the world, Satan with a tail to the other half.

    I admire him, I frankly confess it; and when his time comes I shall buy a piece of the rope for a keepsake.

  11. polihronu says:

    Apropo, cind Twain scrie ca „Rhodesia is a happy name for that land of piracy and pillage, and puts the right stain upon it”, se refera la etimologia populara a numelui lui Rhodes care il lega de grecescul rhodon (ca in rododendron) – „trandafir” si, prin extensie, „rosu” („singeriu”, „insingerat”).

  12. Ianis says:

    Cele 9 pacate satanice ar trebui predate la Scoala de Sabat incepand de la Primii Pasi.

  13. To add insult to injury, every single movement against white supremacy has been white against white.

  14. Amaranthine Sophia says:

    Contractul nedus pana la capat al Evei cu diavolul

  15. Daniel Cucu says:

    Interesant,
    Se pare ca Abel trebuia ucis (metaforic) pentru nasterea liniei lui Tubal-Cain. Si desi intrerupta la Potop, Turnul Babel reitereaza aceeasi idee.
    Intr-o viziune strict dualista, iluminarea inghitirii posmagilor ne-muiati sau a ‘’marului’’ edenic, ramane lucrarea Diavolului. Religare devine (sau nu) Negligere.

  16. polihronu says:

    Despre cum functioneaza Duhul legii (si de ce Bolton nu-i cu nimic mai breaz decit Trump) 🙂

  17. polihronu says:

    Guatemala (America Centrala) are o problema mai veche cu Evul Mediu.

  18. Amaranthine Sophia says:

    Un an mai târziu, la 31 mai 1941 – povesteşte tot Sebas­tian reuniune la Tudor Vianu. „Lungă discuţie despre Nae Ionescu, care pentru Ralea şi Vianu nu era decât un stâlp de cafenea, un bărbier, un farsor, un «şef». M-am amuzat să le spun că pentru mine Nae Ionescu era diavolul. Ce nevoie are diavolul de „operă? Rolul lui e de a descuia porţi interzise, şi în această calitate puterea lui de convingere depăşeşte cu mult pe cea a unui biet erudit universitar.

  19. nicumohanu says:

    Edi, ca si alegorie si metafora prezentarea este excelenta. Si nu numai atit, intr-adevar pentru a studia si cunoaste lumea naturala nu ai nevoie de Dumnezeu, desi pe unii ii conduce la El pe altii nu/desigur cu nuante diferite si intermediare. Inteleg aceasta. Presupunind ca Dumnezeu si diavolul sunt fiinte reale si ca dialogul Biblic a avut loc ce alegi? Viata idilica cu limitarile de cunoastere explicate clar de Creator sau aventura cunoasterii „fara limite” propusa de diavol?
    Nu este o intrebare filozofica si nu astept un raspuns metaforic/alegoric.

  20. polihronu says:

    Nice find, AS.

    NM, presupunind ca vrei sa faci vaccinul anti-sars-cov-2, nu e clar ce ai ales?

  21. Viata idilica cu limitarile de cunoastere explicate clar de Creator sau aventura cunoasterii „fara limite” propusa de diavol?

    A doua.

  22. Pentru ca esti deschis pro-Trump, ce alegi? Absolutismul moral care darama statui si arde carti, cel putin la figurat, sau aventura vietii asa cum este? Astept un raspuns similar.

  23. nicumohanu says:

    M-ai prins!…in ceea ce priveste viata de acum! In viata mi-a placut si imi place riscul/necunoscutul. Anul trecut in Maroc era s-o patesc rau! In ceea ce priveste decizia originara nu stiu ce asi fi facut. Ceea ce nu inteleg este cum puteau primii parinti sa respinga raul cind nu
    aveau nici o intelegere a conceptului de „rau”? Poate de genul : intunericul se defineste ca „lipsa luminii”. Putin cam abstract. In retrospect mi-ar place sa cred ca a-si alege-o pe prima. Si ca sa ma refer si la cealalta postare, Da! Aventura explorarii vietii fara Dumenezeu pe multi ii va vaccina de baoala aventurii fara El. Altii refuza vacinul iar la altii nu se creaza anicorpi.

  24. polihronu says:

    „mi-a placut si imi place”
    „mi-ar place sa cred ca”

    Nu exista viata fara Dumnezeu, ci doar viata cu frica de Dumnezeu (despre care Isus ne-a invatat ca e o prostie) si viata in Dumnezeu – unde nu e frica, iar zborul pe cont propriu e incurajat.

  25. Sau, daca iau Geneza in serios, lumina se defineste in prezenta intunericului. „Primii nostrii parinti” aveau ca si noi 97 % gene de cimpanzeu + un cortex supradezvoltata si capacitate de gandire abstracta datorita celorlalte 3 %, adica cunoasterea binelui si raului. Gandirea abstracta le-a oferit posibilitatea codurilor de legi si intelegerera faptului ca fara ele se autodistrug. E periculos sa fi o specie supra-inteligenta si condusa de isntincte agresive in acelasi timp. Ca atare primii parinti au inventat binele si raul.

    Biata femela bipeda a trebuit sa nasca copii cu capul prea mare pentru pelvisul ei ingust si sa nu isi mai semnaleze perioada fertila la toti masculii din hoarda. Stiu fratii de ce li se pune pata pe fusta rosie care mimeaza semnalul de perioada fertila.

  26. In US o tranteau la pamant si ii puneau catusele sau, daca „se simteau in primejdie”, o ciuruiau. Asi spune ca ar avea dreptate. Cineva care uita de sine citind o carte este „enemy of the state”.

  27. Punctul pe „I”. In South exista o istorie revizionista polulara de genul „nu ne-am batut pentru sclavie ci pentru drepturile statelor”. Insa ce mi-a placut a fost si faptul ca vorbitorul respinge iconoclasmul anti-South. Sudul are farmecul lui pe care nu il gasesti in nord, e mai individualist, mai politicos, mai romanitc, si, last but not least, exista mai multa socializare intre negrii si albi. Artistii si scriitorii mari vin de obicei din Sud la fel ca si marii reactionari.

    In alta ordine, se pare ca majoritatea protestatarilor sunt albi (60 %). Antifa sunt albi aproape 100%. Elitele incerca sa creeze imaginea unui conflict intre doua comunitati in spatele fiecarui negru impuscat si evita sa vorbeasca despre razboiul impotriva drogurilor sau imunitatea calificata a ofiterilor de politie. De aceea BLM sunt baietii buni si primesc sume fabuloase de la corporatii, mai ales cand pot face o Hilary sau un Biden sa castige primarele impotriva unui Sanders, iar Antifa sunt „teroristi”. Ce-i drept, inca din 1930 Antifa a folosit cele mai proaste metode insa, never forget, cei care au ucis-o pe Rosa Luxemburg au fost nu nazistii ci SPD, adica bunica germana a lui Clinton, Obama, Biden. Antifa si SPD s-au vazut reciproc ca principalul dusman. Democratii si mainstream media incerca sa picteze protestele de partea naratiunii lor dar ce se intampla acum in US este fara precedent.

  28. polihronu says:

    „Give her my love.”

    She says ‘hi’ back 🙂

  29. polihronu says:

    Descoperiti asemanarile si deosebirile dintre urmatoarele doua bucati muzicale 🙂

Lasă un răspuns:

Te rog autentifică-te folosind una dintre aceste metode pentru a publica un comentariu:

Logo WordPress.com

Comentezi folosind contul tău WordPress.com. Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Fotografie Google

Comentezi folosind contul tău Google. Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Poză Twitter

Comentezi folosind contul tău Twitter. Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Fotografie Facebook

Comentezi folosind contul tău Facebook. Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Conectare la %s

Acest site folosește Akismet pentru a reduce spamul. Află cum sunt procesate datele comentariilor tale.

%d blogeri au apreciat: