An Reply to Aleksandr Dugin's Open Letter, entitled "Jesus, America, Rome, Russia, Gudin, Hoss Cartwright, Crazy Talk"

Dear Aleksandr Dugin,

This is a reply to your open letter. There have been several drafts of this letter. The author does not speak hardly any Russian, or he would reply in that because you kindly wrote in English.


Previous drafts were much too long. These have been boiled it down in a way that the author hopes you find useful and not a waste of your time. The author uses a pretend person called "Gudin" as a mechanism employed for brevity and greater objectivity, as is the mechanism "the author" used.
Your letter included a brief and yet broad encapsulation of Russian history that this author would hope to have more people read in order to be familiar with it.  It seems like there is some unwarranted desperation that Russia be regarded as a "civilization"-- I'd think it certainly must be.


At any rate, you should have at least one reply. I won't join in any kind of "hate of the political elite" because hate is not a Christian thing. But the sword of truth goes this way and that, and it is power enough.


So, now here is a Story, about Mr. Gudin's Wonderful Soup:




There is a man named Gudin. He will say things like 'The essence of sausage is almost entirely meat, therefore anything employing sausage is meaty". There seems to be a misunderstanding in his way of conceiving things, such it is either 'all or nothing'.  You can use a little sausage in a soup, a big pot of it, and of course it will not make it a meaty soup. It's as if the basic assumption is, "Once you undertake to add sausage to a soup, you much add as much as possible" which is an odd way of thinking about it.




Also, he says things like, "Once a soup whose flavor is based on sausage is made, the bits and pieces in the soup will become sausage flavored to the point where a piece's entire flavor implodes". So this seems to be a misunderstanding, too, linked to the previous understanding, where one must take the whole sausage business to the extreme if one is going to dabble in it at all (this is maybe just extreme purism). That, somehow, the bits and pieces in the soup must give up their flavors and become wholly sausagelike. This is, of course, impossible. If anything, the sausage and other bits cause the broth to be flavored like a combination of the two. That I think is a true statement! At any rate...




Here, then, is the story of Mr. Gudin and his Fabulous, Awesome, Amazing Soup


So even though our friend Gudin thinks oddly, we do arrive at an understanding of the nature of soup.


I'm speaking in riddles because our friend really doesn't talk about sausage soup, but rather a very special soup that he is very fond of. He savors all of the flavors of this soup, and believes it is the best in the world. This is good he feels this way. Really, everyone should feel this way about their own favorite soup, and they probably do. In fact, the fact that they probably do makes the next thing rather implausible.




Because Gudin likes his particular soup so much, he thinks it should be the favorite soup of all his neighbors. ALL of them should pay deference to his soup, in particular because there is some historical link his soup has to a previous soup that was such an overpowering soup that it was the greatest soup of it's time. He believes that his soup is the Third such soup, which is strange because at the height of that soup's power it was a republic with a representative government, and it was only an empire when it was in it's decline.




At any rate, the other soups will not be like Gudin's soups, because each has achieved their distinction by being different.




Now another thing that is interesting that, despite the fact Gudin is so convinced about the merit of his soup, is that he sees another brash soup as aggressively "imposing" it's flavors on all the other soups. Isn't that strange? In one case, he wants his soup to basically turn the other soups into an appetizer for his soup, but he sees this brash soup as being "imposing".


It is true that the brash soup is really very brash. It is apparent even to the people involved with it, to the point where it's embarrassing. Also, some of the dominant flavors in the soup do not at all resonate well with the others. Gudin has noted this, which is a true observation. But the brashness does not invalidate the soup. Also, the other soups that go along well with the brash soup are always reminding it how brash it can be, and sometimes be very cross with that brash soup.


Soups do work together for various reasons.


Mr. Gudin has written a double digit number of books about his soup, which he finds fabulous, awesome and amazing.


So ends this brief tale.




Now here is a story about Hoss Cartright. The actor that played Hoss Cartwright on the 1960s American TV show, "Bonanza", is named "Dan Blocker".  Hoss Cartwright is a character, Dan Blocker was the real person. But most people would remember the fictional name before they'd remember the real person. You're likely familiar with this series, it ran for many many years on American TV during the Cold War, and a lot of writers who refer to American popular culture have made reference to it. Of course "Gunsmoke" is likely more famous and has the distinction of being the series that neoconservative Leo Strauss felt was one of the best, and was the sort of "law and order at the barrel of a gun" series. Bonanza was more of a moral lessons show.




It was incredibly inaccurate. Everyone had clean clothes, nobody had dirt under their fingernails, if there was a gunshot wound it never got infected because of the astringent, antisceptic healing power of liberally applied saloon whiskey and a cloth on the forehead.




Hoss Cartwright encapsulated the "salt of the earth" type of American. He was one of three Cartwright brothers, all of whom were "good guys" of course, but Hoss usually made humorous mistakes., In fact, all of the Cartwright brothers made mistakes to some extent or another, which could be as simple as being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and these were often the centerpiece of the plot.  Their father was Ben Cartwright successful rancher and all knowing father, played by iconic Lorne Greene who was as a result the most favorite Canadian actor amongst Americans ever (the vast majority of whom likely didn't know he was Canadian and many among those who must have felt betrayed once they found out). 



Here is an episode of Bonanza that you hopefully would be able to watch. If not, the story goes like this:


A visitor comes to town from the "big city", St. Louis. He wants to see how real western cowboys handle six guns. He is introduced to "the fastest in the territory", which happens to be Hoss Cartwright's younger brother, Little Joe. Just as the visitor is praising Little Joe's gun handling ability, a tall dark haired stranger shows up. He first insults the city fella, whom he calles a "dude", and then Little Joe, whose beer he very intentionally accidentally spills, eventually causing Little Joe to punch him in the face.




This of course is preamble to a showdown, and a gunfight is arranged the following morning for which the St. Louis fellow all of a sudden starts taking bets.


Of course the gambling aspect is an arrangement between the "dude" and the nasty gunfighter, who it turns out also has been holding a torch for the saloon barmaid, a recurring character.


There are several plateaus as the momentous fight is about to take place. Little Joe attempts to "make it good" with the gunslinger, who goads him only further. The black hat gunslinger and the barmaid reconcile, and as she leaves the gunman's hotel room, the "dude" pushes in, who wants to make sure that the black hat is not drinking too much to do the job, as he has been in all the previous townsone t.




After some musing on the part of the gunslinger, the shady city gambler is assured all will go as planned.




There is a scene where Hoss talks with his younger brother, and offers to go beat up the black hat. This of course will not resolve the younger man's issue, because he is still a man who has to fight his own battles, and needs to think about the situation, asking Hoss, "You can see that, can't you?".


Hoss says "Dadburn, Joe: I can see it. I can understand it. But I don't like it none."


At any rate, this is a particularly good episode. I won't tell you how it ends, but in the end everyone gets what they deserve and surprisingly nobody gets killed. Hopefully you'll be able to see it.




Finally, I'm going to leave you with some thoughts about the four horses and riders of the apocalypse.


There is the white horse and rider with a bow, which has been interpreted as meaning a "pure and just empire of organization" and Jesus, then the red horse and the sword wielding rider, which is "an empire of hate" and Satan, then the black/dark horse and the rider with scales, which is a "mercantile empire" and the war profiteer, then the pale/ashen horse, whose rider is Death followed by Hades-- this is the empire of the nonbeliever.




Which one is which and Who is who? I'll give you a clue-- it is neither Us, and neither You.




Peace,
MICHAEL

How to Use This (or any, really) Blog

When you are reading this blog, you may see a brief explanation of something and then see the phrase "here is a site that describes that" or words to that effect, right click the link and choose to open it in a new tab. This will allow you keep reading and refer to the detail later. The author will have abstracted or excerpted the content of the site enough to support what he's saying.


If you see a link labeled to the effect of "if you haven't, go here" you should just go there, because there is no use reading more until you have seen that thing.


Italics, bold, underlines or other typographical modes usually used to indicate emphasis will be used. Sometimes, an asterisk on either side of the word will be used, like *this*. Hopefully, this will occur rarely.


Inline graphics will be used, but the author feels that this will likely not occur enough to make this a visually appealing blog. Find a tumblr or flickr or Instagram site if you want that.


You are encouraged to search for things you want more information about. Highlight with right click then "copy", then paste into a search engine you like.

What This Blog is About, and Initial Post

This site is about things having to do with Christian mysticism, particularly as relates to the Revelations of John, current events, and world trends vis a vis the Bible and Christianity.


First, some notes regarding this. The posts herein are intended for thinking people as well as people who believe in Jesus. There will be things said in those posts for purposes of intellectual/philosophical/spiritual/mystical discussion that may irritate people of certain ethnicities, religions and so on.


Things will be said like this:


"There are people who say there is a 'Zionist Cabal that controls key aspects of the American economy and media.' With the exception of the terminology, I think that this is mostly a true statement. It is a Cabal of rich people who happen to have a network, and the network they have is mostly populated by people who are ethnically Jewish, but it is not the sort of thing that is exclusive to either ethnic or religiously Jewish people. It has more to do with the fact they are rich and powerful. What gets less easy to state with certainty is whether or not they attempt to apply their network to influencing public opinion. Some people seem to be rabidly convinced that they do, that in fact it is the whole reason they got into those businesses. Then again, why are those rabid people so rabid?"


If you are Jewish and this offends you, or not and it offends you, reading this blog will not inform or enlighten you.


Posts will also say things like this:


"Many Muslims are hypocrites. So are many Christians and atheists. This does not mean to equate those three belief systems, just to note that all of the practitioners of these can be as hypocritical as anyone else."


If you follow any of the religions mentioned above and are offended, then you are not intellectually advanced enough to read this blog. If you are an atheist and you don't think you have a religion, then you are not intellectually advanced enough to read this blog.


finally, things like this:


"Many African Americans were rightly enraged when the ludicrously racist things that were made public that were said by the fellow who (as of this writing) owns the LA Clippers. I was simply astounded when I heard the one audio clip where was disagreeing with his girlfriend that an utterly racist thing he had just finished saying was 'not racist', when it couldn't be any more racist. If there was a picture of the statement, it would be in the encyclopedia under 'racist'. 


Then, later, Snoop Dogg posted an Instagram video where he called this guy, whose last name is Sterling, various things including a racist, but he also included a racist slur used for white people among the things he said. Now, was Snoop Dogg being racist? I didn't feel that way, even though I'm white. However, with regards to the word he used, he was being racist. Do I think he's a racist? Not enough data. He was sounding pissed off, not at white people, but a this one white person.  But, I don't know the guy in the recording, and he was definitely sounding like a racist.


Also, was the team owner's girlfriend justified in making the recording public? Even though this was a conversation between two friends, where a higher standard of confidence is correct and required? I actually think she was, because it must have been an immense personal burden for her to hear those words, like: and 'He said this before, and I realized I'm on this jerk's side. I've got to get him to say it again while I record this because nobody will believe me otherwise'."


If you cannot parse statements like the previous, which is as close to a true opinion held by the author, and expressed the best he can, you should not read this blog, because you will not get the value of what is being said, and you will be confused and offended.  The author is not an expert writer, he tries to be clear, that was the best he could do.


Now, he will also link to other things to illustrate my thoughts. He will link to media that may have information that is useful, and other information that is worthless, blatantly incorrect, or even hateful.  The aspects of what is linked to that the author believes are useful will be indicated as clearly as he is able.


Finally, why say "the author" and not "I". That is because the blog is not about the author, but about what he thinks, believes, has learned and/or what he experiences and has experienced.


So I will get started, then.