Иоанн, Even a broken watch can sometimes tell the correct time, that doesn't mean we should prefer it. Apparently, Hegel and Marx hit upon aspects of reality, but misinterpreted it. Dark messengers often speak truths, but it's always diluted, distorted, has a misleading effect. (furthermore Andreev claimed Marx had arrived at a realization late in his life, but never committed it to posterity. Such an omission is bad sowing from a karmic pov. When one arrives at such a realization, they must transmit it, not hide it.)
Why would anyone want to hear about the truth, through unreliable narrators (i.e. historians, documentaries), when they can learn it directly from the source? (like when you talked with Alla Andreeva, in addition to reading her memoirs)
Here's what I heard from some prophecy savants on another forum. They're occupied with trying to guess the future correctly. They told me, «we try to research clairvoyantism; why does that exist? how does it work?»
Then one of them said «stumbling over the right answer is the main purpose of this forum.» The main issue with their approach is the sheer amount of time needed to hit upon the right answer. By the time they figured out how to prevent a catastrophe like a nuclear war going off or where the next big threat comes from, it'd be too late for the planet.
_____
L'Arbre qu'estoit par long temps mort seiché, / De cinq cens ans plus compte l'on tiendra,
(3:91, 94)
According to the calculation of the Providential powers, there remain 500 years of idiological confusion to go through before mankind can attain an exact conception of reality, but this can be delayed by another 500 years (i.e. Luther's ill-timed reform, premature death of Solovyov). There's a very interesting dream about the year 3000, I don't believe I've shared it with you:
https://old.reddit.com/r/Dreams/comments/vwtj9m/dreams_of_past_and_future_saw_the_end_of_the/ It sounds like there was a statue of a woman (Zventa-Sventana?) raised up in the last days, but this could also be the idolization of embodied Lilith.
Alternatively, if RM succeeds in establishing itself throughout the world, we can arrive at the Golden Age within 100 years, which would buy us about 200-300 years before the Antichrist. People and nations need time for healing (Eccl. 3). Eccl. 3:6 reveals much about how peoples give up what is fashionable and embraced a superior conception of reality. In the past, they've foisted their fictions on people, and in consequence, they're subject to the same indoctrination and cannot be convinced by arguments and freed from superstition, until the time is ripe for it.
Here's another way to look at it. The Providential powers considered at least two options:
1) letting people blindly fumble in the dark for answers until they hit upon the truth (the prevailing state of affairs ever since mankind collectively drove out daemons from their midst; according to Plato, mankind used to be shepherded by superior beings, nowadays, they are largely left to themselves, with a few hints scattered throughout the world and entrusted to a few individuals). This process could take millions of years, unnecessarily expends energy.
2) compelling people to hasten their development by having them tread the path of suffering. World wars, dictatorships, and a looming threat of the Antichrist provides more than enough stimulus for people to change themselves. It's clear to me which option was more sound: «the heavenly administration has lost patience and wants to get to work on us seriously.» (Vladimir Solovyov)
And so, the Time of Troubles snapped the people out of childhood. It gave the people a metahistorical experience, an enriching one at that...The people should have been first allowed to strengthen, the country should have been led through the crucible of satanic temptations to begin with – these were unavoidable all the same.
_____
Этого совершенно недостаточно, чтобы записывать человека в «темные», я даже испытываю недоумение.
A historic mistake of would-be reformers is that they combine two different ways of looking at things. Such was Alice A. Bailey. She came from a missionary background. Alice wrote as if she were writing for a Christian audience, not for occultists/esoterists, possibly with a view towards proselytizing. Similarly, Weishaupt was indoctrinated into jesuitism and through painstaking effort or with help from providential powers, managed to free himself from it, but it still showed itself in his demand for obedience and dictatorial approach. Annie Besant was also described similarly.
My point is that Kant did not have the chance to
fully free himself from Christianity, the latter dominates over his ethical attitude and governs his conduct with man: «only a theological one in disguise, depends in reality on the biblical Ethics.» (Schopenhauer)
Btw the following was said of August Strindberg by Carl Gustaf Uddgren:
«His battles with himself had been so consuming that, when he rose to his feet again, he was
not able to follow up the syntheses of which he had already found the indications, but rather felt the need of embracing any doctrine in order to get out of the chaos of religious brooding... It was, in so far as I am able to ascertain, in order again to liberate the artist within him that he
slipped on the cloak of Christian dogma...»
Strindberg may be classified as a poisoner of the human soul whose «outlook has coarsened and whose conscience has withered in the atmosphere of flagrant state violations of human rights». (DA)
И Кант в том же ряду, со своей теорией формирования Солнечной системы.
Granted. Ernst Haeckel wrote, «A further great advance, comprehending the entire universe, was the application of the idea of evolution to astronomy.» But Haeckel criticizes Kant for not differentiating between the reason of a Titan, of a savage, and of a child: «The root of the error is that Kant had
no idea of the natural evolution of the mind... In such adverse circumstances of mental adaptation a deep mystic trait, which had been inherited from pious parents and confirmed by the strictly religious training of his early years, was
fixed in Kant's character.»
Interesting thought. 
