Иоанн,
I have been on leave from the forum and online groups for a week to enjoy a break and calm down. Since you requested I give your article a read, I've gone through your article tonight, mainly the intro and the latter half. I'll need to set aside time for the middle chapters about problem of power and communism.
As for the two chapters «Supreme Mentor or Antichrist» and «Can we avoid the era of the Antichrist?» you wanted me to pay attention to, I will address both eventually. I request you do not reply to this post right away until I have also addressed the other two chapters. It will save both of us a lot of time/energy.
_____
On
Pacifism: The only point I disagree with you on thus far has been this.
I can’t imagine a person of an ennobled image who can take a weapon and kill another person.
If the people regress into a beast-like/feral condition in both body and mind and they can no longer be reasoned with, then the only possibility of escape that remains for them is physical death, it entails liberation from a form of existence which is no longer fit for life and no longer able to continue development.
So first, sick souls (those no longer able to distinguish between what’s good and what’s harmful for them) must perish quickly. This will be accomplished by Nature by means of famine, plague, by cleansing fire and water, lastly by wars. All of this must be seen as charitable and beneficient on the part of Providential powers/Light hierarchies, it’s to prevent peoples from turning into the satanized humankind and forestall fulfillment of the Apocalypse for centuries.
The great problem at hand is, the balance between good-hearted people and criminals has been disrupted, the latter have gained power, while the former are unable to react against it; while the masses, having lost their understanding, blindly follow the stronger side. The Providential powers regard it as necessary for the demonic forces to make a resurgence, in order to stimulate the healthy elements of a community to engage them and restore a natural balance/order.
“Every country's population is divided as follows: Five percent are the smartest and best, and five percent are the most unrepentant scoundrels. Between them is a swamp of 90 percent who go where they're told.” (general Alexander Lebed, September 8, 1995)
As for future persons of an ennobled image: while it's true that they could take up the path of non-resistance and martyrdom (i.e. Old Believers, Indians), it's absurd to imagine this current generation would be ripe for it. Gandhi suggested Jews «should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs.» Gandhi's method can only be applied in a society full of saints, he's mistaken to prescribe it for everyone without taking into account their national characteristics.
It’s recounted by ancient Roman historians that the Jews threw themselves into fire when the fighting reached their Temple. The Roman soldiers were not moved by such display.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/repudiating-gandhian-pacifism-in-the-face-of-mass-murder-449885
If the Supreme Mentor emerges as an individual, it'll be necessary for him to be harsh at times. If facing a protracted war, it's permissible for him to finish it as quickly as possible, which is what Putin should have done with Ukraine. Moltke once asserted that ruthlessness is more humane, it's better to be decisive than hesitant. If Putin hadn't acted first, Ukraine war would've spilled over into a global conflagration drawing in many nations and causing billions of deaths instead of millions. Russia had other options, but the West refused to consider their side of the issue. Lenin was fond of quoting from Clausewitz who wrote «war is the continuation of the policies of peace and peace the continuation of the policies of war.»
___
This has always been considered a grave sin in Christianity — the commandment «thou shalt not kill» has always been an absolute commandment.
But this was the gravest mistake made by the Church. «Thou shalt not kill» would render life just as unsustainable as causing an extinction event. The intent behind that law was: you shall not kill with malicious intent, it's ultimately the motive behind killing that matters. Furthermore, such a thing was never meant to be interpreted as a commandment, this was common knowledge to all civilizations. It's for this reason that Hitler praised the decalogue, far from approving of Christian values: «Die zehn Gebote sind Ordnungsgesetze, die absolut lobenswert sind.»
Similarly, Julian the Apostate asked «what nation is there, I ask in the name of the gods, which does not think that it ought to keep the other commandments? So much so that penalties have been ordained against those who transgress them...» The point is, that there must be laws even for primitive people, no society can be maintained without laws.
Even Andreev drew attention to how some religious ascetics in Asia are unwilling to inflict any harm against bacteria (our primordial enemy), and let parasites feed on them, he clearly stated these ideas are carried to extremes! People have the right to defend themselves from parasites (of the animal kingdom) and also to exterminate them during the first eon.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21929270-300-parasitism-is-the-most-popular-lifestyle-on-earth/
I know a naturalist friend who shared me with his views on parasitism: «I think they form a role in their ecosystem that cannot be replaced. I also think they have the right to exist.» I vigorously rejected this idea. If they deny other beings the right of existence, then they have forfeited the right for themselves. «He who does not value life does not deserve it.» (Da Vinci)
As for human societies, while there are
no races that can be regarded as parasitic, there's still predatory groups (exploiters) and there's an overproduction of drones (mediocrities) in every nation, useless for life and not being able to contribute to society. They must be induced to voluntarily work towards one worthy cause.
“Only what humans do voluntarily, not under compulsion, is of value.” (DA)
___
As a reminder, Vladimir Solovyov wrote,
«The point is that the evil of murder consists not in the physical fact of the deprivation of life, but in the moral reason of that fact, that is, in the evil will of the murderer.» (It matters not whether a person killed millions or one victim, in the grand scheme of things, that person is a murderer if he even entertains a hostile intent/thought of depriving the life of another.)
According to Simone Weil, it's not the act of killing that is evil, but the tendency that develops from force of habit:
«If you kill German soldiers in order to serve France and then at the end of a certain time you acquire a taste for assassinating human beings, it is clearly an evil thing. If, in order to serve France, you offer your assistance to workmen avoiding transportation to Germany and then at the end of a certain time you acquire a taste for helping those in misfortune, it is clearly a good thing.» We clearly see how Daniil Andreyev developed a horror of war during his time burying the dead. Carl Jung relates how he once knew a hunter who loved killing animals so much that he went crazy and hunted humans.
That tendency to commit murder also develops from impulses, which we habitually yield to:
These impulses create a gravitation toward evil, which nearly all human beings have a disposition for, and make one succumb to the charm of evil in its various guises,
«Only the discovery of a field of activity directed towards saving life can free humanity of vice.» (Nikolai Fyodorov) Tsiolkovsky «gave up on space and aeronautical problems with the onset of World War I and turned his attention to the problem of alleviating poverty.» Peter the Great «wholeheartedly gives himself up in an urge to save the perishing sailors and dies himself as a result of this heroic deed.» (DA)
However, churches, especially large state ones, have made many reservations that although killing is a sin, if you kill an enemy, then it is not a sin, but rather, an act of valor.
Yes, it's problematic that the churches approves of one kind of killing and condemns another kind. This was also said about Justinian: «he did not consider it murder to kill people, if those who died were fortunate in gaining his glory.»
Stalin used to employ and rehabiliate criminals who proved themselves in combat, they returned as «heroes»; about the Red Army he told Djilas «the important thing is that it fights Germans-and it is fighting them well, while the rest doesn't matter.»
Moreover, if there is no violence, evil, or crime left on earth, what could serve as a similar vaccination for future generations?
There's only one thing that can guarantee immunization, which everyone living in that epoch will have access to: deep (latent subconscious) memory and conscience (inner promptings which forbids what is harmful, the disapproving voice from within. This is the voice described by Scriabin in one of his poems, which I've linked up with Solovyov's Short Tale). Through their deep memory, the people will know about what they've wrought. If those in power knew how'd they end up, they'd do everything in their power out of sheer egoism to avoid ending up in the shrastrs.
Only from books and works of art will those generations know about the despotism of states, about wars, revolutions, hunger, poverty, and epidemics.
The works of Shakespeare, Zola, and Dostoevsky, and the gospel narratives, affords sufficient insight into the psychology of the criminal, without participating in and delighting in the depiction of cruelty. There is no justification for the portrayal (glorifying) of crime and baser human nature in contemporary literature, just as Vladimir Solovyov wrote. Future works shall not omit crimes, but they won’t try to make art reflect reality. People embrace fiction to escape from reality, only to find that artists and writers are becoming politicized and trying to spread politics through art. “The affectation and pretense of reality leads passionate and jealous people and miserlike and ambitious persons to imitate the stories.” (Apollonios)
After reading books full of adventures, ruffle, crimes, and passions, such ready-for-any-escapade souls will grow wistful, exasperated, and jealous.
___
On Vegetarianism:
I also agree on making vegetarianism universal in the new education. Exemptions can be made for those who inherited organisms suited for a meat diet. Dalai Lama tried to adopt vegetarian diet, but his body was unableto bear it.
Yes, there are in fact millions who renounce meat of their own volition, without being obliged.
This shows that it's possible to produce this kind of mentality in whole nations. Another thing to factor in is how people will readily adapt their habits to their leader. «The nation were not much inclined that way, but the prince’s delight soon became that of his subjects.» (Peter the Great)
However, we must also consider that some people won't be able to give up meat, even if they wanted to, on account of some mistake they made in a past life. No amount of persuasion and propaganda can convince them. If they try to force themselves to quit, they sink back into their old habits. Some things could only be changed by time. (Eccl. 3:6)
It works the same way with religions/superstitions. The survivalist John Muir said, «I never tried to abandon creeds or code of civilization; they went away of their own accord, melting and evaporating noiselessly without any effort and without leaving any consciousness of loss.» The mistake made by the Jews was that they tried to shed their outer coating, so to speak, with outward conversions to Christianity and renouncing Judaism, but without changing their inner nature.
In ancient times, man was a helpless victim of wild beasts. They rose up in self-defense against predators and violently retaliated. At some point, one man made the mistake of consuming animal flesh. Greed got the better of man. Enmity between man and animals ensued. It's not by chance that most animals fear humans, it's an inherited instinctive dread, resulting from this ancient misstep.
When the bad sowing for all the harm inflicted by wild beasts, of a lower value (or belonging to a lower stage/kingdom), on man, of a higher value (or belonging to a higher stage/kingdom), has been suitably redressed, then man will lose their taste for meat, it drops off automatically without them having to do anything about it. Already, there are people telling me that one day they woke up and no longer feel a craving for meat.
From a karmic angle, the more people make amends for the harm they inflicted against animals, the sooner vegetarianism will prevail. When they give up their predatory/demonized mode of life, the sooner parasitism in the animal kingdom can be eliminated.
тем более что Кольцов на эту тему и так уже написал) 
