South florida vs njit prediction

NOSTRADAMUS’ GENIUS Astonishing Truth
Michel Nostradamus was a brilliant French prophet and physician of the 16th century. He made deeply insightful prophecies in the form of encrypted verses called as quatrains. Large portions of his prophecies have come true. In his letters to his son César Nostradamus and King Henry II of France, he clearly revealed that his prophecies were divinely inspired. He was a great devotee and made these prophecies on the command of God. He had a sound knowledge of astrology and planetary movements. Although the visions were natural or instinctive to him, he integrated them with astrological calculations and planetary events. However, he lived in the troubled times of the Inquisition. To avoid persecution and the hatred of evil people, he codified the prophecies into obscure verses such that their literal meaning hardly makes any sense. The language used by Nostradamus was highly symbolic and he often additionally encrypted his prophecies by the use of anagrams, scrambling the order of events, using different languages, etc.
He admitted that he knew and saw much more than what he wrote. However he did not reveal all that to the public since the majority was not prepared to understand all that he had to say in the right spirit. Thus today we have only a small fraction of what Nostradamus saw; the rest was censored by him due to its unsuitability for the public and due to the inevitable negative reaction of political and religious leaders towards predicted future changes.
The censored part was not simply details of future events as one may be tempted to think but it also contained the philosophical content, which formed the background of the future events. It was mainly this philosophical content that Nostradamus was afraid of revealing in his time of the Inquisition, when anything different from what was accepted by the Church, would be quickly branded as heresy. Thus when we read his quatrains, especially those with some philosophical significance, we have to be sensitive not only to what is said but also to what is left unsaid.
Numerous authors, thinkers and amateurs have delved into the details of these quatrains, sifting for some clue to the unraveling of critical future events and personalities such as World War III, the Antichrist, changes in world politics and global catastrophes. However the prophecy that is most spectacular and has the potential for maximum benefit to humanity is the prophecy of the Great Genius.
There is considerable agreement that a great scholar will emerge from the land bounded by three seas. He will be well versed in the scriptures and science and Thursday will be holy to him (cI-50). He will uproot fanaticism and establish his spiritual philosophy (cIII-95). This quite obviously indicates that the said scholar will be a Hindu from India. Contrary to some opinions, He will not be a military general. His conquests will not be military conquests but they will be philosophical conquests—spiritual conquests. With His compelling philosophy He will demolish all fanaticism, rigidity and misinterpreted twists in all religions. A significantly noteworthy point is that He will not only correlate all the world religions, but He will also correlate science and spirituality and establish a universal spiritual philosophy (cVII-14). Although Nostradamus has accurately predicted some of these details of the Great Genius, he has left a great deal unsaid about the identity of this Great One.
Away from the din of contradicting opinions and speculations among commentators and scholars, about the identity and time of arrival of the Great Genius, He has already taken birth. True to prophecy, He was born in a small town in south India (peninsular India ) and is a great scholar of the Hindu scriptures and the scriptures of other religions. He is also a scientist and a professor. However, he is not an ordinary scientist or scholar of the scriptures. He is known to His closest devotees as an incarnation of Lord Dattatreya.
Lord Dattatreya (Datta) is God in the three forms, Creator, Maintainer and Destroyer of creation. This God, who is beyond creation manifests through a human form called as a human incarnation or Avatara. Thus God gives Himself to His devotees. Datta is this God who is ‘given’ to His devotees in the form of an incarnation. Thursday is the day that is particularly auspicious for the worship of Lord Datta. This Great Genius, who is an incarnation of Lord Dattatreya, is known as His Holiness Shri Datta Swami. Shri Datta Swami has preached Divine Knowledge that is so revolutionary and outstanding that highly elevated spiritual souls and scholars and have declared that such knowledge has never been revealed before to mankind. His Divine Knowledge consists of a logical and scientific analysis of the knowledge given in the scriptures and which supports experience. It explains the nature of the soul, the spiritual goal, which is God, and the path to reach Him. Complete assimilation of this knowledge leads to devotion and service, which brings the ultimate grace of God.

1963: Washington Massacre: MLK is killed in the March on Washington, race riots, Civil Rights Act blocked, the Bloody Decade begins.
1964, Krushev is deposed, Alexander Shelepin and the orthodox marxist-leninists take power defeating revisionist Breznev. Sino-Soviet Alliance restored.
1970, Fred Hampton is captured and the Bloody Decade ends.
1973, the US stays in Vietnam.
1976, Republicans hold the White House, Nixon never resigns
1979, the US invades Iran.
1980, Democrats take the White House.
1981, the Vietnam War is won by North Vietnam
1983: Democrats unsuccessfully try to end segregation
1983: USSR leaves Afghanistan
1985, The US leaves Iran
1984, Ronald Reagan becomes President
1985, British Civil War and Scotland Population Exchange.
1986-1988, California, New England and others start seceding from the United States, Army increasingly divided on loyalty.
1988: Collapse of the US: Birth of the PUA, independence to several more states such as Iowa, Louisiana, Florida, and more. Dissolution of the US, Royalists set a government in exile in Alaska. The South unites into the Republic
1990, Atlanta Hotel seized by New Black Panthers, Republic of America attempts to abolish segregation, coup d'etàt by the White League (costle of the American Independent Party and KKK), David Duke becomes President.
1994: China reforms towards PUA model (they were never dengiist), Second Sino-Soviet Split, intercommunist Cold War.
1992, Triple Revolution. France, Belgium and the Netherlands adopt Communism. Split occurs when France and Belgium side with PUA model, and Netherlands adopts Soviet Communism.
1993: Italy peacefully adopts PUA model (now called Democratic Communism, or French-American Communism)
1995: South Koreans flee across the border en masse, and a unification under the north is agreed
1996, as segregation is kept and even worsened, Black resistance escalates to full on civil war in all of the RA on Juneteenth of 1996.
1998: The Republic worsens State Religion Act establisheds Baptism as state religion and protestantism in general as acceptable faith, concentration camps for blacks and other minorities are set up
1995-2005: somewhere between South Africa falls into brutal race and civil war
1997: The assembly of Democratic Communists is formed, an annual meeting of DemCom nations
1998: The League of Free Nations is formed
1999: PUA congress is suicide bombed by an anti-communist pro-republican group
2000: Kremlin is bombed by Islamic Extremists, GS is killed and Gorbachev takes power
2001: Japan falls into brutal civil war
1963-2004, sometime in here, communist and kurdish guerrilla in Turkey becomes much more prominent, while the Grey Wolves install an islamo-fascist regime.
2004, the USSR invades Turkey to aid the Communists and root out islamist terrorism.
1998-2004: the RA begins a full scale genocide of any Black population in its hands.

I am specifically referring to National Bolshevism as the term was originally coined, rather than any group of people who may have labelled themselves "National Boshelviks" since. The term predates even the establishment of the Soviet Union in 1922, let alone any other 20th century regime. The term was originally used by Karl Radek to describe two member he was expelling as "National Boshelviks". What these people wanted to do was align the revolutionary movement in Germany with that in Russia in mutual opposition to both the treaty of Versailles and the treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
I am specifically defending the prospect of this strategy in particular rather than specifically any person who might have been or could have been advocating for it and any ideas they might have had otherwise, not because it is national, or even bolshevik, but rather because I think it conforms with the idea in the Communist Manifesto of the role of Communists in relation to Proletarians where the Communists do not form separate political programs of their own and instead are supposed to align various proletarians movements together across nationality with respect to the current stage than any of those movements may find themselves in.

In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?
The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.
They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.
They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.
The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

Therefore the irony of this position I am defending is that it was the one advocated for by people labelled National, which would clearly seem to be contrary to being independent of nationality, and Bolshevik who would seem to be sectarians seeking to mold to proletarian movement. The other irony is that for it to have been possible it would have required overcoming proletarian movements in different nationalities operating independent of one another, in addition to overcoming the sectarianism emerging between all the differing "Communist" movements. In other words this is another call in an endless stream of "stop infighting!" coupled with "everyone except for me is wrong" which just contributes to the infighting by creating a new sectarian divergence but there is very little that can be done about that. Mostly this is just an excuse to discuss a particular moment I find interesting and inner contrarian in me just wants to make the seemingly most insane position seem the most reasonable as a challenge.
Lenin was not in favour of this so it was a bit of a non-starter. In "Left-Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder he criticizes people who refuse to recognize the treaties, but in addition to the tendencies of so-called National Bolsheviks, he also criticized the Left-Communists that Karl Radek and the other German Revolutionaries were often members. Here we can start to see a problem emerging as you clearly have two different revolutionary movements in two different countries who are having difficulty working with each other (with the problem of the treaties between these countries not even being the main issue they were squabbling over). Indeed while not around long enough to have become officially a Left-Communist herself, Luxembourg is associated with them as her writings are cited as a major influence on the tendency, and she is notable for criticizing Lenin's Bolshevism.
There was a lot of confusion in this period and numerous tendencies diverging from one another, the reason being is that in the wake of the Russian Revolution and the end of the First World War there was a period of revolutionary activity across the entire world. While Russia and Germany are often the most focused upon due to the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany being our core 20th century players and many seeing these revolutions as the origin points of these things with a compare and contrast analysis being done to understand while one failed and the other succeeded, in the light of understanding the world revolution as a wave, looking at just these two revolutions becomes parochial, as there was clearly one singular revolution going on across the world in the same way as during the Revolutions of 1848 where the Communist Manifesto was published.
Indeed Marx and Engels viewed that as a singular revolution and would have viewed the similar wave of revolutions that peaked in 1919 but spanned from 1917-1923 as a singular revolution. While differing in severity there was revolutionary activity in numerous countries ranging from the Two Red Years in Italy to the much less impressive sounding Red Week) in the Netherlands. Even as far away as Canada, Australia, and South Africa there were labour revolts in this period. The case of Canada is a bit emblematic of the obscurity of the scale of these events, as while the Winnipeg General Strike of 1919 is well known, much like with only Russia and Germany beings discussed, the strike wave nature of the events in Canada just as in the world tends to fall out of discussion, as for instance this wave actually started with a general strike in Vancouver that was crushed by the military.
In the Preface to the 1882 Russian Edition of the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels even suggested in the wake of the assassination of the Tsar Liberator that the impending Russian (bourgeois) Revolution would serve as a signal for the Western proletariat to have their Revolution, and that the Russian Revolution could end up being communist alongside the West.

And now Russia! During the Revolution of 1848-9, not only the European princes, but the European bourgeois as well, found their only salvation from the proletariat just beginning to awaken in Russian intervention. The Tsar was proclaimed the chief of European reaction. Today, he is a prisoner of war of the revolution in Gatchina, and Russia forms the vanguard of revolutionary action in Europe.
The Communist Manifesto had, as its object, the proclamation of the inevitable impending dissolution of modern bourgeois property. But in Russia we find, face-to-face with the rapidly flowering capitalist swindle and bourgeois property, just beginning to develop, more than half the land owned in common by the peasants. Now the question is: can the Russian obshchina, though greatly undermined, yet a form of primeval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership? Or, on the contrary, must it first pass through the same process of dissolution such as constitutes the historical evolution of the West?
The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development.

Now 1882 didn't turn into a revolution in Russia and there were several false starts like in 1905, but eventually it did finally happen. However seemingly with Lenin's New Economic Policy, both scenarios discussed ended up needing to happen. The Russian Revolution was both Communist and they felt it impossible to transition straight into Communism and thus had to allow some kind of bourgeois property relation to develop, and then later on had to eliminate this thing they created themselves in a rather unfortunate series of events. Additionally while the Russian Revolution did prove to be a signal for the Western proletariat to have their revolution, the proletariat revolution failed. In the spirit of this discussion I'm going to be argue that these were not separate incidents but rather the failure of the western proletariat's revolution is why Lenin implemented the NEP in 1922, in part because of internal rebellions calling for these things and because the international revolution seemingly failed resulting in a loss of hope that the western proletariat would in some way save them, which had to result in some kind of proletarian vanguard party lead bourgeois state emerging on the fly. Stalin would later have to undo this both these consequences in the events he is most criticized for, as in addition to reversing the NEP with collectivization, he undid the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk when as Molotov said "One kick from the German army and another from the Soviet Army put an end to this ugly product of Versailles" in regards to Poland. Polish independence being quite the unfortunate sacrifice here considering how supportive of it Engels was in the 1892 Polish Preface the the Communist Manifesto.

But the rapid development of Polish industry, outstripping that of Russia, is in its turn a new proof of the inexhaustible vitality of the Polish people and a new guarantee of its impending national restoration. And the restoration of an independent and strong Poland is a matter which concerns not only the Poles but all of us. A sincere international collaboration of the European nations is possible only if each of these nations is fully autonomous in its own house. The Revolution of 1848, which under the banner of the proletariat, after all, merely let the proletarian fighters do the work of the bourgeoisie, also secured the independence of Italy, Germany and Hungary through its testamentary executors, Louis Bonaparte and Bismarck; but Poland, which since 1792 had done more for the Revolution than all these three together, was left to its own resources when it succumbed in 1863 to a tenfold greater Russian force. The nobility could neither maintain nor regain Polish independence; today, to the bourgeoisie, this independence is, to say the last, immaterial. Nevertheless, it is a necessity for the harmonious collaboration of the European nations. It can be gained only by the young Polish proletariat, and in its hands it is secure. For the workers of all the rest of Europe need the independence of Poland just as much as the Polish workers themselves.

(The call for "full autonomy in a nations own house" is probably worth explaining. Nations that should be autonomous are nations which can be autonomous all on their own without international meddling. Engels was notoriously against all the south slavs for their pan-slavism because their independence was necessitated by interference from Imperial Russia, in part because he was still mad about the revolutions of 1848 not working out. He was even still mad at them 34 years later when he reaffirmed Polish independence alongside Irish independence as the most crucial national struggles to support. The reason being that Poland rejected pan-Slavism and was instead independently nationalist. That Poland could stand alone (and more importantly that Polish agitation threatened three reactionary imperial monarchies in Germany, Austria, and Russia at the same time. Ireland being important to screw around with the bourgeois British Empire as Marx and Engels increasingly saw the absentee revenues the British ruling class generated for themselves in Ireland as being the key to their parliamentary political dominance in England against both lower class and anti-imperialist challenges which were often the same thing) is why Polish independence was so supported. Standing alone is important because autonomous nations can switch between the rule of various classes without the risk of foreign interference on the part of imperialist reactionaries putting things back the way they were to protect their sphere of influence. The issue is that Polish independence ended up being a thorn in the side of the revolution when Polish independence was granted through Wilsonian liberal internationalism and during the Russian Civil War the Red Army tried and failed to retaliate against Poland when they joined forces with the Entente Liberal Imperialists in the Soviet-Poland War.
For NATO fans the opposition to NATO comes from this concept of being against spheres of influence, with a preference for complete independence. The Soviets or even Russia joining NATO however transform the institution from an American sphere of influence into just some vague "nobody invade anybody else okay guys thanks" treaty which is what it is sold as. So long as Russia is not included in NATO it fails to fulfill its stated purpose, and it must be opposed because it does not protect the independence of the nations within it, rather it makes them subservient to the United States, and the counter-balance of Russia inside the block is sufficient that the nations within it could seamlessly transfer between spheres of influence, or more importantly, not be in anyone's sphere of influence by successfully playing the US and Russia off each other, which puts each nation in a position to pursue development with little risk of the alliance being used to punish them. In fact if say Luxembourg decided to go rogue it could even use the NATO treaty to argue that anyone infringing upon them should be subjected to retaliation by all the other members, and now they have a socialist Luxembourg in the middle of Europe and they can't do anything about it because the treaty guarantees their independence with multiple dozen moving parts so long as Luxembourg doesn't militarily invade anybody. However if the organization is nothing more that an American political block with US bases every where, clearly the US would be able to pressure people into recognizing the socialist Luxembourg as illegitimate in some way and argue it can be invaded without requiring everyone come to its defense. So NATO good if Russia included and US bases removed, an in NATO Russia still isn't a threat to even Estonia if dozens of European countries are required to defend it, and that isn't even considering a late arrival of the US and Canada when they finally cross the Atlantic. The problem with NATO is that it is clearly an unofficial loosely held US empire, it stops being a problem when it is no longer this)
This whole confused mess could have been avoided had the world revolution not failed. This circles back to the Russian and German revolutions and how they were not united. Therefore the position of those labelled Nazbol is attractive merely for the sake that it would have united these two disparate revolutions. The success of either was reliant on the success of the other. The prior Bolshevik position of Peace Without Annexations or Indemnities would permanently lock in the Russian and German revolutions together in a mutual opposition to the bourgeois treaties, a pact of blood to oppose the pacts signed in ink.
Additionally opposition to the indemnity aspect of the treaty of Versailles would have been in fidelity to the revolutionary history of the Paris Commune which inspired the notion of the dictatorship of the proletariat in 1871, which was prompted in part by opposition to the burden of the reparation payments imposed on France by Bismark in response to Napolean III's failed invasion being placed on the people of France by the bourgeois government that signed that treaty. On a global scale while the opportunity for revolution by the proletariat refusing to enter World War One was squandered by the Social Democrats granting their permission, the proletariat could instead refuse to exit World War One by not granting their permission for acceptance of the bourgeois treaties just as the Paris Commune refused to accept Bismark's treaty.
Indeed opposition to the bourgeois Treaty of Trianon served as the basis for cooperation between the Nationalists and the Communists in Hungary, who unlike the Luxembourgists in Germany, were internationally aligned with the Boshelviks in Russia with the establishment of the Hungarian Soviet Republic. The alliance however broke down with the establishment of the Slovak Soviet Republic as the Hungarian nationalists questioned why they were participating in the Hungarian Red Army if they were just going to be liberating other countries, this ended up not even being that relevant of a dispute seeing as Slovakia was never fully captured and the Czechoslovak army ended up recapturing it in a month and so the issue only lasted from June 1919 to July 1919. However it exposed the core obvious problem with the alliance between nationalists and communists, as the full Petrograd formula was "peace without annexations or indemnities, on the basis of self-determination of the peoples" so the nationalists opposed to treaties were not going to like it when the second part got implemented later.
Lenin and Stalin ran into a similar issue when Stalin opposed Georgian self-determination in 1922 and wanted them to instead join Russia, with the comical situation of Stalin calling the Georgian Mensheviks "nationalist-socialists" and the Russian Lenin accusing the Georgian Stalin of being a Russian nationalist-socialist in response. We can clearly see that there are vastly differing views on the questions of nationality all over the place and there was no one line being taken, with Hungary and Germany taking vastly different views in regards to the treaties and cooperation with nationalists, to their own unique sets of problems later on with them.
The vastly different ways everyone was handling these issues is why I argue that the best principle would have been to have no principles at all. The only communist principle in regards to nationality is international cooperation. Indeed while you had Communist revolutions in German, Hungary, and Russia, the common thread uniting them of opposition to the bourgeois treaties would have also united them with the liberal Kemalist revolution in Turkey, thus completing the alignment of all revolutionaries in the central powers and Imperial Russia against the rest of the entente attempting to impose the bourgeois treaties, in effect adding Russia to the central powers after the imperialist war had turned into a civil war in all four imperial monarchies. That Turkey was in a vastly different stage of revolution than the other three would be irrelevant as these revolutions would still be mutually supporting of each other, and the Communists could rest assured safely knowing that while differing countries might be in different stages of revolution, they had the advantage over all others in knowing the ultimate end result of all their revolutions even if the people operating in them might not know it themselves.

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

As such the notion that one needs to be politically Communist to participate in the revolution is false. So long as a state of revolution remained the stages of the revolution could continue moving forward. If Turkey was not materially ready for it, that need not matter so long as the Kemalists were willing to join in an anti-imperialist block in the mean time, which they were willing to do until the Soviets later started looking at the straights with desire which eventually pushed Turkey into the arms of NATO where it remains to this day. However at the time the Soviets and Turkey were quite friendly despite their obvious ideological differences merely based on this mutual geopolitical interest in so-called anti-imperialism. This anti-imperialism was selective however, with the "Mountain Turks" and "Mountain Russians" being sacrificed for it, but the benefits of not having principles means you don't exactly have to care about that. Ataturk can make poutine out of the Kurds all he wants if he remains staunchly anti-imperialist on an international level. This gross cynical realism while obviously questionable is still consistent with Revolutionary History as all prior revolutions do not stand up to moral scrutiny when they are viewed in this way. In fact at the twilight of the 1848 revolutions Engels himself called for the Hungarians to wipeout the "counter-revolutionary" Slavs, while this is obviously not something we should want to have happened, and we definitely should not ever do this if we ever find ourselves in a position to make those decisions, it is important to understand the reasoning behind why he was saying those things, that it is the continuance of the revolution itself is both the most important thing, and something that is largely out of anyone's control in the Hegelian sense of Historicism.

The Magyar cause is not in such a bad way as mercenary black-and-yellow [colours of the Austrian flag] enthusiasm would have us believe. The Magyars are not yet defeated. But if they fall, they will fall gloriously, as the last heroes of the 1848 revolution, and only for a short time. Then for a time the Slav counter-revolution will sweep down on the Austrian monarchy with all its barbarity, and the camarilla will see what sort of allies it has. But at the first victorious uprising of the French proletariat, which Louis Napoleon is striving with all his might to conjure up, the Austrian Germans and Magyars will be set free and wreak a bloody revenge on the Slav barbarians. The general war which will then break out will smash this Slav Sonderbund and wipe out all these petty hidebound nations, down to their very names.
The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward.

A key fact you will observe is that they are often quite over eager in announcing the impending revolution. For instance The Magyar Struggle was published in January of 1849 in Marx's Newspaper, and Louis Napoleon was elected President of France in December of 1848. It seems as if they might have thought that this would have been more significant than it actually turned out to be. This kind of made sense though because Louis Napoleon's main opponent in the election was Louis-Eugene Cavagnac who lead the army to suppress a worker's uprising in Paris back in the "June Days" of 1848. Additionally the Hungarians did not do this, instead they adopted cultural assimilation policies called Magyarization, and late in the revolution into 1849 while the Russian and Austria Imperial armies were barring down on them they adopted minority right protections to try to win them back. However they were ultimately unsuccessful in repelling the Russian invasion regardless of any attempts at outreach.
What I find notable about this is that Engels essentially predicted the sides of the "next world war" (albeit there was a world war in between) that would wipeout entire peoples, but somehow ended up reversing the reactionary and revolutionary sides, as an Austrian German and the Hungarians did engage in a war against the Slavs, but because somehow the "poles of revolution" did somehow invert and head outwards from Russia like Engels said the Slavs supposedly wanted, that war was against the revolution instead of for it.

There is no country in Europe which does not have in some corner or other one or several ruined fragments of peoples, the remnant of a former population that was suppressed and held in bondage by the nation which later became the main vehicle of historical development. These relics of a nation mercilessly trampled under foot in the course of history, as Hegel says, these residual fragments of peoples always become fanatical standard-bearers of counter-revolution and remain so until their complete extirpation or loss of their national character, just as their whole existence in general is itself a protest against a great historical revolution.
Such, in Scotland, are the Gaels, the supporters of the Stuarts from 1640 to 1745.
Such, in France, are the Bretons, the supporters of the Bourbons from 1792 to 1800.
Such, in Spain, are the Basques, the supporters of Don Carlos.
Such, in Austria, are the pan-Slavist Southern Slavs, who are nothing but the residual fragment of peoples, resulting from an extremely confused thousand years of development. That this residual fragment, which is likewise extremely confused, sees its salvation only in a reversal of the whole European movement, which in its view ought to go not from west to east, but from east to west, and that for it the instrument of liberation and the bond of unity is the Russian knout — that is the most natural thing in the world.

However a lot can apparently change in almost 100 years. Russia was once seen as the bastion of reaction celebrated by the reactionaries everywhere for having invaded Hungary to put down the 1848-9 revolution, but then became the center of revolution, taking that spot from France which didn't really participate in the Revolutions despite the 1917 mutinies defused in June by Philip Petain by reassuring the soldiers by calling off the offensives that were intended to try to reassure the Provision Russian Government from the February Revolution to stay in the war and who launched the "Kerensky Offensive" in July which prompted the unsuccessful "July Days" Bolshevik uprising before the later successful October Revolution.
The absence of French participation beyond this is remarkable given how much they played a role in other revolutions and also remarkable how it was later Vichy leader Petain himself who basically defused the situation by giving the soldiers what they wanted and ending the suicidal offensives. The difference between Petain and Kerensky here and that the Russian revolution had not yet gone proletariat at this point while France was dealing with its own situation coming up from the soldiers and that the Russian version of this happened only a month afterwards should probably be focused on more here, in addition to how the differing approaches countries took on simultaneous and similar events from 1917-1923 should be analyzed like how I am suggesting (Comprehensive Revolutionary History of World War One when? Honestly I might write it at this point, issue is wikipedia as sources is probably not the greatest, and wikipedia article bouncing is how I'm formulating these connections as it requires an extremely shallow understanding of a lot of things that people with deep understandings of those things would all reject because I'm ignoring intricacies, despite ignoring intricacies being the entire point as intricacies are caused by random eddies and chaotic currents, and so must be ignored if you want to get a sense of the overall direction things are going, although admittedly I feel myself getting a bit schizo when I assert random concepts whole cloth that nobody has ever used by anyone besides me as you will see with the term "global political magnetic field collapse")
Since the Russian Revolution the apparent "pole of reaction" where global reactionaries collect as their refuge that Russia represented seemingly shifted to the United States for the Cold War after the pole reversal and global political magnetic field collapse manifesting in the out of place auroral borealis of the inter-war period and world war 2. It would be reasonable to assume that it would be just as possible for the United States to become a new center of revolution in the way Russia took that position from France despite Russia being the most reactionary power of anyone before that happened.

South Park Jesus
MC Jesus
​
Rules:

• Fights happens in the top of the Science Tower (that skyscrapper)
• Win via incapacitation/death
• Neither of these characters are knowledged about each other
• Both are in-character
• Canon feats only

​
R1: Base South Park Jesus vs MC Jesus. Both are unarmed (MC Jesus has his halo but can't use it). Neither are allowed to use their powers
​
R2: Base South Park Jesus vs MC Jesus. South Park Jesus has all these, MC Jesus has his halo (but can't use it), a TAC-50, his obviously one of the two standart and signature weapon aka the binary sword, a S&W 500 and a steel armor. Neither are allowed to use their powers
​
R3: Same with R2 except now they can also use their abilities
​
Bonus Round: HGH South Park Jesus vs MC Jesus. South Park Jesus is unarmed, Jesus has all of the weapons he accesed in R2 + can use his abilities.

As a result of the Fort Lauderdale and Miami South stakes recently closing, six wards were closed including the Coral Reef, Country Walk, Palm Springs, Tamarac, Miami Beach and North Miami Beach (Spanish) wards. With the Miami Beach ward closure, the meetinghouse on Indian Creek Drive on Miami Beach prime real estate now sits empty.

Have a paid off car to trade in and want a sportier coupe. I have been saving up and finally decided on either a BRZ or GR86. Because this is my first sports car and I am young, I would like to spend 20k or less on a used model and was wondering what years and millage I should be looking at. I can afford a new model, but personally don't like paying the upcharge for new and how fast they depreciate. I am located in south florida and this would become my daily driver. Any suggestions would be great or if I it wont be possible in my price range please let me know!!!

https://www.indiaforum.bet/essex-vs-gloucestershire-vitality-t20-blast-2023-match-prediction/

Hello All,
Located in South Florida in a house built in 2022 ; Currently trying to find the most efficient way to vent the attic to keep overall house temperatures down.
The house current has soffit vents and 3 off ridge vents ; I was curious if adding 1 or 2 fan powered vents would totally evacuate all of the hot air or actually create an issue with airflow.
The attic is very hot and I can feel a huge rush of air when the garage door is opened (I enter the attic through the garage) and the attic is then vented pretty quickly.
So curious if adding a few power exhausts would help empty the attic of hot air , thus lowering interior house temps aswell.
Thank you all in advance for your thoughts!

Currently handling the kitchen and ordering for a country club in South Florida. Can’t get away from my current distributors or add a select distributor to be an auxiliary. So my question is have you ran into any good duck prod? I’ve gotten some great whole and half’s but looking to see what exactly I can do with it for different dishes. Sorry for the text wall. Everyone enjoy their smoko

(NOTE THIS IS NOT OFFICIAL YET I'M SPITBALLING; and apologies for bad formatting) We're still a few days away from the start of the series and I just was thinking this would be fun little contest for VGK fans on this sub. I have never organized anything like this and doubt I would be able to organize it all by myself if there's a ton of entries. I can offer a PRIZE to a winner; Two Seats to the Home Opener Vegas game for the 23/24 Season. Don't get too excited it'll be in the 200s (upper bowl) section. They're great seats but they don't cost a fortune.
My idea is every member of the sub can give one prediction for the outcome of the series. The closest one being the winner. You'd have to submit a form something like this:

Series Prediction: VEGAS IN 6
Game 1 Winner: VEGAS
Game 2 Winner: FLORIDA
Game 3 Winner: VEGAS
Game 4 Winner: FLORIDA
Game 5 Winner: VEGAS
Game 6 Winner: VEGAS
Game 7 Winner: NO GAME
Tiebreaker - Total Number of Goals in the series: 31 (if there's still more than one winner after that we draw from a hat I guess)

We'd have to have some eligibility obviously or else there'd be a ton of trolls & cheats trying to win. I'm thinking your account needs to be at least 1 year old and you need to have some history of posting on the goldenknights sub. Me or the hopeful tournament organizer would hold the right to disqualify you if we notice you're not a real VGK fan. I'm okay if you've rooted for the Panthers or any Eastern Team but don't bother if you're a fan of another Pacific Division team. And yes the winner could predict Florida wins the Stanley Cup Final this is a Vegas team we should award whoever is the closest.
Again I don't know Reddit well at all, can normal posters even lock a thread? We would need that to avoid any edit shenanigans. I'm hoping the mods or someone with experience can organize this better. I'm just down to awarding a fan here tickets, I would just need the Winner's email address PM'd to me.
Again this has not started and no I am not selling/giving anyone tickets to the Stanley Cup finals or any VGK games. I'm hoping a mod can get the ball rolling on this.