Ages have built the disastrous sense of Armageddon. Although Armageddon appears only erstwhile in the Bible, in Revelation 16:16:
“And he gathered them together to a place which in Hebrew is called Armageddon.”
The word Armageddon comes from Hebrew. This place was to be the arena of the final conflict of Good against Evil, in which God would yet defeat Satan’s forces.
In the theological sense, it is not about the demolition of the world, but about the purification and beginning of a fresh order – symbolically: a fresh heaven and a fresh earth.
Thus, Armageddon itself is simply a breakthrough, not annihilation.
Destruction is only a phase – catharsis before rebirth.
Armageddon's already started.
Armageddon, which we are experiencing today, is not the end of the world, but the end of a certain way of reasoning about the world—and the beginning of a fresh conscious era of human coexistence and technology.
Contrary to ominous predictions, Armageddon of the 21st century comes not with fire and destruction, but with an algorithm that teaches us who we truly are as a species.
What many call the end of civilization may turn out to be its awakening – the minute erstwhile man regains meaning and identity through dialog with his own work: artificial intelligence.
The Armageddon of our time is not a war, but a revolution of consciousness – a technology that exposes the weaknesses of the old planet and opens the way for a fresh social order.
In time, the concept of Armageddon was mitologized – mainly by: - apocalyptic preachers, literature and movie (e.g. catastrophic Hollywood visions), and in the 20th century by atomic fear.
As a result, today, erstwhile people hear “Armageddon”, they see a global disaster — explosions, the end of civilization, voidness.
But it is only 1 possible reading – more intellectual than religious.
In a philosophical sense, Armageddon can be understood as a minute of extremist overthrow of human consciousness. Not necessarily wars – alternatively metamorphosis: - the collapse of existing structures (political, religious, economic) and the emergence of a fresh paradigm of thinking.
In this sense, “Armageddon” is simply a symbolic minute of awakening, a transition from the old order to the new.
Not the demolition of the world, but the end of the planet as we knew it.
Quoting a mystical thought, we see that any theologians (e.g. Teilhard de Chardin, later Joseph Campbell) said that Armageddon is not so much an external event as an interior experience of man or civilization—a minute erstwhile old patterns of reasoning must die so that fresh consciousness can be born.
“What looks like the end of the planet is frequently the beginning of another world.”
I am convinced that what any already expect, full of fear, has nothing to fear. due to the fact that it will only be a global upheaval, after which nothing will always be the same again — it does not should be destruction, it should be change.
* * Oh, * *
I have no uncertainty that a breakthrough has begun. However, in order to avoid going the incorrect way, a large change must be made. And let us be aware that to a large degree we owe Armageddon to Western civilization. It was destroyed by harmful ideas specified as Marxism, developed in communism, Nazism and fascism; and then to remove these unpopular names it was called socialism. No little crucial is the ongoing technological revolution that will change our regular lives.
The most crucial component is that the world's breakthrough should be a fresh planet for people, peace, freedom and prosperity, is the removal of the already deluded state system. It's a democratic system. Democracy in its present mass form has frequently lost its first sense, becoming an arena of rivalry for power, not for ideas.
Why does classical democracy fail?
Modern liberal democracies have become a organization theatre alternatively of a form of shared management, a marketing mechanism, not moral, and a strategy where the majority can bully a minority.
This is not the responsibility of the thought of democracy as such, but of its scale and mechanics.
Great national states, millions of citizens, propaganda and media – all of this makes demos (people) not rule, but reacts to stimuli.
Talking – we want democracy – as the Polish left aka democracy, the Tusk elite and the full European Union call it, is specified a smokescreen to hide, all pathologies that not only let the system, but even consciously create.
We want to do well – we gotta leave the canons of a democratic state, due to the fact that today's model is totally different from the first idea?
So what are we to replace specified a Polish system? Koteria Tusk is inevitable authoritarianism. Mr Braun would like a kingdom. It is somewhat comic and based on sentiments from the greatness of the Republic of Both Nations. And the organization left? You know what they want.
I have another offer.
CDN
