Accelerationism
The Revelation's main part, chapters 2-20, describes the social dynamics of Christianity including specific events in which they play out.
If the dominance of a particular dynamic is particularly undesirable, it is not to be strengthened, and resisting it strengthens it, for dominance is a question of development and the more a phase is resisted, the more it matures.
A mature rule of the beast is in nobody's interest.
So, if the rule of the beast came about perchance, that would be good luck. Bad luck it would be, if it came about after a long hard struggle as a necessity. Actually, that would be life on earth endingly catastrophic.
We are still in the early days, the nuclear destruction of New York City doesn't appear necessary yet and America's national interest demands its re-industrialisation only to counterweight China.
However, a curious situation has arisen: Trump needs to keep the public in the dark about his goals, in order to be able to advance towards them, for he's facing several damned if you do, damned if you don't dilemmas. On the other hand a large part of his base demands candour. Conceivably that might fracture the foundation he's standing on.
If so, things might either accelerate or be postponed - it all becomes conjecture. Generally speaking though, the unlikely is prevented by the likely in the early days and the likely by the unlikely in the late, and hence the acceleration of events would require to take out by default all likely obstacles, whereas taking out unlikely ones is likely to accomplish it only in the late days.
How, though, does one remove all likely obstacles in a situation where hindrance is likely, where the alternative hasn't matured yet? So, even if acceleration is desirable, it's hard to help the immature arise before its time, and more likely by fostering the unlikely than by preventing the likely.
If the dominance of a particular dynamic is particularly undesirable, it is not to be strengthened, and resisting it strengthens it, for dominance is a question of development and the more a phase is resisted, the more it matures.
A mature rule of the beast is in nobody's interest.
So, if the rule of the beast came about perchance, that would be good luck. Bad luck it would be, if it came about after a long hard struggle as a necessity. Actually, that would be life on earth endingly catastrophic.
We are still in the early days, the nuclear destruction of New York City doesn't appear necessary yet and America's national interest demands its re-industrialisation only to counterweight China.
However, a curious situation has arisen: Trump needs to keep the public in the dark about his goals, in order to be able to advance towards them, for he's facing several damned if you do, damned if you don't dilemmas. On the other hand a large part of his base demands candour. Conceivably that might fracture the foundation he's standing on.
If so, things might either accelerate or be postponed - it all becomes conjecture. Generally speaking though, the unlikely is prevented by the likely in the early days and the likely by the unlikely in the late, and hence the acceleration of events would require to take out by default all likely obstacles, whereas taking out unlikely ones is likely to accomplish it only in the late days.
How, though, does one remove all likely obstacles in a situation where hindrance is likely, where the alternative hasn't matured yet? So, even if acceleration is desirable, it's hard to help the immature arise before its time, and more likely by fostering the unlikely than by preventing the likely.
Labels: 41, bibelkommentar, formalisierung, geschichte, gesetze, institutionen, kommentar, sehhilfen, wahrnehmungen, zeitgeschichte, ἰδέα, φιλοσοφία
Eingetragen Am/um
21:48
