Over the past few months, it seems as if we have seen the end of the globalist ideal - at least for the short- and medium-term; since the globalists themselves have (by their 'sanctions') divided the world -- rather than (as looked to be unfolding just a couple of years ago, with the global birdemic-peck strategy) administering the whole planet under a single (denied and mostly not-visible) authority.
But now the 'debate' is presented as a unipolar versus multipolar world: a single totalitarian system versus several or many national systems.
I have argued that the unipolar world was never going to happen because those who were implemented it were deliberately destroying the social institutions that would be required to administer it. Godless bureaucracy was generating demonic active-destruction: lawful evil was developing into chaotic evil.
Given such a background; is this multipolar idea even possible?
I would say not. The multipolar world is just an intended re-set to an earlier historic way of dividing the world between 'spheres of influence'; but this time the world is in a state of spiritual disintegration and therefore value-inversion.
Religions used to be synonymous with churches - and insofar as that is still the case we can see that religion has ceased strongly to motivate Men. This is evidenced by the international (and all-religion) church shut-downs in response to the birdemic - which revealed that the churches are subordinate to global-political (leftist, atheist) imperatives.
Churches have ceased to be possible alternative sources of motivation and guidance.
I am convinced that without religion as prime motivator and organizer, civilization is bound to collapse, and cannot re-emerge. Yet no major nation in the world is even proposing having religion as the core of their social organization - indeed, this may have become impossible, as a result of the developmental-evolution of human consciousness over recent generations.
Therefore, my prediction is that any multipolar world attempt will begin to collapse even before its structures have been formed.
At most the switch from uni- to multi-polarity will be a shift from greater to lesser evil; and as such may somewhat delay and slow the inevitably self-destructive impulses (personally self-destructive, as well as socially) that are a consequence of Godless and irreligious societies.
In sum: We live in a secular world; and secular institutions, societies and politics are unsustainable and indeed now in the terminal active-suicide phase.
So the world is paralyzed by insoluble demotivation, and perverted by inverted teleologies; such that any re-organization of the nations will not affect the inevitably lethal outcome.
@Ingemar - Thanks for your interesting comment, but it is too explicit and filled with 'key words' for me to print.
I am convinced that without religion as prime motivator and organizer, civilization is bound to collapse, and cannot re-emerge.
I tend to agree. Societies without transcendence will go crazy.
Yet no major nation in the world is even proposing having religion as the core of their social organization - indeed, this may have become impossible, as a result of the developmental-evolution of human consciousness over recent generations.
Can you elaborate on the second clause: "this may have become impossible, as a result of the developmental-evolution of human consciousness over recent generations"?
You seem to be arriving where I am regarding modern man and his Christian institutions (I am a lapsed Orthodox--their ecclesiology is wrecked, ruined, vanished, by the way.):
And I think we have the same idea here: modern man lives under an iron dome that blocks transcendent vision, which societies cannot survive without. So we better get a new religion quick if we are to avoid the terminal state of a post-artifact Earth populated by a few million insane, feral humans slowly going extinct. But I don't know if mankind is still in the religion-finding business.
I'd be depressed, but I've aged out of the chronic depression that's plagued me most of my life, thank God.
Speaking of, looks like we may have gotten the whole serotonin hypothesis wrong:
I can be reached at email@example.com
@AG - "Can you elaborate on the second clause: "this may have become impossible, as a result of the developmental-evolution of human consciousness over recent generations"?"
You might try word searching this blog for Final Participation, or looking through my Owen Barfield blog. I have done scores/ hundreds of posts on the subject.
But I imagine you will not find my (minority of one) theology to be very congenial! - although it is *Far* more deeply 'anti-gnostic' in its nature than Eastern Orthodoxy or any other of the mainstream churches (who I believe were profoundly shaped, and distorted, by the same Platonic Greek and Roman philosophy that led to the Gnostics!)
I used to be a professional psychiatry researcher - and the serotonin deficiency thing was always just a marketing scam, known as such from the beginning by the few people who thought for themselves - https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2010/07/ssri-story-corruption-of-medical.html - or see David Healy's Let them eat Prozac.
Ancient Greece and Rome lived without religion. There was faith in the gods, but it did not play a central role in the life of society, and they considered happiness to be the main goal of human life.
The history of Sikhism shows that human motivation is primary, and religion is secondary to it, as is ideology. At first it was an anti-feudal, anti-caste religion that proclaimed the equality of all people before God, then during the conflict with Islamic and Hindu feudal lords, the religion changed in such a way that only Sikhs were considered equal, and then after the war of independence, feudalism and the caste system were restored, with warlords at the top of everything, and only a few splinter sects survived the egalitarian tradition. I also read that the feudal elite at that time imitated religiosity through the wearing of external religious symbols. So the primary thing is the objective reality and economical/political relationships and religion has secondary role, although it's organises society in some sense.
@D - "Ancient Greece and Rome lived without religion."
Not true. Not even remotely true!
@A - "The history of Sikhism shows that human motivation is primary, and religion is secondary to it, as is ideology. "
You grossly misunderstand the situation then compared with now - you must grasp how utterly unique is our current generationally-embedded god/ spirit denial and atheistic materialism. Nobody ever thought like that until recently in history.
Agree. Today's mindset is so materialized that most cannot work the supernatural concept of "evil" into their worldview and are thus blind to it. It doesn't exist to many.
Post a Comment