Out with the old, in with the new world order.

a reply to: tavi45
ah, well, my bad I suppose


and my opinion? I appreciate all views on human nature, but my own lies with what is said in the Bible. Because I didn't want to bring religion into this, I chose to link to all of the various views. Trying to be fair and all ^_^

and i understand that you weren't trying to be combative--I just took offense to you saying that I was conditioned when all I was saying was that utopia was not possible, at least as defined in Utopia. And since utopia means, to the best of my knowledge, a perfect society. Which is possible but only after certain things (again, didn't want to break out the jesus on this thread lol). That's why I was being vague. I should have just said so earlier, I guess.

& apologies xD I tend to be rather goofy when debating. I used to want to be a lawyer.

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

"I think that fighting world order is futile, there is tooooooooo much velocity from things like population and the flow of technology development."

The point of the OP and his videos is not anarchy. The point is that the new world order need not be a top down hierarchy where a permanent aristocracy rules over a perfectly subjugated underclass of 99.99% of the population.

It could be an egalitarian utopia where no one group of peoole decides the fate of everyone else.

It seems futile because you were raised from birth to see utopia as an impossibility. Every facet of your culture and education reinforces this.

It's futile in other words because you and so many others think it is. That's the whole point. We are building our own prison. Even now the instinct of most people reading the OP or what I just said is, "what a load of idealistic hippy nonsense, utopia is impossible". That's your conditioning.

. Science is showing us more and more every day that impossible is a meaningless word. It just means " not yet feasible".

Maybe I did not make myself clear tavi. From my point of view there WILL be a one world order. It is an historical imperative. History points clearly in this direction. So, as you point out, who will govern it? The people ourselves or the Bushes and Kissingers. As you can see from my original reply to your op, which side I come down on.

But beyond that tavi is the manner in which you replied to me here. My comment was in favor of one world yet some how you interpreted it as being against it. You then went on to categorize me (pigeon holed as we called it in my day
) along with "so many others" who I suppose you believe to not share your dream and in doing so have very possibly alienated me and anything I might have to offer to the utopia you envision.

a reply to: rukia

It's really tough to gauge people online. I've made a lot of enemies already on here so I'm attempting to be a little better at not doing it.

We're all conditioned . I'm still incredibly conditioned for all sorts of things. Introspection helps but thinking you are immune to it is the worst thing.

It sounds like you know this already though from overcoming/battling your troubles.

Utopia is the ideal of a city in its original Greek perception. Ideal is sort of like perfect but like many things from philosophy you can't understand the meaning unless you have read other things drin the philosopher. I've forgotten a huge portion of what I know but I had a professor once who spent three entire classes discussing what Plato meant by "ideal".

Long story short words are a pathetic means of communication especially without body language.

No apologies necessary. I come off very combative online apparently. I think I'm so used to people being able to make superficial judgments about my appearance as well as reading my body language and tone that my actual use of language is quite combative. I'm as harmless and friendly as they come though no one on here I've offended would ever believe it.

Either way, Rukia was always my favorite from the show and the fighting games

FYI you can still be a lawyer if you want. Also there's nothing wrong with the Bible or Jesus as long as you can see through the bs and find the real message. It seems like you already know that though :0

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I interpreted it as you thought it was inevitable and fighting was pointless. You said that and i interpreted it correctly.

You mentioned not supporting Biden Kissinger etc and I took it as you don't like the NWO that's coming but why bother fighting.

Apparently you meant that it's futile to fight A world order not the world order.

I apologize if I offended you. I don't plan on making a world order of my own so I'm not concerned if you join it since it won't exist.

Pigeon holing people is not only ingrained in the human mind but extra difficult to avoid on the internet.

You have to keep in mind I'm very new here. I'm used to people being incredibly close minded about this sort of stuff. You came off from my POV as very grounded in the mundane.

I don't know if that's true or not but it doesn't matter much since that's your thing. I'm just speaking my mind, right or wrong

a reply to: tavi45

Apparently you meant that it's futile to fight A world order not the world order.

Exactly. Unfortunately many of us are still mired in the old mindset that its is a socialist machination, that it is a liberal agenda
that promulgates the drive to globalization. It is not. It may be suggested that it seems this way to so many because it was primarily people of liberal persuasion who were among the first to begin pointing out this inevitability and began making suggestions on how to go about it.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I would say it's a more feudal or fascist agenda myself, if we are taking about the NWO.

The funny thing is if an actually decent plan came forward I'd totally give up my rights to help build it. My main concern is that my experience is that the majority of people don't care about anyone outside their small world. The people at the top now are in the smallest world of all. The world and all its people are merely pawns and knights and such to them.

I'm just one of those dumb ass hippies who dreams about a world where people don't hate other people. I can say quite truthfully, not that anyone would believe me, that I hate no one. There are people I think are so misguided and out of touch with their humanity that if someone asked me what I thought of them I'd say "they're an awful person". Even so I don't hate them.

I just have no ability to hate. I can get angry or frustrated or downright cruel at times but it's always an emotional response. I don't carry it with me afterwards. I know people who can't sleep at night because if the hate and rage and fear. I've never slept poorly a night in my life due to my emotions.

The big thing to me is just that we are at a point in our evolution where an egalitarian utopia could be created easily. All we need to do is put manpower, brainpower, resources and energy towards it and its there.

Instead our collective will is geared towards the same power games that developed as a response to our sentience outpacing our ability to control our environment. My country is better than yours. My race is better than yours. My kid is better then yours. My car is better then yours. My dick is better than yours. My god is better than yours. My video is better than yours.

People act as if everything is a game and you win at some point. Something tells me you don't win. If this is all a game we aren't the players but the pieces. Either way, even if it is a game why do we think it's limited to here and now. Maybe it's a game and we are playing against other species elsewhere. Maybe every dead human is watching and saying to all of us " you dumb#s, while you're killing each other the Razafirs are colonizing their first planet ".

Ugh I'm rambling hard. I need to go to sleep

a reply to: tavi45

Feudalism.

One might suggest that the American population is and has been conditioned for a feudal mentality. I am sure that many progressives and conservatives alike can see this paradigm already in place. Governments no more than enforcement tools working at the behest of the corporate castle. I find it interesting that Marx warned that should the people fail to overthrow capitalism with a true socialist economy, that capitalism would eventually implode upon itself and revert to feudalism.

why do we think it's limited to here and now

Though you may have just been rambling hard here, I think you may have hit it on the head, but this is most likely another discussion.

I too am an old hippie type. Came to age living across the bay from SF during the hippie era. Hippie was eulogized and buried in a ceremony in the Haight in early 67 by the residents of the area. They could see what was coming, the summer of love was still months away but they knew that kids from all over the country would be descending on SF come the spring for some of that sex drugs and rock and roll. This experiment in utopian life ended a year or so later on the hills of Altamont. Still, those dreams live on. I understand this dilemma of having held this dream and now decades later finding it still, seemingly, so far away.

Instead our collective will is geared towards the same power games that developed as a response to our sentience outpacing our ability to control our environment.

I can dig this brother(sister?). We seem, nowadays, to be living in an age of instant gratification Push a button and bingo. To me it seems that so many folks want for a philosophy that nails down what is true and what is false written in one simple paragraph. I know I have wanted this. Still do want it to some extent, but for the most part I have come to understand that this is impractical. Summed up this way, truth is just to easily turned into dogma and cliche and then into authoritarianism. Kind of like living in the here and now. This is a very spiritual approach to contemplation but with all respect to Ram Dass, it seems to have been turned into a mantra of the mundane which stymies many into not developing the ability to plan a future or look around the corner to larger potentialities.

This swings me back to your mentioning "why do we think it's limited to here and now" which, as I too have been rambling on, can be left for another conversation.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I appreciate the rambling. Two people rambling is a conversation, no? I'll have to respond in full later since I have a long day ahead of me. Just wanted to show my appreciation for the response