Lets talk about "A" New World Order --- AKA --- Yur gonna hate me

a reply to: andy06shake

If it's common knowledge that the system is rigged, not in your favor or mine, my question is why do we continue playing this charade---this corrupt game that we know we'll never win? It's not because we don't know any better because we do.

I already have the answer. We are in agreement to continue being robbed and fleeced, lied to and abused by the corrupted elite faction because we have allowed ourselves to become compromised. They put the noose around our necks when we agreed to be used as cogs in the machine and that noose synched tighter and tighter around our necks as we became more and more dependent on their system in order to survive. And now we are completely ensnared. There is no escape. That is why they continue to get away with everything they're getting away with and the people just sit by and watch it happen. We traded our power for the security of their authority and now we are defenseless. We are disempowered and disabled. Castrated and branded as slaves, indentured servants, prisoners. Cattle.

There is no such thing as freedom here in the United States or anywhere else on this planet.

a reply to: datguy

Can people have true unity without being “fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought” (as Paul puts it at 1Cor 1:10) concerning for example those topics I brought up?

I don't think your response covered that question, so I thought I'd rephrase it a little and make it stand out a bit more.

a reply to: whereislogic

I think they can.
While in religious terms, the examples I used show that there will not be any unity until the return of Christ.

Let me use a different example, what are the fundamental differences between Christianity and Catholicism? Then add Judaism and/or Islam, all these monotheistic beliefs center around the same God.
So then why are they at odds with each other, surely this is not the work of God, to divide his own people, right?
So if the assumption is made, that we are indeed children of God, then yes we can have unity, but only after the return of Christ, and the two resurrections. It has been prophecized and It is literally "the word of God"

Now in any attempt to create unity amongst humanity, prior to those events one must consider and accept that a "true" unity can never be achieved, but "true freedom" can, and through the ideals of what freedom represents, surely there is a path forward that is inclusive. Now if an individual chooses not take part in that, then they would/should be free to do so, that does not dictate the failure of the efforts made.

a reply to: socialmediaclown

The game is the game socialmediaclown.

And we play from the moment we are born until the last breath that we take.

If in doubt see the national insurance number/social security number we are issued when registered at birth.

In a lot of regards humans are considered to be chattel by their respective goverments.

As to the no such thing as freedom part, well freedom, just like security, are indeed illusory ideologies.

Humans require sets of rules and social graces to interact with one another else anarchy and survival of the fittest tends to be the colour of the day.

Nonetheless the notion of freedom and security imaginary at heart or otherwise are ideologies most humans would have a problem living without.

End of the day humans are not trying to build a utopia for all because the fact is, and given the paradigm we follow, that's not what we desire, but that does not mean that we should not at least attempt to do better and come together for the better of all people as opposed to simply just the few.

a reply to: andy06shake

As SMC has pointed out earlier, most people have addictions to what you refer to as illusions.
These freedom and security concepts that people carry around with them are sometimes used as a tool and sometimes as a weapon.

Both of you make true statements.

I feel its not a matter having to live without the concepts freedom or security, its a matter of what the definitions of those concepts are.

Today we see a lot of people who actually think that freedom comes in the shape of the choices they are able to make, when in reality, freedom is the lack of choices to be made. It is the point at which choice is artificially introduced where the line is blurred. True freedom does not ask which side to take, or which ideology to adhere to, it creates its own path, forged from instinct. This is commonly reduced to the concept if the subconscious "ID"

Security is also drawn from artificially introduced concepts. Ideally reduced to the subconscious super-ego or "the OVER-I" The balance is IMO ironic in that it is supposed the EGO is the middle ground, but many times we see the ideas of an big ego, or overinflated and thus demonized. Is this intentionally derived to create division. To create the two sided coin, conveniently most people ignore that thin line which divides the two sides.

So in the concept of a unified humanity, would we not have to relinquish both freedom and security to some degree.

I sometimes find myself playing devils advocate and pondering if this isn't what is intended by the introduction of such radical ideas presented by the commonly perceived terms of the current NWO.
In essence, by artificially introducing extreme concepts that both appeal to and oppose what is the essence of human nature, wouldn't humanity at some point reach an equilibrium?

This of course presumes a lack of greed and corruption and makes the supposition based solely on an intent to truly unify.
Being as my intent is to unify and not rule or control.

a reply to: datguy

This of course presumes a lack of greed and corruption

And therein lies the problem where both the individual and large groups of people are concerned.

a reply to: andy06shake

But a New Order, could be established with safeguards that the founding fathers never dreamed would be needed.

Safe guards that could protect against things like voter apathy, defend against looting of public funds, deny corporate sponsorship, end the lobby of government.
Coupled with new regulations and restrictions on the government like term limits for the legislative branch, bans on trading, bans on private funding and donations to representatives...nd the biggest one, accountability for those that break those rules.
To me these ideas are the easiest to accomplish, they could be achieved in short time with the proper effort put forth, but they are all front end, user interface issues.

The bigger issue is with the reaction to such measures.

In our current World Order, lets say the people decide to put in place term limits and end the corporate lobby.
What happens to the corporations, do they stay and continue doing business under these new terms, do they allow themselves to be subject once again the invisible hand?
Can the American population handle not having Burger King, or new Nike's, or a new car every year. Can the Average American handle having to leave their house to go fishing, grow their own vegetables, raise their own livestock, build their own houses. better yet, would they even need to?
Hasn't our society advanced enough that we can do all those things without the corporations in the current state they exist?
I personally think we would advance faster than we are and benefit from it

originally posted by: datguy
a reply to: whereislogic

I think they can.
While in religious terms, the examples I used show that there will not be any unity until the return of Christ.

Thank you. So after that event they will be “fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought” (1Cor 1:10)? But it's not a requirement for true unity cause they can be united without it (as per your answer: "I think they can")? Or to use your examples, after this event, can Muslims continue to believe that Jesus Christ is merely a human prophet of God, Catholics continue to believe that Christ is God, Jews continue to believe that Christ is a charlatan, a fake/false Messiah (and treat with him as such), and Christians continue to believe that he is the divine Son of God, appointed and anointed by his God (and Father) to rule as King, as he is described in the Bible, yet they can all be united (because it's all monotheism 'centering around the same God'?*)? That doesn't sound right, and from the rest of your comment it doesn't seem like you meant that (or "true unity") when you said "I think they can" in response to the question about true unity and that phrase from Paul. From the rest of your comment, it actually sounds more like you agree that the type of true unity of thought Paul spoke of, cannot be achieved if you have different views/thoughts about important subjects such as the identity of Jesus Christ. Like when you said " one must consider and accept that a "true" unity can never be achieved" (prior to the return of Christ). And from your earlier commentary it sounds like you could also agree that different religions (religious views) are an obstruction to that type of true unity, including the unity of thought/belief Paul spoke of. Or in other words, historically, religion has functioned as a divisive force, a major cause of war even (case in point, the crusades you brought up first).

*: which isn't really true for the Trinitarianism taught by most of Christendom, including Roman Catholicism, which actually is polytheism in disguise (they can argue 'these are not 3 gods but 1 God' all they want, it won't change that).

a reply to: whereislogic

well, the sinners get to spend eternity in hell
the rest get to be servants of god

In theory, after these events, there will be no need for more than one religion because we will all know the truth
there will be no need for divisions between islam or judaism or christianity,
so yes, once the truth is revealed we will all be “fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought”
THAT would be the true unity, in the words of god.
That doesn't mean that I cannot have faith in and endeavour to unite humanity while we wait

a reply to: datguy

I don't necessarily disagree but for us to come together as the one race we would need to change the basic paradigm humanity has followed throughout recorded history which is no easy task.

Again we would need to come together for the correct reasoning and not "Their" reasoning.

As to how advanced our societies have become, unfortunately, it's not an even spread, or anything reminiscent of such across the globe.

originally posted by: datguy
a reply to: whereislogic

These Machiavellian constructs combined with religious zealotry is what has given rise to our current predicaments.

Machiavelli was mentioned under the link for nationalism, which is the 2nd page of an article series about universal brotherhood (i.e. unity), as it discusses "What Obstructs Universal Brotherhood?" The first 2 main topics discussed on that page are nationalism and racism. But the next page is called "How Has Religion Affected Brotherhood?"

ALTHOUGH there is a general loss of confidence in religion today, yet many people believe that religion instills love and brotherhood. Of course, on the individual level there have always been noble lives lived by all types of religious people. But what do the facts reveal about this world’s religions in general? What, for example, is religion’s record in relation to war​—the very opposite of love and brotherhood?

It is a very shocking one. The record of suffering, cruelty and bloodshed caused or blessed by false religion is frightful. Speaking of “holy wars,” the book Age of Faith says: “None have been bloodier than the Christian Crusades of the Middle Ages. . . . The Crusaders . . . raped and plundered fellow Christians and committed incredible atrocities on their Moslem foes.”

...

Such inhuman conduct and other abuses led to the Reformation in the early 16th century. But before long, the Protestants became deeply involved in politics just as the Roman Church had been for centuries. Then, in 1618, the Thirty Years’ War broke out between Protestants and Catholics in Germany. Soon it involved most of Christendom. It was “a war waged with a ferocity to which history offers few parallels. . . . moral restraints broke down and ceded to wild bursts of profligacy.”​—A History of Europe, by H. Fisher.

These are but a few brief accounts of the many wars caused or supported by religion in the past. But what about today?

Religion’s Modern Record

...

But that was a minor tragedy compared to what took place in World Wars I and II. During those conflicts, millions of Christendom’s members, along with Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and others, inflicted appalling loss of life and misery on one another. Yet the clergy on both sides of the conflict prayed for God’s blessing.

The failure of this world’s religions to act as a force for promoting true brotherhood stems from this basic error: getting people to follow human leaders and their ideas instead of doing what God says in his Word, the Bible.​—John 12:43.

Hence, such worldly religions cannot be true religion. As an inspired Bible writer clearly said: “Pure, unspoilt religion, in the eyes of God our Father is this: coming to the help of orphans and widows when they need it, and keeping oneself uncontaminated by the world.” (Jas. 1:27, The Jerusalem Bible) Those words breathe the spirit of love and brotherhood. But on the other hand, think of the millions who have been made widows and orphans due to the violence and persecution caused by impure, false religion! And it is because such religion is ‘contaminated by the world.’

How clear it is, then, that we can never hope to see a true, universal brotherhood established by false religion, of which the churches of Christendom are the dominant part. They have had centuries of power and opportunity to do so. Instead, the result is a world agonizing in crime, terrorism and wars, a world deeply divided by politics, nationalism, racism and thousands of religious sects.

Is there no hope, then? Is the situation so bad that the brotherhood of man will remain just a dream? Many people would probably agree with these plaintive words of a popular song entitled “Why?”: “Someone’s lost the plan For the brotherhood of man And no one’s trying to find it anymore.”

But take courage! The “plan for the brotherhood of man” has certainly not been lost. In fact, the nucleus of the brotherhood of mankind is already being formed!

Next page: The Pattern for Brotherhood (Awake!—1981)

The role of the clergy in relation to the divisive nationalism and patriotism that fanned the flames of WW I is also discussed under the link for patriotism (from my first comment). And the topic "How Does Religion Influence War?" is discussed under the link for war. So as you can see, religion's part in obstructing universal brotherhood (true unity), is well discussed in the first 3 links I used in my first comment. And some things are not all that different from what you're pointing out about it.

originally posted by: whereislogic
...

*: which isn't really true for the Trinitarianism taught by most of Christendom, including Roman Catholicism, which actually is polytheism in disguise (they can argue 'these are not 3 gods but 1 God' all they want, it won't change that).

There's another thread in this subforum that asks 'what is the greatest conspiracy?' As far as conspiracies go, the one alluded to above is a pretty significant one (and it relates to my very first remark in this thread about using coercion, in particular after 0:38 in part 2):