Why take so long for world domination?

Originally posted by Octavius Maximus

There is another answer, they can only influence those that turn to darkness. The side of light is immune to their measures, hence the battle of dark and light. Sure some warriors of kindness might fall, but enough are left to push back on there evil intents. Think of it this way, if money is not your god what can a rich man do to you?

Turn down the ring of power and stick that nasty Nazgul in the foot!

wow...cause that isnt a very bad side to keep.

So you think your on the 'side of light'?

*chuckles*

Im not going to say Hitler was an 'evil' man, because its all a matter of perspective. To Hitler killing the jews was the right thing to do. He was slaughtering the evil ones so his armies of light could cover the globe and bring everyone into a new age.

Your side of light is no brighter than my side of light

I am qualifying side of light as Kindness, Love, Humility, self sacrifice, ect.., side of dark as greed, violence, selfishness, ect... In my opinion a person slaughtering others is in darkness, or a person stabing a Nazgul in the foot if taken literally.

At times I do good, at times I fail. After reading my statement it was not clear and it may have sounded like someone proclaiming that one side of a war is the light side, the other side of a war is dark, I am saying war is dark, mother Teresa or Gandi has more light side actions.

I was only trying to state, and chose to believe that the good things will prevail, and will counter the things I consider failures in myself and the world.

I understand your arguement on perspective, this is a good way to step into others way of thinking to find ones own fault on issues. I try not to call people evil as much as their moment to moment choices, Hitler made many choices I consider evil. So many that I believe that his guiding light was darkness, even if he gives me a rational explanasion for his actions.

I am qualifying side of light as Kindness, Love, Humility, self sacrifice, ect.., side of dark as greed, violence, selfishness, ect...

So all those hero movies and books where the guy fights all adversity to get the girl...Sure he's a hero because he loves her. But isnt he also a selfish person to want her? Isnt he greedy to want to break people before him to get it for herself?

I understand your arguement on perspective, this is a good way to step into others way of thinking to find ones own fault on issues. I try not to call people evil as much as their moment to moment choices, Hitler made many choices I consider evil. So many that I believe that his guiding light was darkness, even if he gives me a rational explanasion for his actions.

His guiding light was darkness? Isnt it more likely that his guiding light was his beliefs? He doesnt say "I want to be evil" he does things becuase he believes them, everyone around him agrees and doesnt seem to protest, so what would tell him he is doing the wrong thing?

Sorry, its all perspective, placing war and people on the side of light and darkness is irrelevant. Throwing a newborn baby out is 'evil' to many today, while in Ancient Greece it was a common practice.

Perspective, belief and culture. 3 things which people forget when talking about good and evil.

Originally posted by Octavius Maximus
so what would tell him he is doing the wrong thing?

it is called a conscious, we all have one...some people CHOOSE to ignore it, this makes them evil or insane, you pick.

It's no longer PC to dominate people even for their own good. You supposed to let 3rd world countries rot than to liberate them, preservation of cultural heritage includes preservation of all of their unhealthy practices.

It's not PC to cure a retard anymore, you have to just accept them and embrace their mental "diiference"

[
it is called a conscious, we all have one...some people CHOOSE to ignore it, this makes them evil or insane, you pick

As i said, its perspective.

Hitler didnt need a conscience when exterminating the jews because he honestly believed they deserved to die.

And from the looks of it, not many Germans thought differently.

Perspective.

Originally posted by Octavius Maximus
So all those hero movies and books where the guy fights all adversity to get the girl...Sure he's a hero because he loves her. But isnt he also a selfish person to want her? Isnt he greedy to want to break people before him to get it for herself?

Would he have saved her if he didn't know her? That would be the true test. Would he save her then let her marry his best friend and walk away? If he saved her just for himself, he never really loved her... And I believe you can win fights without violence.

His guiding light was darkness? Isnt it more likely that his guiding light was his beliefs? He doesnt say "I want to be evil" he does things becuase he believes them, everyone around him agrees and doesnt seem to protest, so what would tell him he is doing the wrong thing?

I think you caught my play on words, our guiding lights is our conscience, he should have known it was wrong simply by being a human. If he truelly did not know it was wrong then I return to my original comment, he is not evil, but he is doing evil. A good person can do evil and still be a good person, an evil person knows it is wrong when he does evil. Our own law makes this distinction with the insanity defence, a person must know that what he did was wrong.

Sorry, its all perspective, placing war and people on the side of light and darkness is irrelevant. Throwing a newborn baby out is 'evil' to many today, while in Ancient Greece it was a common practice.

The mother who throws out the newborn may know she is doing what is needed for her culture, but don't you think she is going to know it is wrong and greive over it. A proffessional executioner for the state of Texas may learn to rationalize his job, but he rationalizes it because he must overcome the knowledge that it is wrong. On a side note this example could be visted today with abortion, so maybe we have not changed that much after all.

Perspective, belief and culture. 3 things which people forget when talking about good and evil.

Although perspective guides actions, and manytimes gives people the rational to explain there actions, it does not change those actions, nor there moral value.

I do see where our differance of opinion is, I believe in an absolute good, and an absolute evil. You believe what is right and wrong is decided by the laws and society around you. Mine comes from what I was told by the person I consider to be the ultimate authority, the teachings of Jesus Christ. Yours comes from your authority, the socially acceptable values of the men that you allow to dictate what is allowed and the ones whose judgement you accept.

Note as I stated above, I fail often and do not claim to be better then anyone else, if anything I am worse since I believe more things that we all fail at are wrong.

[
Would he have saved her if he didn't know her? That would be the true test. Would he save her then let her marry his best friend and walk away? If he saved her just for himself, he never really loved her... And I believe you can win fights without violence.

Yes, but conflicts of all kinds have a winner and a loser, usually. While the winner may be doing 'justice' or 'protecting the innocent' Or whatever, its all in perspective.

I think you caught my play on words, our guiding lights is our conscience

Here is where we are falling over.

You say Conscience, i say belief. But Conscience actually comes from the beliefs of the person, does it not? The personal laws a person creates to live his or her life with.

he should have known it was wrong simply by being a human.

But his conscience is created by his beliefs, if noone challenges his beliefs, and people agree with it, his beliefs and conscience will mean he will act on his beliefs and it wont be against his Conscience because it is the 'right thing to do.'

Our own law makes this distinction with the insanity defence, a person must know that what he did was wrong.

So wait, if i say that i was following the example of the Athenians by throwing out a newborn, i could get off on the insanity defence?

The only insane thing is that defence!

The mother who throws out the newborn may know she is doing what is needed for her culture, but don't you think she is going to know it is wrong and greive over it.

Ill explain the practice to you.

firstly, keep in mind that Greece is a patriarchal society, the life of the child is chosen by the father, but it is probably disposed of by the mother.

now, when a child is born, the father has a small amount of time, a week or so usually, to choose whether he will keep it or not. If he chooses to keep it, he will walk with it around the Hearth.

If he chooses not to, the child is given to the mother to dispose of, if she believes the child should die, she drops it in the woods or on a mountainside somewhere. If she wants it to live, she will leave it in a populated area, so it may be picked up and adopted by another family.

At this point in time, Athens was becoming richer and richer so money isnt the problem (in those days, more children meant more wealth anyway)

The mothers didnt really grieve for the disposed of children. It was the fathers decision and they had no say in it.

It had no good, it was all down to choice.

These days, this option is unthinkable to many people. But back then it was an accepted practice, rather widespread.

Are the Athenians evil because of this?

Of course not, you cannot say this, they believed differently, so their conscience was shaped differently.

Anyway, odds are the child wouldnt survive. You would need around 5 children to play the odds and ensure 1 will survive past 20.

On a side note this example could be visted today with abortion, so maybe we have not changed that much after all.

removing an embryo is alot different to dropping a baby in the forest, you realise.

I do see where our differance of opinion is, I believe in an absolute good, and an absolute evil.

I do not believe in evil, people do not do things because they are evil. They do it because of other reasons, it makes them feel good, or it makes sense for them.

There is no such thing as evil, just beliefs and perspective.

You believe what is right and wrong is decided by the laws and society around you.

Close, but not exactly. It isnt 'society' it is culture and Extelligence which decides what is moral and what isnt.

Laws are created because the culture finds an agreement on an issue and how it should be dealt with.

Mine comes from what I was told by the person I consider to be the ultimate authority, the teachings of Jesus Christ. Yours comes from your authority, the socially acceptable values of the men that you allow to dictate what is allowed and the ones whose judgement you accept.

I believe that every person has a motive, and i will endeavor to understand that motive before damning them.

Why take so long for world domination?

The answer to this question is a simple one.

There is no such thing as NWO.

There is no agenda by NWO to take over the world.

NWO exists only in the minds of NWO propagandists.

[edit on 18-9-2007 by Ickey]

Originally posted by Octavius Maximus

Yes, but conflicts of all kinds have a winner and a loser, usually. While the winner may be doing 'justice' or 'protecting the innocent' Or whatever, its all in perspective.

Some conflicts have two winners. If you do not destroy your enemy but turn him to your friend. You did say usually, I personally believe the winner is the one who does not turn to methods I previously described as darkness. Not the one that gains material.

You say Conscience, i say belief. But Conscience actually comes from the beliefs of the person, does it not? The personal laws a person creates to live his or her life with.

Conscience is not belief, I feel sad if I watch the butchering of an animal, but I belief life to sustain my life is ok so eat many steaks. I believe it to be ok so I am able to rationalize my compliance in the action that goes agains my conscience. I use many ways to lessen the impact on my conscience, I do not watch peta films, I do not partake in the butchering, and I do not form attachments with animals that are eaten like I do a pet cat or dog. These are some of the same mechanism people use to justify bombing another civilization.

I believe conscience is not culturally created, culture gives rational to do what your conscience tells you is wrong. belief does not create conscience, belief is used for some people to overcome conscience.

So wait, if i say that i was following the example of the Athenians by throwing out a newborn, i could get off on the insanity defence?

I believe insanity needs more components then just knowledge of wrong, but my point is our society recognizes knowledge of doing evil as part of its crime.

Ill explain the practice to you.

firstly, keep in mind that Greece is a patriarchal society, the life of the child is chosen by the father, but it is probably disposed of by the mother.

now, when a child is born, the father has a small amount of time, a week or so usually, to choose whether he will keep it or not. If he chooses to keep it, he will walk with it around the Hearth.

If he chooses not to, the child is given to the mother to dispose of, if she believes the child should die, she drops it in the woods or on a mountainside somewhere. If she wants it to live, she will leave it in a populated area, so it may be picked up and adopted by another family.

This has nothing to do with them grieving, if anything ritual was added to overcome the core knowledge (conscience) that what they were doing was not good. Why leave baby for someone else if they truely had no feelings for it like it was a log of wood. If there were those who wanted a baby and there was no attachment, why wasn't it treated as a commodity they would sell it, they are hoping for it to survive, again showing there actions of dumping are against there conscience.

The mothers didnt really grieve for the disposed of children. It was the fathers decision and they had no say in it.

This is, well, rediculous. The mother carried the child, if anything the father made the decision partly for this reason. The grief of the mother has nothing to do with who decides. If a robber decides the hostage next to you your friend is to be shot, does that mean you feel no grief? think about it.

Are the Athenians evil because of this?

for the third time I refer you back to my comments on people being evil vs doing things that are evil.

Of course not, you cannot say this, they believed differently, so their conscience was shaped differently.

They have different demands on survival and are able to rationalize there actions to overcome there feelings on the issue due to these demands. There conscience was not formed differently, they have modified it by rationalization learning to overcome it. It still exist in its pure form, just through practice (being cold or hard) they have learned to ignore it.

There is no such thing as evil, just beliefs and perspective..

That is your belief and your perspective, one which may be used to rationalize your actions when they conflict with your conscience.

Originally posted by Sherrysilver

Originally posted by leafer
For example if their goal is to take over the world and have themselves (elite) above us all then the following plan could work much quicker then what they have been trying to do for the longest time:

1) Designate a section of land on the earth as their new home.
2) Begin breeding a new human to suit their needs on that land
3) Implement schools, infrastructure, etc in a closed society where no one is allowed in or out BUT has the freedom to move within that society with a chip.
4) Set a max number to which the population can reach, 3mil for example.
5) Assign professions based on the DNA assigned to the individual

Things are going by prophecy those 5 things are not in the bible.

that's right!!! They are following SOMEONE ELSE'S PLAN!!!

"Assign professions based on DNA"?

Really?

Some of you people make me so sad at the pathetic state of our public science education.

There is nothing in your DNA that says anything about you might or might not be good at. It never will.

DNA encodes for proteins. That's it.

How those proteins build your brain is partially determined by genetics, but largely determined by your environment (upbringing, experiences, nutrition, etc). But once you get to personality and aptitude level of analysis, your actual DNA is far far removed.

Yes there are some traits that are largely determined by genetics, but these are simple traits and behaviors, not the complex ones, like having superb critical thinking skills, good with hands, good grasp of math and numbers, and all the other traits that can make a good scientist, for instance.

And what's more, the genetic components of these traits are polygenic. That is, many different genes and biochemical pathways and neurological pathways feed in to modulate these traits.

So basically: the idea that professions can be decided by DNA is stupid. And we're still not even to the point to efficiently sequence and analyze individuals genomes yet (though that's coming very soon - thankfully!).

Some conflicts have two winners. If you do not destroy your enemy but turn him to your friend. You did say usually, I personally believe the winner is the one who does not turn to methods I previously described as darkness. Not the one that gains material.

So the man who fights for the cause of good, and then gets killed is the winner?

Was Hector the winner when Achilles killed him and dragged his corpse behind his chariot?

Conscience is not belief, I feel sad if I watch the butchering of an animal, but I belief life to sustain my life is ok so eat many steaks. I believe it to be ok so I am able to rationalize my compliance in the action that goes agains my conscience. I use many ways to lessen the impact on my conscience, I do not watch peta films, I do not partake in the butchering, and I do not form attachments with animals that are eaten like I do a pet cat or dog. These are some of the same mechanism people use to justify bombing another civilization.

Yes, your conscience comes from the collective extelligence of the society around you, that is culture.

Many ancient societies partook in sacrifice, be it animal or human, but after awhile the 'rationalization' (A sacrifice for the gods/harvest/etc) gets lost, but the ritual remains.

So after awhile, 'killing for peace' is replaced with 'killing my enemy for peace' which is then replaced with 'killing my enemy'.

You can see it happening in Iraq already.

I believe conscience is not culturally created, culture gives rational to do what your conscience tells you is wrong. belief does not create conscience, belief is used for some people to overcome conscience.

"And after I'd implored with vows and prayers
the tribes of those dead souls, I seized the sheep
and slit their throats above the pit; cloud-dark
blood ran. From Erebus there came a crowd
of dead souls: girls, young bachelors, and old men
much tried by grief, and tender brides still new
to sorrow. many fighting men came, too;
they'd died in battle...

...

the uttered strange outcries. I paled with fear.
At that, I spurred my men to flay and roast
the sheep we'd sacrificed, whos throats i 'd cut
with ruthless bronze; and we prayed to the gods...

...

This is a small section for the Odyssey. You can see how the slaughter, flaying and roasting of sheep was pretty much an every day occurence.

It is very difficult to find an ancient Greek source which doesnt mention animal sacrifice. None of them mourn the animals, their own conscience has been shaped by the extelligence of their society.

I believe insanity needs more components then just knowledge of wrong, but my point is our society recognizes knowledge of doing evil as part of its crime.

but thats the thing, all societies do the same thing. The difference is what counts as 'doing evil'.

This has nothing to do with them grieving, if anything ritual was added to overcome the core knowledge (conscience) that what they were doing was not good. Why leave baby for someone else if they truely had no feelings for it like it was a log of wood.

some were left in the city, but this wasnt an everyday occurence, leaving the baby in the woods, or burying it alive is a much more common occurence.

Is burying a baby alive evil? Nowadays it is, those days it wasnt. It was down to the choice of the father. I doubt he would choose to grieve if he could help it.

In the days where medicine and doctors were not as effective or learned as today you see many parents wernt as attached to their children as they are today, because infant mortality was so high, it was difficult to commit.

If there were those who wanted a baby and there was no attachment, why wasn't it treated as a commodity they would sell it, they are hoping for it to survive, again showing there actions of dumping are against there conscience.

because you cannot sell a child if it isnt a slave. If the parents were slaves then they probably could sell it, but an Athenian citizen (and to a lesser degree, an Athenian metic) would not be able to sell their child. (not to my knowledge, i havnt researched that occurence to be truthful, but i havnt heard of the practice being performed yet)

This is, well, rediculous. The mother carried the child, if anything the father made the decision partly for this reason. The grief of the mother has nothing to do with who decides. If a robber decides the hostage next to you your friend is to be shot, does that mean you feel no grief? think about it.

Again, your applying modern attitudes to ancient beliefs. The mother may grieve, but nothing to the amount that they do today.

for the third time I refer you back to my comments on people being evil vs doing things that are evil.

your saying that a good person can do evil things because of no knowledge?

Was Hitler a good man because he didnt know that killing Jews was wrong?

They have different demands on survival and are able to rationalize there actions to overcome there feelings on the issue due to these demands.

but thats the thing, many people had a great life at the time, yet they still disposed of children anyway.

Their only motivation was choice.

. There conscience was not formed differently, they have modified it by rationalization learning to overcome it. It still exist in its pure form, just through practice (being cold or hard) they have learned to ignore it.

So if it is learnt to be ignored, it means their conscience has been modified. over the generations the idea will modify the extelligence.

That is your belief and your perspective, one which may be used to rationalize your actions when they conflict with your conscience.

not as such, the conscience is based upon each persons set of personal beliefs. Society imposes its beliefs and perspectives on its people, making conscience follow.

Albert Pike the pope of Freemasonry said "We never start a premature revolution" these people are extremely onssesive compulsive control freaks who have to have everything in place before they pull the switch. Also I do believe the elite has come to the point where they have had their plan completed only to suffer from the inevitable infighting that is a halmark of psychopathic alliances everyone wants to be the first king of the world. So I believe they have suffered warfare within their ranks over and over and had to start over from scratch. Apparently the ancient Hindus wrote of seven previous ages in which civilization has all but been destroyed and reborn and that the surviving elite who have had the knowledge of genetics a long time ago respawned man.