A Benevolent United Earth? yea or nay

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Impossible. It goes against human nature. What rules humanity is the collective unconsciousness. Thats what drives our behavior. A united world will only happen by two ways: forcing all humanity to think alike, or re engineering the human race.

I'm sorry dear friend but that really doesn't make any sense. What makes you think humanity is not at all capable of being united? You can't say "human nature" because division is not human nature. I suggest you rethink your theories.

Originally posted by muppet
I think it's the secrecy and the hierarchal non-democratic structure. Freemasonry may well be completely benign, but then again it may not. The only ones who really know are those at the top of the hierarchy, and they aren't telling!

On the contrary, the Masonic institution is an absolute democracy at the Lodge level, and a representative democracy at the Grand Lodge level. Both Washington and Franklin have indicated that many of their ideas about democracy, which they applied to the United States, were learned by them through their participation in Masonry.
As far as Masons �not telling�, this is also incorrect: Masonic jurisprudence is spelled out in each Grand Lodge�s Constitution.

The hierarchical structure of Masonry is similar to that of the US government. Each year, the Lodge elects new officers to one year terms by majority vote. The top three Officers of the Lodge are the Worshipful Master, Senior Warden, and Junior Warden, who would correspond to what civic clubs call the President and First and Second Vice President. In turn, these three Officers represent the Lodge at the annual meeting of the Grand Lodge.

The Grand Lodge consists of the Master and two Wardens of each Lodge in the jurisdiction, with each Lodge being entitled to three votes, regardless of how many delegates are actually present (i.e., if I�m the only member of my Lodge who can attend Grand Lodge sessions because the other guys have to work, I can cast all 3 votes).

The Grand Lodge representatives then elect Grand Lodge officers from among themselves to a one year term by majority vote.

At the Grand Lodge sessions, new legislation may be introduced, and amendments made to the Grand Lodge�s Constitution, if approved by a majority of the delegates. This process is about as democratic as it can get.

But back to the original question, concerning a one world government:

In my youth, I was a radical student and a Marxist-Leninist. I became a Marxist not so much because I believed that Marx was right, but because I believed he should be right. I was highly idealistic, and believed man�s ultimate goal should be a classless international society where poverty and exploitation were completely eliminated, and I was appalled at the policies of my own government (Marxism giving me a chance to rebel against them).

I later repudiated Marxism, both in theory and practice (by the way, I was a Trotskyist, and never joined the Communist Party). Even though Marxist philosophy is heroic, its practice left much to be desired. Prisons full of dissidents was not my idea of �utopia�.

After studying Nietzsche, I came to the conclusion that people are �human, all too human�. In its current stage, people are �too human� to make one world society work. To do so would require a sophistication, intelligence, and ethical perfection that the average guy on the street does not possess. Perhaps one day, our race will evolve into a species of enlightened scholars, all of whom have the best interests of each other at heart. But, at least for the moment, we�re a long way from such a thing, and a one world government is impossible. The small nation states we currently have can barely function because of ignorance and decadence, much less one worldwide utopian state.

Fiat Lvx.

After studying Nietzsche, I came to the conclusion that people are “human, all too human”. In its current stage, people are “too human” to make one world society work. To do so would require a sophistication, intelligence, and ethical perfection that the average guy on the street does not possess. Perhaps one day, our race will evolve into a species of enlightened scholars, all of whom have the best interests of each other at heart. But, at least for the moment, we’re a long way from such a thing, and a one world government is impossible. The small nation states we currently have can barely function because of ignorance and decadence, much less one worldwide utopian state.

*Sigh* that was beautiful...

[edit on 30-6-2004 by iceofspades]

Hmm..this topic reminds me of this song:

Imagine there's no heaven,
It's easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
living for today...

Imagine there's no countries,
It isnt hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...

Imagine no possesions,
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say Im a dreamer,
but Im not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one.

Imagine by John Lennon

BTW, I don't believe there will ever be a united earth in any way. Mainly because there's just too many ideals, religions, beliefs etc. And as long as people are willing to kill because of these ideals, religions, beliefs, the earth will never be united or live in peace.

[edit on 1-7-2004 by D]

I appreciate all of these responses. Thank you for providing your input, everyone.

Some way or another, I figured that freemasonry would enter this topic. Not that I am upset by such an issue being introduced here, not at all, but I do have to admit that I am rather skeptical about the ulterior motives behind a masonic one-world government. My main problem with freemasonry is how it is in bed with secret socieites that date back to Babylon Mystery School. And that seems like bad news. Also, though it may seem fine and dandy at the lower levels, it is at the summit of this pyramid that the best view can be seen. In short, there seems to be no such coincidence involved with higher-ranking masons becoming leaders of their realms. While I did not mean to insult this group in any shape or form (I try to respect everything or at least try to understand it), I did include that last line "without masonic overtones" as an indicator to people that may think I am spewing some globalist crap. I swear that I am not doing that in any way as I am completely against the current form of globalisation that is ruining the international community. I also said "masonic" because Star Trek's creator, Gene Roddenberry, was a freemason and his shows did have a few tributes to the symbolism here and there (not to mention 13's everywhere). Also, please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't part of the initial oath of Freemasonry is to worship a deity named Jahbulon?

Orwell and Huxley are so similar... you'd think they were one and the same if there wasn't such a great age discrepancy. This is probably why the mixup happened between us. Yes, it seems Orwell's intent was that of warning... but he was also a high-ranking Freemason. Higher-ranking freemasons appear to be carrying out Illuminati agendas, whereas the lower-ranking ones probably have good intentions and have no idea that such things happen. Huxley, though I am not sure of his cult-status, was likely to be in a similar secret society if not the same one as Orwell. Which would go a long way to explain why their works have that same kind of "life sucks and then you die" overtone, to put it simply.

I would never advocate the application of mass-brainwashing to carry out such a utopian society. I would expect that higher educational standards would do a lot to form the basis for this utopian society. A critical reason as to why many people around the world are filled with hatred and general ignorance may be because they were never properly educated. They were never given the proper materials to help them understand why things are the way they are, and you see this happen all the time.

Originally posted by AlnilamOmega
My main problem with freemasonry is how it is in bed with secret socieites that date back to Babylon Mystery School. And that seems like bad news. Also, though it may seem fine and dandy at the lower levels, it is at the summit of this pyramid that the best view can be seen.

Freemasonry is not �in bed with secret societies that date back to the Babylon Mystery School�. Freemasonry is an independent fraternal organization, and there are not any secret societies dating back to a Babylon Mystery School in existence...nor did a Babylonian Mystery School ever exist.
Certainly, there were religious mysteries practiced in Babylon; especially popular were the Mysteries of Thammuz. But these mysteries weren�t primarily of Babylonian origin, nor were they a united religious movement. They were not able survive the rise of Islam, and went extinct.

In short, there seems to be no such coincidence involved with higher-ranking masons becoming leaders of their realms.

I�m not quite sure what you mean. The purpose of Freemasonry is to promulgate the ideals of the Enlightenment. These ideals were summed up by the Enlightenment-era philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his famous declaration �Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity!�
�Rank� was considered an ideal of the dark ages, improper to an enlightened citizenry. Because Masonry has adopted the philosophy of the Enlightenment, it frowns upon the theory of �rank�. Indeed, one of the most important symbols of Masonry is the Level. For the operative stonemason, the Level is the tool used to lay stones or bricks in an equal height. To the Free Mason, it is a symbol of the equality of all people in general, especially concerning the equality of all Brethren in the Lodge room.
Masonry, like all organizations, has leaders and administrators, who could be said to hold �rank� for the time being. But after they have served their terms of office, they are replaced by other members who are elected by the fraternity.

I also said "masonic" because Star Trek's creator, Gene Roddenberry, was a freemason and his shows did have a few tributes to the symbolism here and there (not to mention 13's everywhere). Also, please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't part of the initial oath of Freemasonry is to worship a deity named Jahbulon?

Mr. Roddenberry was not a Mason, although I too have seen his name mentioned on anti-Masonic websites, which falsely claim he was. Personally, I�ve always been a Star Trek fan, and wish he that he was a Mason, lol.

As for your other question, no, there is no deity or god in Freemasonry named Jahbulon. Freemasonry is not a religious organization; it is a non-sectarian fraternal order. Masonry does not discriminate on the basis of religious belief, and welcomes men of all faiths. In the U.S., most Masons are Christians (and therefore worship the Christian God), but the fraternity also admits Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Taoists, etc., each of which has his own religious belief. The Lodge is a fraternity, not a house of worship; therefore, the religious differences of our members do not present an obstacle to Masonic fellowship.

However, during the 18th century when Masonry first became popular, probably the majority of our members were Deists, as were most Enlightenment thinkers. Deists believed in God, but did not trust any established religions. They were �rationalists� who were more interested in the new sciences (such as Newtonian physics) and the new free thinking philosophies than in religion. Famous Deist Masons include Voltaire, Benjamin Franklin, and George Washington. Worshiping a deity in the Lodge, especially a new god called Jahbulon, would have been considered a ridiculous superstition.

Higher-ranking freemasons appear to be carrying out Illuminati agendas

Please define �high ranking freemasons�, and provide an example of a particular individual who meets your definition is �carrying out Illuminati agendas.� In reality, the �Illuminati agendas� (at least the real ones, as opposed to the fantasies of the conspiracy theorists) were carried out long before we were even born, and today we live in a free society because of it.

Fiat Lvx.

Your suspicions regarding Huxley are justified, AlnilamOmega. He has been linked to the early days of the Tavistock Institute, an organisation weith a frightening history & tentacles spreading world-wide. Outside the topic in hand, but some reading may be found here -
www.unsaccodicanapa.com...-by-14210
100777.com...
and related Huxley material here-
www.schillerinstitute.org...

I like your proposed vision of a utopian future, but the logistics involved in attaining that goal are the main stumbling-block for me. Education may indeed be the key, but this cannot be achieved overnight. And the redistribution of wealth is another huge factor that still needs to be addressed.

Mass brainwashing is a tactic that I too am ideologically opposed to, but in the interests of the early adoption of thses utopian ideals, I can think of no other way - & then of course, this would undoubtedly lead to abuse, much as I'd like to believe otherwise.

One of the consequences of the homogenation of the world's culture is that it makes gloal government possilble through media and industrial technology.


If you make a world where the entire population is FREE ENOUGH to buy and sell in industrial consumption-based economies of the west, then you make the western way the dominant force in the world. Western forces are not just economic, the introduction of modern market-based cultures into a newly industrialized nation can result in instability, social upheaval, and cultural disintegration.

The additional problem of globalization is the emergence of forces and powers that have set their activities upon the profiting of this newly developed dominance, and their aims are less than holy. Indeed, their intentions are devoid of any grace or philosophy whatever, and cannot hope to achieve anything but harm to the fabric of the world and the health of its nations.

It is not a matter of religion. Social engineering and nation-influencing is really heavy stuff, and should only be ondertaken by an equally weighty intellect, and matching good will. If not, the product is war, decay, and confusion.

The forces acting upon theorganization of this world are not regal eagles dwelling in some enlightened spendor. They are servants to the most base and unrefined of human spirits, they feed from their product, and the increase after their own kind of mind, which is without any dignity or moral code, but is a dangerous sort of lawlessness, a dubious mixture of appearances and deceptions, while inwardly hiding the monster that is the desire and want this kind of society instills in its citizens.

That is the well known truth from long ago. Long ago there were whole nations that were enlightened. During the time of the Muslim Empire, its was quite common for Jews, Christians, and Muslims to live in the same ocmmunities, quite at peace with one another, because justice and law was in the hand of the Sultan, or the Shah, and it was rigorously enforced.

As you can see, there are certain principals and philosophies that are required to be in the minds and policies of the rulers of any given civilization, or the civilization will decline and fail.

If these guiding lights are not found among the people, or have been driven out of their common understanding, then the nation has become hopelessly fallen, and is ready to be buffeted by the great and natural forces of consequnce and karma.

You cannot exist as a nation if you constantly work at personal corruption, evil, and deception. You cannot associate with the negative forces of the universe AND expect to enjoy the fruits of a peaceful, rational civilization for long. The two canot coexist, as ignorant, evil, and vice is antagonist to all civilization, and causes decay of all aspects of human character.

Americans have a very basic choice - either the good minded and Liberty-minded citizens that control of the direction of their country -- or the evil forces of corporate and financial power will forever sieze the reigns of our nation. And under their rule, the world will suffer, we will decay as a people, because we will have no escape from the effects of their total control of our environment.

Americans are not an evil-minded people, as a whole. Virtue has not vanished from them entirely, it has just ceased to be at their head. No more are the shining virtues of humankind found at the heads of power, industries, and governments, but instead the most indecent sorts of vice have roosted in the places formerly held by the intellects of greater times.

Now it is possible for a thing of nature to live a little bit without its head, but I would not expect much length to its career. In no circumstances would I expect a headless animal to prognosticate well, much less of a decapitated nation, especially one with so many forgeign entanglements.

Now the nature of the world is such that it cannot be properly governed by the opression of military force, either you go broke or get tired juggling the various lands and peoples. The only successful nations of late are those which have granted liberty to the capital monies and properties of the land. Gradually, the rest of the world will begin to resemble the winners, and the forces that prevent their more general convergance will vaporize.

While it is inevitable that this republic will generate great power and wealth among its people, it is generally accepted among the finer peoples of the world that this would tend to increase the finer graces of human development, especially the need and ability to advance the sciences.

I would even say that it is part of the social contract that obligates the wealthy and powerful to utilizae their consider power and influence to advance their surroundings, either by their activities or direct intentions.

If the reverse begins to take place, where the activities and efforts of the governing forces of society begin to discourage and retard the healthy traits of a free republic, and cause its people to decline, then the whole of the nation is plunged into regression, and its society becomes more brutal and less inviting to the development of greatness. Its citizens no longer appreciate or practise any virtue or judgment, so they lose the ability to recognize these things.


Ark

Arkaleus,

That was an excellent post, extremely well written and well thought out.
I tend to agree with the aforementioned Nietzsche, at least to the point that our societies and cultures are decadent (both east and west), owing in large part to corporate capitalism and naked self-interest (in the west) and religious fanaticism (in both east and west).

Personally, I don't see any way a global society could be born until we are completely replaced by the Ubermensch.

Fiat Lvx.