I hope answering the second draft won't leave out
anything important. (Should I maybe delete the first draft?)
[Leave it in for history sake ;-]
But let's start with your preliminary statement: Americas problem is the
commerce sector runs the government. (In steps the multinational
corporations/global elite/World Government) I strongly
agree with the first sentence, noting only that America has many problems, but
that certainly one of the biggest is as you say. I think one indication of this
is the extent to which we are all subjected to a constant barrage of ads.
Madison Avenue (I'm just using this phrase as a shorthand for the advertising
industry) intrudes heavily into virtually all the television channels. I have
developed a habit of muting the sound whenever a commercial comes on. It
intrudes mercilessly on the Internet. Perhaps this exaggerated emphasis on
selling goods and services is simply the result of a strong ideologically based
acceptance of free market capitalism (I place
Madison Ave. in the capitalism category. a "free market" will only work to
improve efficiencies and inequalities.) as the
end-all and be-all of the good life. I don't understand "In steps . . ." Do you
mean that the three things you list step in? (If so, you meant to say "In step .
. .") Or do you mean that the three things represent some kind of sequence of
steps or stages moving toward some end state? (I
meant "In step".... But I do like "in steps" it would need to be reordered to
read... Global Elite, Multinational Corps., World Government)
Next you quote John Bates's essay in which he identifies nationalism and
religion as the two principle obstacles to the desired end. (For the moment I'll
leave that end undefined.) I'm not sure I understand what you meant by asking if
religion and nationalism are "two sides of a controlled argument". Perhaps they
are actually, in some sense, the same argument,
(exactly... they are the same, it is a pointless argument, but one that happens
again and again) since both religion and
nationalism involve unquestioning acceptance of beliefs. I would add ideology
which all too frequently does the same thing. The
notion of "unquestioning acceptance" is only promoted by tyrants. It is human
nature to question everything. If you go against nature it can not be good. On a
larger note.... I have seen a lot of commercials for a church that promotes
bi-racial marriage and gay attendance. (indicating they are all inclusive) If
you view the world as I do you would see the perfect timing of this with one of
the first explosions of the information revolution. The elite know what is
happening to a degree or completely... (I'm not sure). I believe it is an
attempt to shore up and maintain their information control over more of the
population. Coincidently that population is in the same demographic as a person
most likely to use the internet. MSM is becoming more like the net to compete.
Next you identify misinformation or secrecy as "the
only" stumbling blocks. Certainly they are important. People who are dedicated
to maintaining religious, national-historic, or ideological beliefs very
frequently do engage in suppression of information and promulgation of false
information.
Then you say, To a true patriot Religion,
Nationalism, and Humanity are all the same. I take it that
your concept of "a true patriot" is whatever it is we want to be and want all
others to be. I can't agree that those three things are all the same. But I
suspect that I can sympathize with your desire for people to have a positive
attitude toward what the framers of the Constitution called "the general
welfare". I actually struggled with the word
"patriot" in that line, it is probably not a coincidence that you mention it.
Originally I wrote "To a true Humanitarian, Religion Nat....." What is a person
who is of the culmination of Religion, Nationalism, and Humanity?
An aside seems appropriate here. I watched Pope
Benedict XVI on television and noticed that I was experiencing a positive
emotional response to him and the associated pageantry. Thoughts leading to
these positive feelings were something like, "Here is a thoroughly good man
doing his utmost to promote world peace. Look at him! What a benign and
inspiring example of a typical loving Italian father! How humble he is in spite
of his situation as a representative of Jesus of Nazareth who so insightfully
promoted peace and love!" I could go on, but I'll be merciful. Of course I later
found out that he's German, not Italian, and that some of his statements
vis-a-vis the policies of the Roman Catholic Church are impossible for me to
approve or agree with. The reason I mention this little episode is that I am in
hopes that FF will see in it a sort of emotional consonance with his remark
about the "true patriot". (I am leaning towards
Humanitarian being a better "word") Maybe he'll
think I might be a candidate for that appellation! I feel quite sorry for
John Bates if the ideas expressed above are his true thoughts. Does anyone have
a clear definition of Love, or know exactly what it is? According to Mr. Bates
Love as well as God does not exist. Well, according to 1
John 4:8 ". . . God is love." Again it seems to me that FF is ". . . feeling out
of sight for the ends of Being and ideal Grace" (to quote E. B. Browning), and I
sympathize with his need to do that. And in some sense this longing for
benevolence must be nearly universal. He is right not to be sure he feels sorry
for John Bates. It all depends on whether the ideas he expresses are his "true
thoughts" as read by FF. This is somewhat reminiscent of my thoughts in seeing
the Pope on TV. Well, all this simply emphasizes the real difficulty of
grappling realistically and effectively with these enormous problems! And now
DWA will ask for clarity. Lotsa luck! Am I
misperceiving my environment? I get the impression there is a significant
number of people who do not believe in God, or maybe this has been part of my
social programming. All the same it was my humble attempt to get a non believer
to believe. I like the "intrinsically know right from wrong" (is a religion)
comment better. The internet is going to be all inclusive (It and I really don't
know if you are straight, gay, or a government agent, and we really don't
care... bring good ideas and truth to the table and you will be welcomed) hence
"MSM is becoming more like the net to compete" (The free market is good)
Then, Although I understand his distrust for
organized religion, religion is only a part of society. Society as a whole is
not completely defined by its religion. If you look at different religions they
all have more in common than they have in differences. Honesty, compassion,
peace... Sounds like good building blocks to me. Yes. The
task is to refine religion, nationalism, and ideology so that the good parts
come through and leave the bad parts behind. How can this be done? Is it
possible? I make so bold as to say that I believe it is possible.
It is not only possible it is essential. How to do
it....... There seems to be a common enemy of all humanity, Tyranny. If what I
am learning is true humanity will need to, and willingly, put aside it's
differences and unite against a common enemy. I can't help but wonder if this is
not part of a bigger game plan as yet undiscovered.
At this point I'm going to have to suspend this post.
I'll come back and discuss other parts of your very long but very welcome
contribution to our discussions, Federal Farmer!
The length issue seems popular here. I find it odd
everyone here wants world peace, but are unwilling to work/read/learn about it.
Hippocrates! Please try and break out of your social programming of easy fixes.
The real world requires a little more of you. (Sorry, I will probably never win
any awards for political correctness) All the same my goal is to change the
minds of highly controlled (quick fix type) people. If I am to be affective I
need to be aware of this issue. Thanks to all for the feedback, good and bad we
are all thinking. :-) FF
A sad day for the Farmer.
If I can program my Darpa tractor to plow plant and harvest what is my role in
society? LOL
(About author)
