Irishone21
Well-Known Member
Dear People,
The main goal of the 21st century is to cease the power of the dollar, in addition to military power. Basically as Al Gore noted, we need to advance our mentalities. With new technology, we can't have an old mentality. This is Bible wisdom applied to politics.
I believe we need a spiritual leader. It has been said, "a prophet is not accepted in his own country" I desire to prove this wrong for I do not like the idea that spiritual leaders often are powerless beings on earth, who have transient power that is most sincerely felt once they pass. If a country accepted a true leader, it would set an example and change the pace of both worldly and domestic politics. Jesus said, "desire mercy, not sacrifice," which means, for the next turning point, one must seek to fulfill divine roles desiring mercy, and hopefully surviving once they reach the top in order to make changes that are concrete, completing earlier prophesies. Love is power, power is God.
To adapt political jargon, contrary to popular belief, "soft power" can be far more powerful, and much more lasting than "hard power". We need to realize this especially, for even us, especially if our will is united, can influence, rather than bicker over, the problems that exist in the world today. Technology enables and enervates advanced democracy.
I quote I came up with the other day, which I don’t entirely believe is, “If we were all utopians, we would live in a utopia. If we were all realist, we wouldn't exist.” The problem is, currently, we are so divided, that a temporary, although righteous and enlightened, dictator, may only result in the emergence of violence and insurrection rather than a utopia.
Many realize the 2008 election is by far the most important election in the history of mankind. Not only do we have to deal with the possibility that we on the brink of the end, we have a responsibility, being the only superpower, for leadership. A commonly held belief is that if we lead by example others will follow, so long as we represent true value, aspired by God. Even people such as Fidel Castro have accented to this ideology. If we resort to condemnations, military action, and economic bullying, resent will continue to grow, and a countervailing coalition is likely to grow which may or may not lead us to World War III. As I have said before, radicalism is the origin of emerging extremes. As a result of the extremist in the Middle East, we have used the logic that, “extreme measures call for extreme action,” a mentality that pretty much implies terrorism requires fascism to abate. But are we only adding fuel to the fire? Amidst the confusion, Ron Paul may be the John Locke-like candidate we are looking for. I can phrase the question we should all be asking ourselves prior to the upcoming election in a couple of ways. Do we need gradual changes, or should we advance on the opportunity, take a risk, an attempt to pursue a radical agenda to abate extremism? I am not implying that we should merely follow the tracks of the Bush administration, into the Orwellian vision of a government that takes the place of God, isolates our planet, causing people to become drones, fooled into believing they are individuals, when they are actually products of a heartless artificial deity, ignorantly living within the narrow bounds of uniformity. Instead, I am considering transforming our government into a system of leadership that influences rather than controls behavior advancing mentalities, and placing trust in “soft power”. The question we should be asking ourselves phrased differently is this, should we swallow our pride and elect the most spiritually enlightened son of God, subjugate ourselves in fear and basically abdicate to BIGBROTHER or the antichrist, or take a step in the right direction and elect Ron Paul, as a stepping stone for the completion of the Revolution.
The main goal of the 21st century is to cease the power of the dollar, in addition to military power. Basically as Al Gore noted, we need to advance our mentalities. With new technology, we can't have an old mentality. This is Bible wisdom applied to politics.
I believe we need a spiritual leader. It has been said, "a prophet is not accepted in his own country" I desire to prove this wrong for I do not like the idea that spiritual leaders often are powerless beings on earth, who have transient power that is most sincerely felt once they pass. If a country accepted a true leader, it would set an example and change the pace of both worldly and domestic politics. Jesus said, "desire mercy, not sacrifice," which means, for the next turning point, one must seek to fulfill divine roles desiring mercy, and hopefully surviving once they reach the top in order to make changes that are concrete, completing earlier prophesies. Love is power, power is God.
To adapt political jargon, contrary to popular belief, "soft power" can be far more powerful, and much more lasting than "hard power". We need to realize this especially, for even us, especially if our will is united, can influence, rather than bicker over, the problems that exist in the world today. Technology enables and enervates advanced democracy.
I quote I came up with the other day, which I don’t entirely believe is, “If we were all utopians, we would live in a utopia. If we were all realist, we wouldn't exist.” The problem is, currently, we are so divided, that a temporary, although righteous and enlightened, dictator, may only result in the emergence of violence and insurrection rather than a utopia.
Many realize the 2008 election is by far the most important election in the history of mankind. Not only do we have to deal with the possibility that we on the brink of the end, we have a responsibility, being the only superpower, for leadership. A commonly held belief is that if we lead by example others will follow, so long as we represent true value, aspired by God. Even people such as Fidel Castro have accented to this ideology. If we resort to condemnations, military action, and economic bullying, resent will continue to grow, and a countervailing coalition is likely to grow which may or may not lead us to World War III. As I have said before, radicalism is the origin of emerging extremes. As a result of the extremist in the Middle East, we have used the logic that, “extreme measures call for extreme action,” a mentality that pretty much implies terrorism requires fascism to abate. But are we only adding fuel to the fire? Amidst the confusion, Ron Paul may be the John Locke-like candidate we are looking for. I can phrase the question we should all be asking ourselves prior to the upcoming election in a couple of ways. Do we need gradual changes, or should we advance on the opportunity, take a risk, an attempt to pursue a radical agenda to abate extremism? I am not implying that we should merely follow the tracks of the Bush administration, into the Orwellian vision of a government that takes the place of God, isolates our planet, causing people to become drones, fooled into believing they are individuals, when they are actually products of a heartless artificial deity, ignorantly living within the narrow bounds of uniformity. Instead, I am considering transforming our government into a system of leadership that influences rather than controls behavior advancing mentalities, and placing trust in “soft power”. The question we should be asking ourselves phrased differently is this, should we swallow our pride and elect the most spiritually enlightened son of God, subjugate ourselves in fear and basically abdicate to BIGBROTHER or the antichrist, or take a step in the right direction and elect Ron Paul, as a stepping stone for the completion of the Revolution.
