More than a few times in my life, even as a young kid, I've been accused of asking too many questions and wanting to know too much. Is that a legitimate criticism? I may go overboard here sometimes but in personal interactions I've tried to make the questions count and pick the right time and place without ticking off people unnecessarily. I've found that questions tend to work better than opinionated statements, but not always.
"When you mention someone that people have an 'investment' in, they become defensive on behalf of their investment and close themselves off to legitimate argument." -VisibleNowhere is that statement more evident today than with the Snowden/Greenwald saga. Question these 'heroes' and those invested in the narrative often become very defensive.
Mike King of www.TomatoBubble.com interviewed.....
Since the pope made the cover of the Rolling Stone, is it still OK to question whether he is actually making an effort to change the Catholic Church or is there something more to the story?
Francis's good guy persona is refreshing but maybe it's all about the bottom line. The church needs more members which means more money and saying the right things goes a long way.
Now if he opens up ALL of the Vatican's archives to researchers, it would be a major step towards proving that it's time for the secrets to end. It won't happen because exposing the secrets could mean lessening the control and isn't control what it has always been about?
Questioning religions, although necessary, is often a sticky situation and is a good way to alienate even those close to us. Discretion is often needed and that's easier said than done.
How about the new 'religions?' The new age type. If you've kept an eye on this 'movement' or possibly been involved, John Lash has, to me, an interesting take that asks questions.
Many developments unfolded after the Renaissance, leading to the New Age movement (NAM) as it stands today…
I cannot possibly summarize even the basic outlines of this trajectory in a short essay. Suffice it to say that the NWO agenda, if it is to be defeated, has to be seen as it relates to the New Age agenda.
One must ask, how are the two related? Both present visions for a global or planet-wide society, but obviously two extremely different conceptions of such a society.
Or are we considering one vision in two different guises?
It has been argued that the NAM, especially in the visionary scheme formulated by Theosophists Madame Blavatsky and Alice A. Bailey, is nothing but a disingenuous program to sucker people into the NWO nightmare of globalist mind control, disguised as a vast spiritual awakening, guidance by a spiritual elite, the unity of all religions, etc.
The prospect of one world religion would indeed fit into the globalist plan for planet-wide centralization and domination by a self-elected elite, but,
Was the recent historical version of the NAM platform, following Blavatsky and others, originally conceived with that intention in mind?
Does the Illuminati hell of globalist tyranny, implemented in the style that combines 1984 and Brave New World, incorporate for its purposes the pernicious lure of an Aquarian heaven on earth?
One could debate endlessly on this touchy issue.
To do so would open up enough rabbit holes to occupy a team of 1,000 researchers for decades.
In my analysis, principles and proposals of New Age or Aquarian Age spirituality may be adopted to the NWO agenda, but they can also remain free of that association.
It depends wholly on who is trafficking in these principles and proposals, and for what purposes.
Whether the NWO control-freaks are using New Age idealism or not, the vast majority of New Agers are so lacking in discrimination, not to mention basic savvy for social observation, that they would not even know if their precious ideals were indeed being played in that manner.
That ignorance is the real and present danger inherent to the New Age movement, making it the possible and plausible accessory to insidious agendas of social manipulation and mind control.
Ultimately, the two socio-historical trends leading toward the NWO hell and New Age heaven might converge, which would be a huge victory for the globalist psychopaths.
To prevent such a horrific development, one paramount skill has to be mastered by those who embrace the New Age philosophy of Aquarian idealism - the skill of discrimination. More
We get to question virtually everything but there are a few things that we have been indoctrinated to believe that is taboo. The jews and Israel come to mind. A taboo over 100 years in the making. It's worked fairly well but not so much anymore for a growing number of folks. The media tries to make other subjects taboo as well but that's not working either. Nothing can be off limits when questioning crimes and injustices. I believe that to be true. Maybe having a few beliefs every now and then does do us some good.