Albert Pike's (33rd Degree Mason) World Wars Prediction

@ThePluton said in #8:
> Oh no, your generation might have enjoyed, but ours won't.

? I don't follow this comment.

The point I was trying to make is that less freedom wont mean less violence. Youth have been tricked by "education" dominated by political activists and it will take a generation or more for liberty to return, if it ever does.

I DO believe that guys like George Soros and Bill Gates have agendas that they want to see implemented IN THEIR LIFETIMES which is why things are being pushed so very very hard at this time. The aging ruling elite are on the clock to see success before they die.

Albert Puke is such a weird name.

@Alientcp said in #2:
> "We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil."
>
> Lol, wtf? I bet he never got to read the bible nor the quran. The absolute savagery and bloody turmoil comes from religion. Nothing else is close to that.
Neither World War was fought in the name of religion, not the Vietnam or Korean Wars, not any of the wars that the West is conducting in the Middle East (as much as the corrupt media says it is about Islamic extremism, it is purely colonial in nature) and not any major war in recent history. The squabbles between sects of Islam do not even come close to the brutality of the ideological wars of the 20th century, ones which the late Fr. Seraphim describes as those of Nihilists and Atheists.
Religion is used as an excuse by secular leaders for war, as the U.S. pandered to "Judeo-Christianity" to justify invasions in the Middle East during the Cold War, or any number of nameless Lords forgotten to time in their land disputes. Religion is just one of many ideas proposing a greater good, and any time people are certain that what they are doing is the greatest possible good, they feel justified in doing at most the greatest evil to obtain it. The ideologies of Communism and Socialism brought hundreds of millions of deaths, intentional and not, all in the name of the greater good. The Nazis believed that humanity was degenerating, and without purification, it would fall into depravity and even worse violence and suffering. Religion is NOT special in motivating evil acts, even historically. We must remember the many great wars brought by secular societies of history. Remember the Mongols? The Romans? Even much of Greek society was secular, and none needed religion to justify bloodbath.

@ThePluton said in #6:

> Atheism is the most dangerous for people if it's wide spread. No God, no consequences. Atheism rules the world currently and how is the world doing? Do you like the leaders you have who do not trust in God nor the consequences of their actions, who steal, lie and murder?
>
> I wonder which society would do better. Honest believers or atheists? What do you think, objectively?
I am religous, however I would like to point out that your argument is very similar to the very repeated "if god doesn't exist why don't you rape and kill everyone?" which is a horrendous argument and the people who say it should never be allowed a liscence to a firearm (sorry for my english, not my native language)

@ThePluton said in #6:
> I am hardly convinced that religion is to blame for people's own faults. Without religion and most importantly without God or the idea of God, people would be no different to animals.

To begin with, people ARE animals, we are primates from the superfamily Hominoidea.

@ThePluton said in #6:
> It is thanks to religion and God (or the idea of God) that people still behave.
>Atheism is the most dangerous for people if it's wide spread. No God, no consequences. Atheism rules the world currently and how is the world doing? Do you like the leaders you have who do not trust in God nor the consequences of their actions, who steal, lie and murder?

You seem to fail to grasp some of the principles of basic morality, which we inherited from our primates ancestors. Primates are highly social beings that have a hierarchical structure and also can be very ruthless with members that disrupt the harmony of the social structure.

As thinking beings, we are able to expand on those basic moral principles and create a very robust moral system that is based on the harmony of the social structures and the well being of its members. The morality on atheist derives from there.

>who steal, lie and murder?
If you go to the prision stats, most residents are believers.
Here is one article with a good graph that will easily tell you some stats. While its old, the results are consistent across the board, I could have used many, just that this one in particular is easy to read.

fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-prisoners-less-likely-to-be-atheists/

> Religion is fine, it's just that some people are not, but that's not the fault of religion.
Again, you seem to fail to understand. For believers, morality comes from an amoral entity who dictates what is moral and what is not. Based on that framework, if you remove that amoral entity (because morals do not apply to it), you have nothing that dictates morality, thus, there is no moral compass. That is why you see many people that leave religion enter into a spiral of vices, excess and antisocial behavior, then they have to come back to religion so they can stop those behaviors. They never understood that morality is NOT a mandate from authority, it is a social regulated behavior based on the wellbeing of the social structure.

> I wonder which society would do better. Honest believers or atheists? What do you think, objectively?
The most extreme of a religious society becomes a theocracy. You already knows how that goes.
The most extreme areligious society resembles something like Iceland.
The US constitution, while states that all rights are god-given, is mostly secular, which is why is one, if not, the best constitution in the world. But skews towards.

People often make the mistake that communist countries are the extreme example of an areligious society, but they dont get the part that communism is not on a religious framework, it is an economic system. Atheist do not become communist, but the idea is that if you want to become communist, you do have to become atheist. Very different.

@JS1901291 said in #14:
> Neither World War was fought in the name of religion, not the Vietnam or Korean Wars.

Neither it was due to Atheism.

>not any of the wars that the West is conducting in the Middle East (as much as the corrupt media says it is about Islamic extremism, it is purely colonial in nature) and not any major war in recent history.

The palestinian conflict IS religious by nature, both sides have claims to the land, and the original proposal was for the jews to keep only 20% of the current land and 80% for the palestinians, which was a good deal. The reason of the denial was because the neighbors were the jews. There might be some arguments about colonialism now, because Israel got most of the territory, but originally, is religious in nature. And virtually every single conflict (over 40 wars over time) in regard to that particular area of the world, which is the source of 3 major religions.

> The ideologies of Communism and Socialism brought hundreds of millions of deaths, intentional and not.

Communism is not atheism. Communism is both an ideology and an economical system. Within the communist ideology, you have to become atheist because the communist thought that faith and power influence people's actions (which they do, but atheism does that too). Atheist, as the name suggests, are non believers. We are not anti religious, we are Areligious. Communism is anti religious in nature.

I wouldnt have to add, but I will, socialism is not atheism either. Its the same principle as above, as communist is just a more extreme manifestation of socialism.

>The Nazis bla bla bla.
The Nazis were roman catholic in essence.

>Remember the Mongols?
Not atheists.
>The Romans?
Not atheist
>Even much of Greek society was secular, and none needed religion to justify bloodbath.
Much of Greece is not much because the country is quite small, but they were mostly politeists, I could list many gods that they worshiped, but I wouldnt finish today. But it is certainly the first time I read that they were secular in nature. Either you or history is incorrect, and im sure history is very correct.

I do not know why you are associating, or implying that colonialism is the same, similar or equal to atheism.

Atheism is the non belief in a diety.

It is not an economic system, it is not a land greedy system, it is not economically greedy system, it is not a warmonger ideology. Is the simple idea that a god does not exist. Anything else that you add to that last sentence is incorrect.

@Alientcp said in #17:
> Neither it was due to Atheism.
I mean that it wasn't a religious war.
>
>
> The palestinian conflict IS religious by nature, both sides have claims to the land, and the original proposal was for the jews to keep only 20% of the current land and 80% for the palestinians, which was a good deal. The reason of the denial was because the neighbors were the jews. There might be some arguments about colonialism now, because Israel got most of the territory, but originally, is religious in nature. And virtually every single conflict in regard to that particular area of the world, which is the source of 3 major religions.
Not referring to this, but if you would like, territorial disputes are not religious wars.
>
> Communism is not atheism. Communism is both an ideology and an economical system. Within the communist ideology, you have to become atheist because the communist thought that faith and power influence people's actions (which they do, but atheism does that too). Atheist, as the name suggests, are non believers. We are not anti religious, we are Areligious. Communism is anti religious in nature.
I am not saying Communism is atheism.
>
> The Nazis were roman catholic in essence.
Absolutely not and we absolutely can expand on this if you'd like.
>
> Not atheists.
Didn't say they were. The wars were not religious ones.
> Not atheist
Didn't say they were. The wars were not religious ones.
> Much of Greece is not much because the country is quite small, but they were mostly politeists, I could list many gods that they worshiped, but I wouldnt finish today. But it is certainly the first time I read that they were secular in nature. Either you or history is incorrect, and im sure history is very correct.
I didn't say they were atheist. The wars were not religious ones.
> I do not know why you are associating, or implying that colonialism is the same, similar or associated to atheism.
I didn't say or imply it, you seem to be defensive about I have no idea what.
> Atheism is the non belief in a diety.
We agree.
> It is not an economic system, it is not a land greedy system, it is not economically greedy system, it is not a warmonger ideology. Is the simple idea that a god does not exist. Anything else that you add to that last sentence is incorrect.
I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and just say that the purpose of my post was to contradict what your first post in the thread implied, which would be that "nothing else comes close" to the "brutality and savagery" of Muslims and Christians (or religion in general). That view is an extreme reddit-historian upvote curated one, and not very accurate.
At the very least, you couldn't possibly go so far as to say that religious wars are of a greater scale and brutality than the ideological ones of the 20th century?

Edit: This is for clarity: Rome, Many Greek societies (Athens, Sparta, etc) and the early and later Hellenic empires were secular, and I stand by that because it is true. Their wars, atrocities, and acts were not religiously motivated. Even the Christian Roman Empire did not conduct as many religious wars as political ones. Their wars with the Sassanids (for example) were not founded on religion, but territory and economics, and what few wars that were primarily religious (of which there are an exceedingly small number) do not come close to 'typical' their political wars. The Mongol Empire was again a secular society. I do not mean they were atheists, I mean what I said: These people did not fight their wars over religion.

@JS1901291 said in #18:
> I mean that it wasn't a religious war.

Nor was an atheist war. The point is, its either a religious war or an atheist war. If it was a religious one, it implies religion is a problem, if its an atheist war, it implies atheism is a problem, if its neither, there is no point of mentioning. By mentioning, you are implying it has something to do with atheism since you are stating that it has nothing to do with religion.

> Not referring to this, but if you would like, territorial disputes are not religious wars.

But not atheistic either.

> I am not saying Communism is atheism.
Implying.

> Absolutely not and we absolutely can expand on this if you'd like.

letmegooglethat.com/?q=religion+on+germany+ww2

> Didn't say they were. The wars were not religious ones.

Implying atheist in nature.

> Didn't say they were. The wars were not religious ones.

Implying atheist in nature.

> I didn't say they were atheist. The wars were not religious ones.

Implying atheist in nature.

> I didn't say or imply it, you seem to be defensive about I have no idea what.

If they are not religious nor atheistic in nature, there is no point of mentioning it as it has nothing to do with the argument, because remember, you are quoting me saying that the absolutely savagery comes from religion. I never mentioned any war. And while there is savagery in wars, they do not come close to the ABSOLUTELY savagery of religion.

> I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and just say that the purpose of my post was to contradict what your first post in the thread implied, which would be that "nothing else comes close" to the "brutality and savagery" of Muslims and Christians (or religion in general). That view is an extreme reddit-historian upvote curated one, and not very accurate.

People die for many reasons, and many disputes. But religion takes the crown for brutality.

> At the very least, you couldn't possibly go so far as to say that religious wars are of a greater scale and brutality than the ideological ones of the 20th century?

It couldnt happen. Religion stopped science. Modern wars are about transport an incredible amount of compacted energy from one side and make it release on another. We didnt had that.

> Edit: This is for clarity: Rome, Many Greek societies (Athens, Sparta, etc) and the early and later Hellenic empires were secular, and I stand by that because it is true. Their wars, atrocities, and acts were not religiously motivated. Even the Christian Roman Empire did not conduct as many religious wars as political ones. Their wars with the Sassanids (for example) were not founded on religion, but territory and economics, and what few wars that were primarily religious (of which there are an exceedingly small number) do not come close to 'typical' their political wars. The Mongol Empire was again a secular society. I do not mean they were atheists, I mean what I said: These people did not fight their wars over religion.

Sparta, Greece, Athens, the Persians, Macedonia, all were politeists (well, Persia not that much, but they allowed freedom of religion in conquered lands). If you want continue on a mistaken idea, go for it. Its a you problem.

You are associating religious savagery to war. While wars are savage by nature, you are the one bringing the wars. Im just talking about savagery. Quite predominant in holy books.

@Alientcp said in #19:
> Nor was an atheist war. The point is, its either a religious war or an atheist war. If it was a religious one, it implies religion is a problem, if its an atheist war, it implies atheism is a problem, if its neither, there is no point of mentioning. By mentioning, you are implying it has something to do with atheism since you are stating that it has nothing to do with religion.
The point is to dispute the notion that religion is savagery. The original post by Albert Pike reads:
> ..We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil
In reference to a supposed World War III, savagery and bloody turmoil being the results of that supposed war. Your post was either frivolous jab at religion or wrong.
> Implying.
> But not atheistic either.
> Implying atheist in nature.
> Implying atheist in nature.
> Implying atheist in nature.
There doesn't need to be any implication. You have become so defensive that that is all you can see. The original post of this thread refers to savagery and bloody turmoil from war, you say respond with "I bet he never got to read the bible nor the quran. The absolute savagery and bloody turmoil comes from religion. Nothing else is close to that" and I dispute this by writing that savagery and bloody turmoil most certainly does come from other sources.
>
> If they are not religious nor atheistic in nature, there is no point of mentioning it as it has nothing to do with the argument, because remember, you are quoting me saying that the absolutely savagery comes from religion. I never mentioned any war. And while there is savagery in wars, they do not come close to the ABSOLUTELY savagery of religion.
>
Then your post was laughably pointless and unrelated to the topic.
>
> People die for many reasons, and many disputes. But religion takes the crown for brutality.
>

>
> It couldnt happen. Religion stopped science. Modern wars are about transport an incredible amount of compacted energy from one side and make it release on another. We didnt had that.
>
You're losing it.
>
> Sparta, Greece, Athens, the Persians, Macedonia, all were politeists (well, Persia not that much, but they allowed freedom of religion in conquered lands). If you want continue on a mistaken idea, go for it. Its a you problem.
That is needless pedantry when I am writing about the aim of war. You need to focus on the topic instead of scrambling into Communist and Atheist apologetics. Remember that the OP alleges that Albert Pike wrote a letter describing WWIII?
> You are associating religious savagery to war. While wars are savage by nature, you are the one bringing the wars. Im just talking about savagery. Quite predominant in holy books.
Again, your post was juvenile, pointless, and a subjective criticism if so, and if not, you are, in reddit style, running away with your argument.

>letmegooglethat.com/?q=religion+on+germany+ww2
Let's get a direct statement from you first. Was Nazi Germany a religious society? Was Roman Catholicism a major factor in the National Socialist political body? Was Hitler's war with Poland religiously motivated? And finally, was Hitler's hatred of Jews religiously motivated?