I find it really interesting I'm not at liberty to see all comments wrt this article. I suspect because of a block or similar. However, I still get (occasional) notifications, and the most recent definitely came in.
I deliberately added a crazy quantity of references in this post, because I wanted to indirectly express that none of this can legitimately be truly be called into question. Sure, debate minor points relating to in-depth specifics, but the top-down alignment is nearly perfect. The only thing left to do is argue whether that's by accident or intent.
But if those comments are here for sakes of damage control, I guess I'll double the amount of references for the next post. The alignment here is quite simply far too strong to go ignored.
Seeing this post, I immediately thought of Justin Baldoni, whose own Baha'i faith was just widely reported, which made me wonder what is really going on with the whole Lively-Reynolds fiasco. I briefly encountered Baha'i online back in my 20s, & it did feel "off" somehow. And now I'm wondering if we're about to get a full-on stealth marketing campaign by contrasting the utterly awful "power couple" with the sincere & saintly underdog director. As far as I can tell, Baldoni does actually seem genuine in his beliefs, as demonstrated through behavior, but that would only serve such marketing.
Stumbled upon the Baha'i faith tenements when I was doing a deep dive on Stephen Greer, self-proclaimed UFO “disclosure" activist. For the record, I do not believe in aliens (other than the demonic kind). I suspected something fishy about Dr. Greer and discovered that he had a past association with Lawrence Rockefeller. He happens to also have strong connections to Baha'i. He spent a considerable amount of time in Israel at their World Center. Dr. Greer appears to be a part of the One World agenda group (although he portrays himself as an activist working to expose the elites) and an “alien” card is still in their playbook.
Baha'u'llah, the prophet founder of the Bahai Faith, alluded to the vastness of creation and the possibility of life beyond Earth when he said, "Know thou that every fixed star hath its own planets, and every planet its own creatures, whose number no man can compute.” Full disclosure: I am a follower of the Bahai Faith. However, I suspect that often the reason why alien and UFO stories are featured in the legacy media is that it serves as an interesting distraction from other things that the power apparatus would like us to forget about.
I know this is off topic, but more specifically, I don't believe in the story of aliens, who have visited Earth, traveling from distant planets that are light years away, and who have accidentally left behind pieces of their spacecraft technology. However, I think there still can be the possibility of life present on another planet in a different galaxy, and who are separated from us by the gigantic chasms of space. I strongly suspect that there exists advanced technology which has been hidden, but which was invented by humans, not aliens. Aliens make a nice cover story.
If you're going to claim there are 'a lot of assumptions' in this post, then actually list them.
As for you sourcing a website pointing to '619353ca48c82.site123.me/', golly gee whiz, are you sure you can't f/w me a cached geocities webpage with lots of animated GIFs instead? And why are you posting a page with a yardstick of comparison being the WEF, which I didn't mention even once?
There are 161 sources in this article. 37 in the article following -- and I could EASILY have sourced twice that. If you're going to argue that 'there are a lot of assumptions', then you have to actually address specific issues instead of erecting strawmen to beat.
That is, if your objective is to debate in an honest fashion.
I am a member of the Bahai Faith. I believe its teachings are positive.
The Bahá’í International Community received NGO status with the United Nations in 1948, to advocate for moral and ethical considerations of development in a forum where power plays and territoriality could hamper international progress.
Turns out, many of these global institutions have not amounted to much, and in fact, many of them seem to be a real problem.
From my current perspective, it appears that many ideas of the Bahai Faith have been borrowed by elements of the power apparatus (who likely became familiar with them through UN participation) and then recast to suit their own purposes.
As a result, the teachings of the Faith get compared favorably to globalist dictums, to my disappointment.
Yet, I think the Bahai Faith goes in a separate direction than existing international institutions.
Bahais are in favor of decentralization, distribution of power, and local ownership of the processes of development — not centralization of authority, as many of today’s global institutions appear to desire.
I appreciate your in-depth article here, which helps me compare and contrast the Faith’s teachings with the plans of the worldly powerful.
The degree of echoing between some of the Bahai positions and what the globalists advocate is really too close for comfort, but I believe if we drill down further in the details the differences of intention become more evident.
t/y for your reply, but there's a bit more hiding behind some of these:
> decentralization
this is essentially 'subsidiarity' which can always be overriden top-down
> distribution of power
through an 'inclusive', 'participatory', consultative, 'stakeholder' approach. it's not democratic in the slightest. and this also relates to the decision making, not the decision taking which can always be overrideen top-down.
> local ownership of the processes of development
ie, cooperative, in much the same outlined by Bernstein (1899) which essentially is the common thread here.
From the standpoint of civilizational development and the long history of humankind, I think what the Bahai Faith advocates is a natural progression:
Humans, over a period of thousands of years, have been able to achieve cooperation and reciprocity first within families and tribes, then cities, nations, and states.
And the next level of cooperation that is available to us now, due to various technological inventions and advancements, is the international level.
However, what I see in the Bahai teachings regarding international cooperation and unity looks very different from the vision of today’s political and global institutions and power centers that operate from a counterproductive paradigm of domination of resources and imposition of totalitarian systems of control.
Direct democracy, where a simple majority gets to decide everything, is nothing more than mob rule anyway. That's why America was built as a representative (democratic) Republic. We have the Electoral College so the rural areas have some say in how the Federal government that affects them also is run.
Bahá’u’lláh’s revelation set something in motion within humanity’s collective consciousness. Though we don’t fully grasp our Oneness yet, this awakening shapes the world we see today. The similarities in global developments stem from this shift, not from a single source of control.
Bahá’ís, like others, work to make the world more just, but they aren’t responsible for how others interpret or implement similar principles. Some approach unity with wisdom, others with control—but the unfolding transformation belongs to all of humanity, not just one group.
Blaming Bahá’ís for the world’s shift toward ethical governance is like blaming a river for the direction the water flows. The transformation is bigger than any institution—it belongs to all of humanity.
You criticize globalism, yet you are using the internet—one of the most globalist systems in existence—to spread your message. Doesn’t that contradict your argument? If global interconnection is inherently suspect, wouldn’t rejecting it entirely be the logical conclusion?
Clear, you say you don’t criticise globalism, yet your article expresses concern over global institutions aligning with certain Bahá’í interpretations. If global governance itself isn’t a problem, why does it matter if some Bahá’í interpretations align with it?
Globalism has become a natural part of human life, and we all participate in it, including you and me right now in this conversation. So what exactly is your concern?
Correct. All that you’re signalling is a trend. And one thing the Bahá’í Faith isn’t, is compulsive, not on global institutions, and not on its own followers.
In fact, they have caused the decay! Anything that isn't of our ONE God cannot stand. They do twist a lot of words- always look at the deeds- the action. Won't let you down. Sometimes, you have to fig for it. And if they hide it, we'll, that's for a reason too. Only trust what's out in the light.
After revisiting the grouping of posts about Baha'i, I was inspired to recall the eerie presence and spookier rhetoric of Dr. John Woodall's memorial ceremony mourning the 'lost' children of the baggage-laden and highly taboo events of Sandy Hook/Newtown coinciding with the Mayan Calendar roll-over in December 2012. Woodall is a Harvard affiliated trauma therapy specialist & psychiatrist who founded the Unity Project for treating the child-victims of mass atrocity events, and with his wife, functions as some sort of Baha'i priest/minister. They are both conveniently Newtown residents.
Given Baha'i's commitment to disarmament and "peaceful" transition to their envisioned global techno-state, it is a mighty advantageous coincidence that such an inspiring argument for the repeal of the 2nd amendment fell into their lap so precipitously and so auspiciously.
Save the Children, meet divine providence. Divine providence, meet Save the Children. You guys have a big & lucrative future together.
Here is the creepy-as-all-get-out speech that leaves plenty of room for the idea that the children never died, as it immediately became verboten to ask questions about them & their medical records at the time, but were, perhaps (at least as far as the text of the speech is concerned) offered by their (Baha'i?) parents to enroll in some special program in which they could serve a higher 'spiritual' purpose in their transcendence of humanity project. (I couldn't help visualize the closing scene of Eyes Wide Shut as I read it.)
"...Although the loss of a (child) is indeed heart-breaking and beyond the limits of human endurance, yet one who knoweth and understandeth is assured that the child hath not been lost but, rather, hath stepped from this world into another, and you will find them in the divine realm. That reunion shall be for eternity, while in this world separation is inevitable and bringeth with it a burning grief.
Praise be unto God that thou hast faith, art turning thy face toward the everlasting Kingdom and believest in the existence of a heavenly world. Therefore be thou not disconsolate, do not languish, do not sigh, neither wail nor weep; for agitation and mourning deeply affect their soul in the divine realm.
That beloved child addresseth thee from the hidden world: 'O thou kind Mother (and Father), thank divine Providence that I have been freed from a small and gloomy cage and, like the birds of the meadows, have soared to the divine world—a world which is spacious, illumined, and ever joyous and jubilant. Therefore, lament not, O Mother and Father, and be not grieved; I am not of the lost, nor have I been obliterated and destroyed. I have shaken off the mortal form and have raised my banner in this spiritual world. Following this separation is everlasting companionship. Thou shalt find me in the heaven of the Lord, immersed in an ocean of light.'
...
The hokey early modern english protestant linguistic affectations delivered with so much earnest schmaltz are particularly puke-inducing to this poet & Lebowskian Dudeist Priest, a sure sign of a put on/grift/front operation lacking all humor, discouraging of any self-critical capacity. It reeks of a fraudulent cult geared to shopping for sentimental suckers & shallow, conformist thinkers. I've heard car insurance adds that inspire greater faith & confidence.
Anyway, thanks for all your excellent analysis, as always.
OK. Here are some of the asumptions you make in your article:
regarding the first list you made
1. Subsidiarity is not a part of the Baha'i writings in any way.
2. Centralization of credit. Ditto (Note: not all Baha'is interpretations are backed up by the Baha'i teachings).
3. Planetary boundaries. WTF?
4. Equitable sharing of resourses. This is one of the many phrases that are twisted for it can mean many things. Baha'is are supposed to illiminate the EXTREMES of wealth and poverty but there is nowhere in the writings that speak of equitable sharing as in the WOKE definition.
5. Good governance. What does this mean? Is bad gobernance better?
6. Civil society organizations. There is nothing about this in the Baha'i writings. Everything in life is supposed to be civil.
7. participatory and inclusive stakeholder groups. NO. NO. NO. This is totally made up
8. sustainable development. This mean two completely differnet things. The Baha'i version has nothing to do with WOKE ideology whatsoever. Yes there are Baha'is who have been swept up in this but the holy writings do not.
9. redistribution of wealth. No such thing. The writings make giving voluntary 100%
10. The third way. I've never in 48 years as a Baha'i encountered this phrase.
11. Social emotional learning. This is communism, the opposite of the Baha'i Faith
Before I go on, note that there are many Baha'is that have gone against the Baha'i writings as a result of the 100 years+ psyops going on. This is not a reflection of the Faith but of man's imperfection. It's something we'll always deal with.
YOU: the Baha’i Faith is meant as the ‘most complete’ faith, seeking to replace every other religion along the way. Yes it is the most complete Faith for our modern times but there is nowhere in our holy writings that talk of supplanting other religion, in fact, there are many passages that speak of the unity of religions, for instance, Baha'u'llah writes: "It is because of this difference in their station and mission that the words and utterances flowing from these Well Springs of Divine knowledge appear to diverge and differ. Otherwise, in the eyes of them that are initiated into the mysteries of Divine wisdom, all their utterances are, in reality, but the expressions of one Truth…"
YOU: the alignment between the Baha’i Faith’s governance model and the current global governance structure is virtually total. Have you read my article at all? Their beliefs are the opposite. I demonstrated this right from the "horses" mouths.
YOU: nearly every core principle advocated by the Baha’i International Community (BIC) has been institutionalized at the highest levels of international decision-making. Can you give me one example? Stakeholder capitalism is the opposite of every thing the Baha'i Faith stands for.
YOU: The transition from nation-state sovereignty to multi-stakeholder governance—where NGOs, CSOs, and global institutions dictate policy—mirrors the Baha’i vision of ethical governance through consultation rather than legal coercion. This is SOO twisted. You've taken our concept of consultation, which exists at every level of society giving the local level the most authority, and made it sound like it gives globalists carte blanche to rule the world!
I've only gone through 1.5 paragraphs and I don't have time for the rest. If you don't understand how wreckless your analysis is and how contexts are being replaced or invented, I don't know what to say. I do apologize for the many Baha'is and Baha'i institutions that have been pulled towards the dark globalist's agendas, not out of maliciousness but ignorance. Their hearts are pure but they know not of what they do.
>8. sustainable development. This mean two completely differnet things. The Baha'i version has nothing to do with WOKE ideology whatsoever. Yes there are Baha'is who have been swept up in this but the holy writings do not.
If you're going to claim there are 'a lot of assumptions' in this post, then actually list them.
As for you sourcing a website pointing to '619353ca48c82.site123.me/', golly gee whiz, are you sure you can't f/w me a cached geocities webpage with lots of animated GIFs instead? And why are you posting a page with a yardstick of comparison being the WEF, which I didn't mention even once?
There are 161 sources in this article. 37 in the article following -- and I could EASILY have sourced twice that. If you're going to argue that 'there are a lot of assumptions', then you have to actually address specific issues instead of erecting strawmen to beat.
That is, if your objective is to debate in an honest fashion.
yeah going to church over here in the uk these days involves somehow making out the path into the church for all the displays of diversity, rainbow colours, and so forth outside. really does wind up my wife.
I find it really interesting I'm not at liberty to see all comments wrt this article. I suspect because of a block or similar. However, I still get (occasional) notifications, and the most recent definitely came in.
I deliberately added a crazy quantity of references in this post, because I wanted to indirectly express that none of this can legitimately be truly be called into question. Sure, debate minor points relating to in-depth specifics, but the top-down alignment is nearly perfect. The only thing left to do is argue whether that's by accident or intent.
But if those comments are here for sakes of damage control, I guess I'll double the amount of references for the next post. The alignment here is quite simply far too strong to go ignored.
Seeing this post, I immediately thought of Justin Baldoni, whose own Baha'i faith was just widely reported, which made me wonder what is really going on with the whole Lively-Reynolds fiasco. I briefly encountered Baha'i online back in my 20s, & it did feel "off" somehow. And now I'm wondering if we're about to get a full-on stealth marketing campaign by contrasting the utterly awful "power couple" with the sincere & saintly underdog director. As far as I can tell, Baldoni does actually seem genuine in his beliefs, as demonstrated through behavior, but that would only serve such marketing.
Stumbled upon the Baha'i faith tenements when I was doing a deep dive on Stephen Greer, self-proclaimed UFO “disclosure" activist. For the record, I do not believe in aliens (other than the demonic kind). I suspected something fishy about Dr. Greer and discovered that he had a past association with Lawrence Rockefeller. He happens to also have strong connections to Baha'i. He spent a considerable amount of time in Israel at their World Center. Dr. Greer appears to be a part of the One World agenda group (although he portrays himself as an activist working to expose the elites) and an “alien” card is still in their playbook.
Baha'u'llah, the prophet founder of the Bahai Faith, alluded to the vastness of creation and the possibility of life beyond Earth when he said, "Know thou that every fixed star hath its own planets, and every planet its own creatures, whose number no man can compute.” Full disclosure: I am a follower of the Bahai Faith. However, I suspect that often the reason why alien and UFO stories are featured in the legacy media is that it serves as an interesting distraction from other things that the power apparatus would like us to forget about.
I know this is off topic, but more specifically, I don't believe in the story of aliens, who have visited Earth, traveling from distant planets that are light years away, and who have accidentally left behind pieces of their spacecraft technology. However, I think there still can be the possibility of life present on another planet in a different galaxy, and who are separated from us by the gigantic chasms of space. I strongly suspect that there exists advanced technology which has been hidden, but which was invented by humans, not aliens. Aliens make a nice cover story.
If you're going to claim there are 'a lot of assumptions' in this post, then actually list them.
As for you sourcing a website pointing to '619353ca48c82.site123.me/', golly gee whiz, are you sure you can't f/w me a cached geocities webpage with lots of animated GIFs instead? And why are you posting a page with a yardstick of comparison being the WEF, which I didn't mention even once?
There are 161 sources in this article. 37 in the article following -- and I could EASILY have sourced twice that. If you're going to argue that 'there are a lot of assumptions', then you have to actually address specific issues instead of erecting strawmen to beat.
That is, if your objective is to debate in an honest fashion.
I am a member of the Bahai Faith. I believe its teachings are positive.
The Bahá’í International Community received NGO status with the United Nations in 1948, to advocate for moral and ethical considerations of development in a forum where power plays and territoriality could hamper international progress.
Turns out, many of these global institutions have not amounted to much, and in fact, many of them seem to be a real problem.
From my current perspective, it appears that many ideas of the Bahai Faith have been borrowed by elements of the power apparatus (who likely became familiar with them through UN participation) and then recast to suit their own purposes.
As a result, the teachings of the Faith get compared favorably to globalist dictums, to my disappointment.
Yet, I think the Bahai Faith goes in a separate direction than existing international institutions.
Bahais are in favor of decentralization, distribution of power, and local ownership of the processes of development — not centralization of authority, as many of today’s global institutions appear to desire.
I appreciate your in-depth article here, which helps me compare and contrast the Faith’s teachings with the plans of the worldly powerful.
The degree of echoing between some of the Bahai positions and what the globalists advocate is really too close for comfort, but I believe if we drill down further in the details the differences of intention become more evident.
Looking forward to reading your part two.
t/y for your reply, but there's a bit more hiding behind some of these:
> decentralization
this is essentially 'subsidiarity' which can always be overriden top-down
> distribution of power
through an 'inclusive', 'participatory', consultative, 'stakeholder' approach. it's not democratic in the slightest. and this also relates to the decision making, not the decision taking which can always be overrideen top-down.
> local ownership of the processes of development
ie, cooperative, in much the same outlined by Bernstein (1899) which essentially is the common thread here.
You make a lot of good points.
From the standpoint of civilizational development and the long history of humankind, I think what the Bahai Faith advocates is a natural progression:
Humans, over a period of thousands of years, have been able to achieve cooperation and reciprocity first within families and tribes, then cities, nations, and states.
And the next level of cooperation that is available to us now, due to various technological inventions and advancements, is the international level.
However, what I see in the Bahai teachings regarding international cooperation and unity looks very different from the vision of today’s political and global institutions and power centers that operate from a counterproductive paradigm of domination of resources and imposition of totalitarian systems of control.
Direct democracy, where a simple majority gets to decide everything, is nothing more than mob rule anyway. That's why America was built as a representative (democratic) Republic. We have the Electoral College so the rural areas have some say in how the Federal government that affects them also is run.
*Any SAY*
Bahá’u’lláh’s revelation set something in motion within humanity’s collective consciousness. Though we don’t fully grasp our Oneness yet, this awakening shapes the world we see today. The similarities in global developments stem from this shift, not from a single source of control.
Bahá’ís, like others, work to make the world more just, but they aren’t responsible for how others interpret or implement similar principles. Some approach unity with wisdom, others with control—but the unfolding transformation belongs to all of humanity, not just one group.
Blaming Bahá’ís for the world’s shift toward ethical governance is like blaming a river for the direction the water flows. The transformation is bigger than any institution—it belongs to all of humanity.
You criticize globalism, yet you are using the internet—one of the most globalist systems in existence—to spread your message. Doesn’t that contradict your argument? If global interconnection is inherently suspect, wouldn’t rejecting it entirely be the logical conclusion?
> You criticize globalism, yet you are using the internet
No, I do not.
Please explain your logical reasoning, coming to this conclusion.
Please do so, without inserting tedious, assumptious constructs to support your hypothesis, of explicitly the sort you'd never accept in return.
Clear, you say you don’t criticise globalism, yet your article expresses concern over global institutions aligning with certain Bahá’í interpretations. If global governance itself isn’t a problem, why does it matter if some Bahá’í interpretations align with it?
Globalism has become a natural part of human life, and we all participate in it, including you and me right now in this conversation. So what exactly is your concern?
So there is no logical connection, unless you insert all sorts of scaffolding qualifiers. Good to know.
Correct. All that you’re signalling is a trend. And one thing the Bahá’í Faith isn’t, is compulsive, not on global institutions, and not on its own followers.
So why assume influence and scaffold qualifiers?
Your argument is invalid. You entered a discussion, erected tons of rhetorical scaffolding, and then assumed I'd accept your absurdities.
I can’t take you seriously if you’re dismissive in every comment. Are you actually interested in an exchange of opinions, or just avoiding engagement?
In fact, they have caused the decay! Anything that isn't of our ONE God cannot stand. They do twist a lot of words- always look at the deeds- the action. Won't let you down. Sometimes, you have to fig for it. And if they hide it, we'll, that's for a reason too. Only trust what's out in the light.
I sure hope Pope Francis was not part of this...
You have to *dig for it
After revisiting the grouping of posts about Baha'i, I was inspired to recall the eerie presence and spookier rhetoric of Dr. John Woodall's memorial ceremony mourning the 'lost' children of the baggage-laden and highly taboo events of Sandy Hook/Newtown coinciding with the Mayan Calendar roll-over in December 2012. Woodall is a Harvard affiliated trauma therapy specialist & psychiatrist who founded the Unity Project for treating the child-victims of mass atrocity events, and with his wife, functions as some sort of Baha'i priest/minister. They are both conveniently Newtown residents.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BWFQ03VKWYM&ra=m
https://brilliantstarmagazine.org/uploads/explore/pdf-stargazer/John_Woodall_JF13_p22r4a_pp23r3.pdf
Given Baha'i's commitment to disarmament and "peaceful" transition to their envisioned global techno-state, it is a mighty advantageous coincidence that such an inspiring argument for the repeal of the 2nd amendment fell into their lap so precipitously and so auspiciously.
Save the Children, meet divine providence. Divine providence, meet Save the Children. You guys have a big & lucrative future together.
Here is the creepy-as-all-get-out speech that leaves plenty of room for the idea that the children never died, as it immediately became verboten to ask questions about them & their medical records at the time, but were, perhaps (at least as far as the text of the speech is concerned) offered by their (Baha'i?) parents to enroll in some special program in which they could serve a higher 'spiritual' purpose in their transcendence of humanity project. (I couldn't help visualize the closing scene of Eyes Wide Shut as I read it.)
"...Although the loss of a (child) is indeed heart-breaking and beyond the limits of human endurance, yet one who knoweth and understandeth is assured that the child hath not been lost but, rather, hath stepped from this world into another, and you will find them in the divine realm. That reunion shall be for eternity, while in this world separation is inevitable and bringeth with it a burning grief.
Praise be unto God that thou hast faith, art turning thy face toward the everlasting Kingdom and believest in the existence of a heavenly world. Therefore be thou not disconsolate, do not languish, do not sigh, neither wail nor weep; for agitation and mourning deeply affect their soul in the divine realm.
That beloved child addresseth thee from the hidden world: 'O thou kind Mother (and Father), thank divine Providence that I have been freed from a small and gloomy cage and, like the birds of the meadows, have soared to the divine world—a world which is spacious, illumined, and ever joyous and jubilant. Therefore, lament not, O Mother and Father, and be not grieved; I am not of the lost, nor have I been obliterated and destroyed. I have shaken off the mortal form and have raised my banner in this spiritual world. Following this separation is everlasting companionship. Thou shalt find me in the heaven of the Lord, immersed in an ocean of light.'
...
The hokey early modern english protestant linguistic affectations delivered with so much earnest schmaltz are particularly puke-inducing to this poet & Lebowskian Dudeist Priest, a sure sign of a put on/grift/front operation lacking all humor, discouraging of any self-critical capacity. It reeks of a fraudulent cult geared to shopping for sentimental suckers & shallow, conformist thinkers. I've heard car insurance adds that inspire greater faith & confidence.
Anyway, thanks for all your excellent analysis, as always.
Baha’i is Zionism with a fresh coat of paint.
Baha'i is a "technocratic and administrative" way to organize societies. The same as Islam, but without the militancy?
OK. Here are some of the asumptions you make in your article:
regarding the first list you made
1. Subsidiarity is not a part of the Baha'i writings in any way.
2. Centralization of credit. Ditto (Note: not all Baha'is interpretations are backed up by the Baha'i teachings).
3. Planetary boundaries. WTF?
4. Equitable sharing of resourses. This is one of the many phrases that are twisted for it can mean many things. Baha'is are supposed to illiminate the EXTREMES of wealth and poverty but there is nowhere in the writings that speak of equitable sharing as in the WOKE definition.
5. Good governance. What does this mean? Is bad gobernance better?
6. Civil society organizations. There is nothing about this in the Baha'i writings. Everything in life is supposed to be civil.
7. participatory and inclusive stakeholder groups. NO. NO. NO. This is totally made up
8. sustainable development. This mean two completely differnet things. The Baha'i version has nothing to do with WOKE ideology whatsoever. Yes there are Baha'is who have been swept up in this but the holy writings do not.
9. redistribution of wealth. No such thing. The writings make giving voluntary 100%
10. The third way. I've never in 48 years as a Baha'i encountered this phrase.
11. Social emotional learning. This is communism, the opposite of the Baha'i Faith
Before I go on, note that there are many Baha'is that have gone against the Baha'i writings as a result of the 100 years+ psyops going on. This is not a reflection of the Faith but of man's imperfection. It's something we'll always deal with.
YOU: the Baha’i Faith is meant as the ‘most complete’ faith, seeking to replace every other religion along the way. Yes it is the most complete Faith for our modern times but there is nowhere in our holy writings that talk of supplanting other religion, in fact, there are many passages that speak of the unity of religions, for instance, Baha'u'llah writes: "It is because of this difference in their station and mission that the words and utterances flowing from these Well Springs of Divine knowledge appear to diverge and differ. Otherwise, in the eyes of them that are initiated into the mysteries of Divine wisdom, all their utterances are, in reality, but the expressions of one Truth…"
YOU: the alignment between the Baha’i Faith’s governance model and the current global governance structure is virtually total. Have you read my article at all? Their beliefs are the opposite. I demonstrated this right from the "horses" mouths.
YOU: nearly every core principle advocated by the Baha’i International Community (BIC) has been institutionalized at the highest levels of international decision-making. Can you give me one example? Stakeholder capitalism is the opposite of every thing the Baha'i Faith stands for.
YOU: The transition from nation-state sovereignty to multi-stakeholder governance—where NGOs, CSOs, and global institutions dictate policy—mirrors the Baha’i vision of ethical governance through consultation rather than legal coercion. This is SOO twisted. You've taken our concept of consultation, which exists at every level of society giving the local level the most authority, and made it sound like it gives globalists carte blanche to rule the world!
I've only gone through 1.5 paragraphs and I don't have time for the rest. If you don't understand how wreckless your analysis is and how contexts are being replaced or invented, I don't know what to say. I do apologize for the many Baha'is and Baha'i institutions that have been pulled towards the dark globalist's agendas, not out of maliciousness but ignorance. Their hearts are pure but they know not of what they do.
is that a joke reply?
1. you don't know what subsidiarity is, clearly. besides, Arthur Lyon Dahl has spoken of it frequently.
https://iefworld.org/ddahl23t_governance
2. i have SOURCED MATERIAL RIGHT IN THIS THREAD in this regard.
i see absolutely no reason to go on, and here's a good reason why:
>5. Good governance. What does this mean? Is bad gobernance better?
you are a complete waste of my time.
>8. sustainable development. This mean two completely differnet things. The Baha'i version has nothing to do with WOKE ideology whatsoever. Yes there are Baha'is who have been swept up in this but the holy writings do not.
so you associate the SDGs with 'woke ideology'.
i mean, this is just painful.
https://escapekey.substack.com/p/the-sustainable-development-goals?utm_source=publication-search
There are a lot of assumptions made in the above articles. A LOT. Here's an article on the WEF vs The Baha'i Faith that features (aside from the intro) words directly from the Baha'i writings and the mouths of the WEFers showing a stark contrast between the two ideologies: https://619353ca48c82.site123.me/some-questions-answered/2-opposing-world-orders-the-ultimate-good-vs-evil-battle-of-the-ages-copy
If you're going to claim there are 'a lot of assumptions' in this post, then actually list them.
As for you sourcing a website pointing to '619353ca48c82.site123.me/', golly gee whiz, are you sure you can't f/w me a cached geocities webpage with lots of animated GIFs instead? And why are you posting a page with a yardstick of comparison being the WEF, which I didn't mention even once?
There are 161 sources in this article. 37 in the article following -- and I could EASILY have sourced twice that. If you're going to argue that 'there are a lot of assumptions', then you have to actually address specific issues instead of erecting strawmen to beat.
That is, if your objective is to debate in an honest fashion.
yeah going to church over here in the uk these days involves somehow making out the path into the church for all the displays of diversity, rainbow colours, and so forth outside. really does wind up my wife.