It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Globalist Plot to Destroy America

page: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 05:26 PM
a reply to: WilliamtheResolute
Somewhere along the line, we began to defend the implementation (the publicized brand or organization) solely because they align with our ideals in their marketing. But, what's in the box may not be what we bought into, at all.

Its "brand loyalty" taken to the very extreme. Believe in pro-choice? Well then, planned parenthood is unquestionably your brand, and you should defend it as though they encompass the entire topic! Believe in feminism? Well then, Hillary is the brand for you, and you should defend her unequivocally as if your very social equality depends on it!

Believe in issue "X?" Then brand "Y" is the only one that can meet your needs, and all the rest are icky and bigoted. You must defend "Y Corporation" as though your very life, integrity, and honor depends on it! Transfer those feelings and ideals to the brand, its the only way to not only achieve them, but to prevent the apocalypse.

Don't like Y Corporation's marketing image? Well, then try W, Inc. Just make sure you defend the organization/individual/buzzword as though they are the only ones who define and encompass your personal ideals. And make sure you never, ever question the methods and solutions provided by your brand. If you do, you might as be just like them.. You know, the people from the other company that are obviously inferior, blasphemous heathens. Don't be inferior, defend your brand! Don't be inferior, convert the non-believers!

Remember, brand loyalty is your beliefs. Brand loyalty is your ideals. They define the path to achieve your goals, ideals, and dreams for humanity.

Seeking alternatives or thinking for yourself is like a Coca-Cola adherent considering trying out Pepsi. You may think its just an innocent inquiry, a mild curiosity, but your immortal soul and social acceptance are put at great risk!

Don't. Even. Think. about RC Cola. Above all else.. absolutely never, under ANY circumstances, consider the possibility that these things exist beyond how your brand defines and markets them, or that there might be other ways to address your issues. Such faithlessness will immediately result in the "other" corporation stealing your soul, your children, and leaving you without meaning, direction, or purpose. You might get sued too, and nobody wants that.

It goes without saying that you should never pursue starting your own, individual brand either. Its so ludicrous and outrageous that no one would think of it anyway, but it still deserves mention, as the heretics may try tempting you to do so.

Don't question, don't innovate, just repeat your brands mantra for continuing success! We can win together! When we stumble, it will be because of the blasphemers, so make sure to convert someone daily.

edit on 8-1-2017 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 05:35 PM
a reply to: Serdgiam

I agree with the analogy, why change your beliefs if they aren't broke....why proselytize your religion if you don't believe?
It's a hard world out there and you gotta believe in something, I chose to believe in the virtue and resilience of the American people. The educational system has failed them but they still have the right instincts.....cue the National Anthem.

posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 06:21 PM
a reply to: WilliamtheResolute

You probably shouldn't encourage me

I actually think its a shame. The tools and knowledge used to program the public could be used in such better ways. Its such a deep hole at this point that I believe the only "fix" is to use the same methods in a different direction.

Personally, I'm a globalist. However, I feel it is imperative to build that global cohesion alongside maintaining national identity. Not only is that not part of the "brand," its not a part of the conversation at all. Even when it IS discussed, its under the context of a paradox. As if our heart and lungs are incapable of working towards the same end because they are so different. If we convert one to the other, we get little more than stagnation leading to death.

In my eyes, we should work towards a truly global society. But, we may not have much luck until we figure out how to "get along" at home.

As it is, the brand of globalism currently being sold is a uniform domination of all nations under the same umbrella as always. I can't support it, but many do simply because the premise agrees with their ideals. Its a disturbing type of brand loyalty.

Rather than cutting down a nation like the US, I believe it would be better to encourage every nation to be as strong and self-sufficient as possible. Using other nations to fill in gaps rather than artificially trying to level the playing field.

However, the current product being sold is that globalism is achieved through massive international dependency (among other items), even forcing it if needed. I think this results in a weaker system, but that's the only brand in the marketplace. So, the pro/anti conversation revolves solely around that method of globalism.

A method that will only result in the stripping down of more advanced nations in order to give the appearance of "fairness."

Its preposterous and destructive, but that's the product that the brand loyalists are buying and the product that "Y Corporation" is selling. I think the result from either buying *or* avoiding that product is detrimental and that we should be having a completely different conversation.

posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 08:07 PM
a reply to: Serdgiam

To be perfectly clear, I categorically disagree with your premise, yet I still understand the reasons you advocate Globalism. I appreciate your premise that as long as national culture, borders and language are maintained that Globalist theory is a viable alternative to other forms of government. The fact that organizations like the CFR and George Soros are involved in the Globalist agenda speaks volumes and in and of itself is sufficient reason to never approach Globalism.

Call me old fashioned but I still believe in the dignity and nobility of man so I have to oppose any advocacy for an "ism" that is inherently evil in my opinion. The fact that you think there is a higher purpose for Progressivism is telling, I find any manipulation of a general population towards a goal that strips them of their freedom and free will to be totalitarian and fascistic. Progressivism in it's purest form is about as viable as the purest form of Communism or Socialism, a great concept without any practical application. I suggest you realign.......

posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 10:53 PM
a reply to: WilliamtheResolute

I think the reactionary nature has been too strongly embedded, over too many decades, for it to simply rectify itself. Frankly, cultural programming is something that happens even if it's not directed or intentional. Ideally, we would consciously write it over generations, starting right now, but most aren't even aware of what it is. Heck, many don't think they are even impacted by it, and are immune to its effects.

I believe our current best option is to pursue systems that encourage and enable independence and self-sufficiency through decentralized structures. The more we can remove the involvement of massive, centralized governments and operations, the better.

We might actually agree on more than you might think, but we are programmed to react to certain keywords and concepts based on what brand we have loyalty towards. My desire is to see systems created that enable vastly different philosophies to work together without forcing one or the other to submit or convert.

To make it as clear as I can; its irrelevant to me whether you see me or my thoughts as "evil." I have zero interest in having you, me, or anyone else, live under a system with which they disagree. I feel too strongly about that to realign my philosophy.

What I want to see is a system that allows you and me to each live under the system we choose. Then, these would be connected through technology in the arenas that we do have in common, like energy generation, HVAC, or even dogs.

In that, you may feel that my concepts are based in evil, and I may have my own opinions about your perspective. But, we could each pursue these courses with those of like mind and then connect and interact based on the areas we do have in common.

I strongly believe that the founding fathers of the US had it right, that vastly diverse states can make a stronger union. I believe that the federal government should only serve to facilitate interaction between the states on areas of common interest. At some point though, we lost sight of many things in our seemingly innate need to make everyone else live and think the same.

I vehemently disagree with the notion that weakening a nation, or state, results in a stronger.. anything. The approach of those like Soros, CFR, Codex Alimentarius, and the UN with proposals like Agenda 21/30 are highly detrimental to anyone but them. But, as long as people agree or disagree in totality, based on brand loyalty, they will be able to implement them with relative ease.

IMO, that will lead to the continuing erosion of the US, which at its founding, showed a scalable template for a far superior system than anything that exists today.

Out of curiosity, what if I refuse to realign and stand firm that we should continue advancing the premise that was introduced with the founding of the United States? Will it lead to fisticuffs?

posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 09:41 PM
a reply to: Serdgiam

Your logic is interesting, I feel like I a 20th century man having a discussion with a 19th century Utopian.....or a time traveling 23rd century visitor....there will be no fisticuffs in Utopia.

posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 02:00 PM
a reply to: WilliamtheResolute

Instead of simply making assumption, you could always ask questions! I didn't think you would so completely fulfill the programmed behavior I detailed in my first posts in this thread..

All too often, we see one buzzword mentioned followed by an avalanche of assumption. Like me mentioning I'm a globalist followed by the assumption I operate according to the principles of propaganda. The left may currently be the leader in terms of programming, brainwashing, and social manipulation but sadly those very same tools will be targeted worldwide soon enough.

Even if you were to take the trouble to go through my threads, there is very little insight into my actual perspective. I always like to see how deeply the social programming is embedded.

I rather like the mix of a 19th century "Utopian" mixed with a 23rd century time traveller. Though, obviously our ideas of that useless term "utopia" differ if there is no fisticuffs in yours! Of course, I feel those 18th century utopians did a pretty brilliant job even if it has been corrupted over time.

I am well aware that many "modern" people feel that items like the constitution, bill of rights, founding principles, etc. are outdated and obsolete, but I really do believe they were written as core concepts that are essentially timeless. Of course, we have been moving away from it all for decades, at the behest of the entire political spectrum, from far right to far left. We move ever forward, and if we can't look forward then the world is likely to be shaped by the modern liberal and progressive dogma. I know that many, perhaps even yourself, believe this is a good thing but I see it much differently.

The inability to have actual discussion in the presence of trigger words is the very basis behind the continuing success of the plot to erode America. It operates on the premise that you (or anyone) already knows everything that someone else may think. Every discussion is designed to preserve brand loyalty by ensuring that no one interacts outside of assumptions that precipitate dismissal.

Our own conversation is a perfect example of this. I would like to have a conversation where we try to work out how to prevent our current course, while you seem more interested in minimizing and dismissing by nearly any means necessary.

If I am mistaken, I apologize. I am not immune to the programming either. Your attempts at "conversation" here seem more focused on working towards the quickest dismissive assumption. I feel that steering clear of this current liberal driven course is absolutely critical, and significantly more important than maintaining bias and a sense of superiority.

I believe we can actually make a difference, but it wont be through acting in accordance to our programming. That's what got us here in the first place, and is one of the primary factors for the plots efficacy. The absolute unwillingness to work through our assumptions, even if proven in error, gives more power and control than holding someone at gunpoint. Its something we should avoid and fight against rather than doubling down to preserve our bias. In my opinion, the left is too far gone and its only a matter of time for the right. At that point, the fringe will not be able to maintain equilibrium and we will find ourselves in a very different world in the blink of an eye.

posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 09:32 PM
Fascinating that you have chosen me to be the instrument of change in your dystopian novel. I am open to any suggestion and concede that your premise is more advanced and succinct than I ever imagined. I am intrigued, I have always wanted to be transcendent and relevant in my opinions, but may be constrained by limited and plebian views. Please elucidate.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in