It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Individuality as a Weapon Against the NWO

page: 3
24
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: zosimov

People wear uniforms in the free world as well. That doesn't mean they can't change when they not marching or at work.

A government banning some fashion accessories, while not good, doesn't mean everyone dresses the same or doesn't have their individuality.

The OP is premised on something that doesn't exist, namely that "the NWO wants to strip you of your individuality". Why would they?




posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Namely, this (from OP):

it is much easier to control (or demonize) a homogenous group than the individuals that comprise it.

Other than that, it is an interesting question. Why do dictatorships fear art and creativity so? One can clearly see why they would want to suppress individual thinking, and most likely therefore anything outside of the ordinary, which is perhaps why they chose to limit the input of all sorts of external stimuli.

I'm pretty sure I'm on to something here

but the beauty of individual thought is that you don't have to agree!

edit on 17-6-2017 by zosimov because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: zosimov

I quickly learned that not everything was meant for everyone to understand.

Which is fine.

Just be fortunate that you do.

And you are definitely on to something here


This was a great discussion.




posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: zosimov
Namely, this (from OP):

it is much easier to control (or demonize) a homogenous group than the individuals that comprise it.

That actually doesn't make much sense. If you control the group, whether they are homogeneous or not, you are controlling the individuals that comprise it.


Other than that, it is an interesting question. Why do dictatorships fear art and creativity so? One can clearly see why they would want to suppress individual thinking, and most likely therefore anything outside of the ordinary, which is perhaps why they chose to limit the input of all sorts of external stimuli.

You are not even sure if this actually happens. I understand a dictator fearing and banning criticism, but the reason there is obvious.

I also understand them plastering their mugs all over the place but that doesn't mean that people can't paint a flower or a bowl of fruit.

What exactly do you think is being stifled and, more importantly, how is it any different than regulations and censorship in "free" countries?


I'm pretty sure I'm on to something here

but the beauty of individual thought is that you don't have to agree!

Whether I agree or not doesn't change the fact that you have yet to show that anyone is out to snuff anyone's individuality.

Who says the NWO is out rid the world of individuality?

If anything I see the UN, the closest thing that I can imagine to the NWO promoting multiculturalism and coexistence of different peoples.



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

Thanks Hunter! I have noticed that, several times, I've derailed my own threads by engaging with those who don't ever seem inclined to understand! One or two interactions is fine, but once one has explained oneself to the best of one's ability, it's time to move on


I appreciate your, and everyone's, thoughtful contributions to the discussion! It's been great!




posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: zosimov

I think it is bad form to try and blame others when it is the lack of support for your claims that shoots them down.



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Or maybe your lack of insight to fully grasp the entire context in which her premise is based on.

No surprise though, this is what you always do.

She has presented more than enough to merit her OP and this discussion. What have you added other than your typical deflections based on nothing? Where is the support to your claims that the NWO don't want to take away our individuality?

Oh because it just doesn't make sense to you?



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
Or maybe your lack of insight to fully grasp the entire context in which her premise is based on.

That is a cop out.


No surprise though, this is what you always do.

She has presented more than enough to merit her OP and this discussion. What have you added other than your typical deflections based on nothing? Where is the support to your claims that the NWO don't want to take away our individuality?

Oh because it just doesn't make sense to you?

It makes perfect sense to me except where I see holes in the logic.

Is the new definition of discussion only agreeing with what others say?

I thought I was discussing the topic but as soon as I pointed out holes in the logic and posted examples of people in what were supposedly strict regimes being individuals out come the cop outs and excuses.

The OP can't even say who's behind the NWO so how am I supposed to find proof of what they are and are not up to?



edit on 17-6-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

OK fine, you are discussing, I apologise.

First of all, individuality goes far beyond the physical, much deeper than just clothes or personalities, but I only see you bringing up those in your deflections. You even used only those as your argument against the OP. Sorry to burst your bubble but it goes much much deeper than that.

Also I'm not going to sit here and explain it to you either.

And to answer your question, why would they want to?

Simple - as already pointed out to you - a herd of sheep is much easier to control.

Peace.



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
OK fine, you are discussing, I apologise.

First of all, individuality goes far beyond the physical, much deeper than just clothes or personalities, but I only see you bringing up those in your deflections. You even used only those as your argument against the OP. Sorry to burst your bubble but it goes much much deeper than that.

It is what the OP posted. It is all that can be shared. Nobody can post what people in NK or any other place think.


Also I'm not going to sit here and explain it to you either.

And to answer your question, why would they want to?

Simple - as already pointed out to you - a herd of sheep is much easier to control.

Peace.

I am not asking you to explain anything. I'm pointing out the logical flaw in the claim.

Is a herd of different colored sheep easier or harder to control?
edit on 17-6-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Well, to be fair, I also wrote this:


Individual. Oxford’s Living Dictionary defines this word as a single, original entity-- a distinctive person or attribute. When contemplating the meaning of the word, I imagine that whatever makes one an individual must be aligned with one’s true essence- the lowest denominator of self. Which would mean that once a person has to compromise just one of his/her core values in order to fit into a group, he/she ceases being an individual and begins the painful process of self vivisection-- dividing his/her own house against itself. Hence the dissonance which pervades our lives today and provides the current of our political and social spheres. However, there is plenty of hope for the future of humanity: As Ruth Anshen writes in a forward to Erich Fromm’s The Art of Loving “There is in mankind today a counterforce to the sterility and danger of a quantitative, anonymous mass culture, a new, if sometimes imperceptible, spiritual sense of convergence toward world unity on the basis of the sacredness of each human person and respect for the plurality of cultures .”

We already know about strength in numbers--now let's contemplate the strength of the individual. First, the individual is the polar opposite of the fascist (by definition) which makes it attractive already in my book. Next, a thread on a fascinating speech by Dr Day in 1969 has directed my attention towards the methods TPTB employ to control the masses, and when contemplating how to counteract these methods, I invariably come back to the power of the individual. By studying the successful fascist/totalitarian states of late, one can discern a pattern that the first things to go are those that promote individuality (art, fashion, music, speech, learning, religion-- yes, religion- one is not faithful to the state if their allegiance lies with The Most High- I don’t have the time to expand here on the freedom of religion but would be happy to pm anyone on the subject). Finally, if you and I were completely honest with ourselves, we would admit that it is much easier to control (or demonize) a homogenous group than the individuals that comprise it.

And this:


If TPTB had their way, once a person identified with a certain political affiliation, their minds would be made to suit the party, rather than the other way around. If TPTB had their way, worthless junk would replace creative works, and the theaters/radio/tv would be flooded in conformist, valueless kitch.

And honestly was intending to write even more, along the lines of media driven thought control (by focusing on certian issues, ignoring others, one had no choice really but to be "for" or "against" one of the approved (non)issues, and had even more to add to my argument, including sourced hypothesis as to the impulse behind people chosing to belong to a group, but I had put several hours in by the time I had finished the product you see and had a few other things that needed attention. How much time and effort did you put in to this thread?

Sorry, but if you need more info regarding the destrution of creative and individual thought in dictatorships, there is a wealth of information out there for you to find for yourself. It's worth more that way.

I would also point you in the direction of the Dr Day thread I mentioned if you want to get an idea of who or what tptb are in my estimation.


PS: Perhaps the quote which you assumed made no sense "it is much easier to control (or demonize) a homogenous group than the individuals that comprise it." would make perfect sense if one adds the social pressure placed on one by the group to conform?
edit on 17-6-2017 by zosimov because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: zosimov

Right off the top I can say that compromising a core value doesn't make you more or less of an individual. Some might argue that that is who you really are and that core value was the lie that you tried to convince yourself of before your true self shone through.

I've heard all about the plight of the individual and creative thought under dictatorships but that isn't the whole of individuality.

Something that I have noticed is that there always seems to be a black market no matter how oppressive the regime which leads me to believe that many of the stories you are placing stock in may be examples of media driven thought control.

I will take a look at the Dr Day thread to see what you mean by TPTB.



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Was it the "Down a Rabbit Hole" thread?

I'm not seeing any clear names of who TPTB are from that thread.

Followed the link to the Dr. Day thread and then to the article. A speech sort of put together from 20 year old memories with a pro christian twist put together during the height of the 80's satanic panic? While the CT in me loves the story I'm not buying it.

In the transcript of tape III it says:

I'm not stating this precisely the way he said it, but it wasn't too far from there where there was some mention of diseases being created. And when I remember the one statement and remember the other statement, I believe AIDS is a disease which has been created in the laboratory and I think that one purpose it serves is to get rid of people who are so stupid as to go along with our homosexual program. Let them wipe themselves out.

Now it's hard for me make clear how much of it is I'm remembering with great confidence and how much is pure speculation. But as I synthesize this - this is I think what happens... "If you're dumb enough to be convinced by our promotion of homosexuality you don't deserve a place and you're going to fall by the wayside sooner or later. We'll be rid of you. We'll select out... the people who will survive are those who are also smart enough not to be deluded by our propaganda". Does that make sense?


It was supposedly 1991. I'm pretty sure AIDS was no longer considered a gay disease except by those that thought it was punishment from god.


edit on 17-6-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: zosimov

Right off the top I can say that compromising a core value doesn't make you more or less of an individual. Some might argue that that is who you really are and that core value was the lie that you tried to convince yourself of before your true self shone through.

I've heard all about the plight of the individual and creative thought under dictatorships but that isn't the whole of individuality.

Something that I have noticed is that there always seems to be a black market no matter how oppressive the regime which leads me to believe that many of the stories you are placing stock in may be examples of media driven thought control.

I will take a look at the Dr Day thread to see what you mean by TPTB.


I'll be interested in hearing your thoughts once you've read it!



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Okay, so glad you read it! Well it does appeal to the CT in me as well.. and the fact that it was based a man's recollection of a speech 20 years after the fact perked up the skeptic in me, too.

It was only after reading the whole thing and seeing how much had already come to fruition, seeing how comprehensive the ideas presented were, how close to our current reality the transcript was, and wondering: just how popular was it, in 1989, to expouse a bunch of conspiracy theories? The Day speech is a conglamorate of many different theories, and would take a very thorough and twisted (and partially prescient due to how much of it has come to pass in the time between 1990 and now) mind to formulate the whole. All of these factors made me pay much closer attention to the content and its implications if true.

As for the homosexual part, I think it was the recorder attempting to remember Day's message. Perhaps Day (in 1969-- and probably even now there are some who think this way) did hold those draconian beliefs on homosexuality?

As for who exactly these shadowy figures are that we call TPTB? I profess, I do not know. I believe the big names: Turner, Murdoch, Musk, Zuckerburg, Soros, Rothschild, Saud, Rockerfeller, the CFI, the Vatican (these are only a few of the names I've come across) answer to THEM.

I did deliberate on using a different forum to post my ideas on individuality, and must profess that the decision post it in the NWO forum perhaps led the thread in a different direction than when it was first conceived, but I am satisfied that I ultimately posted in the right forum. I do believe that TPTB are obsessed with consolidating power (NWO) and eliminating dissenting voices (destroying individuality), and mentioned some (not all) of the possible means they are employing.
edit on 17-6-2017 by zosimov because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 09:53 PM
link   
dp

edit on 17-6-2017 by zosimov because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 11:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: zosimov
Okay, so glad you read it! Well it does appeal to the CT in me as well.. and the fact that it was based a man's recollection of a speech 20 years after the fact perked up the skeptic in me, too.

It was only after reading the whole thing and seeing how much had already come to fruition, seeing how comprehensive the ideas presented were, how close to our current reality the transcript was, and wondering: just how popular was it, in 1989, to expouse a bunch of conspiracy theories? The Day speech is a conglamorate of many different theories, and would take a very thorough and twisted (and partially prescient due to how much of it has come to pass in the time between 1990 and now) mind to formulate the whole. All of these factors made me pay much closer attention to the content and its implications if true.

Much of what was stated there was already in place or fear-mongered about by the end of the 80's.

The travel thing and implanted I.D. didn't pan out.


As for the homosexual part, I think it was the recorder attempting to remember Day's message. Perhaps Day (in 1969) did hold those draconian beliefs on homosexuality?

Yes, it was but his choice of words shows his agenda.



As for who exactly these shadowy figures are that we call TPTB? I profess, I do not know. I believe the big names: Turner, Murdoch, Musk, Zuckerburg, Soros, Rothschild, Saud, Rockerfeller, the Vatican (these are only a few of the names I've come across) answer to THEM.

I did deliberate on using a different forum to post my ideas on individuality, and must profess that the decision post it in the NWO forum perhaps led the thread in a different direction than when it was first conceived, but I am satisfied that I ultimately posted in the right forum. I do believe that TPTB are obsessed with consolidating power (NWO) and eliminating dissenting voices (destroying individuality), and mentioned some (not all) of the possible means they are employing.

Seems like circular logic to me.

A group that runs the world uses the means mentioned to eliminate dissenting voices to consolidate power that they already have?



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 02:48 AM
link   
a reply to: zosimov




by studying the successful fascist/totalitarian states of late, one can discern a pattern that the first things to go are those that promote individuality (art, fashion, music, speech, learning, religion-- yes, religion- one is not faithful to the state if their allegiance lies with The Most High- I don’t have the time to expand here on the freedom of religion but would be happy to pm anyone on the subject).


True to an extent but by being religious you become a member of a group who are share the beliefs, attitudes and rituals.. and at worst your clothing, sex life etc.. Which in a way makes you less of an individual than if you follow a political party, which makes you only share political beliefs.
Religion is probably in fact the most ancient example of homogeneity among humans.

I couldn't think of a worse example for promoting individuality than religion.



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 05:09 AM
link   
rugged individualism within a communitity is key, not abstract individualism about the self.

learn how to operate within a tribe while maintaining a strong sense of individualism and self reliance and the NWO will be shaking in its boots



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: 0racle

Not all practice religion is the same way-- would you agree?
For many, religion is a deep and personal connection to the source of all good.
I don't attend a church but read, pray, and practice love (this is the main tenent of my religion).
It has brought me to a beautiful understanding of all of us as beings who are loved and tremendously powerful.
I don't think the elite want any authority higher than theirs.


edit on 18-6-2017 by zosimov because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
24
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join