It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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!
originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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).