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.


Just so the corporate gate keepers understand

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 29 2018 @ 05:20 PM

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Fools
Bet you cried when John McCain died. I should probably look around at your posts before saying that, but I think I am probably spot on.


But you keep pulling that two party lever and thinking you're making a difference as to what the 'corporate gatekeepers' do. The only difference between Republican whores and Democrat whores are the handful of special interests they DON'T have in common. Otherwise the skanks are all the same, getting paid by the same corporate johns every election cycle.

truth spoken here

posted on Oct, 29 2018 @ 05:58 PM

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Can you provide some examples of where globalists are panicking because I'm not sure how you qualify that. ?

Admittedly it's a mix of art along with the science. Depending how well-read you are we might can get there from here. Are you familiar with the fact that most of our foreign and domestic policy comes from think-tanks? If you are, do you know which ones have been/are most influential?
edit on 29-10-2018 by The GUT because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 29 2018 @ 06:08 PM
a reply to: The GUT

Well from where I'm sitting I think these globalists are in fine form, it doesn't look like panic to me it looks like these puppet masters are rubbing their greedy hands together and cackling with glee.

posted on Oct, 29 2018 @ 06:13 PM
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Maybe. Hard to truly say at this point I guess. For what it's worth, I do think they win in the end. Everyone else loses, however. Globalism sounds good on paper. Just like all the major systems of government do. The reality becomes something else.

posted on Oct, 29 2018 @ 11:15 PM

originally posted by: Fools

The word "You" as used in my reply meant people that agree with globalist agenda.

I do not agree with the political views of the person below, but there isn't much of that in the video below:

I guess it's OK when Trump says it. I can already think of a number of excuses, like: 'he didn't mean it that way, he wasn't referring to supporting globalism, or the globalist conspiracy (agenda, to use your term), he was using the word globalist in another sense, he's a different type of globalist', etc.

Funny thing though, I don't remember the MSM like CNN and Fox making a big deal about him saying he is a nationalist and a globalist back in May 2017. As they do now about him only saying he's a nationalist. Perhaps it has something to do with the timing of various elections. Or perhaps I just missed it.

Whatever Happened to World Unity? (2005)

“For the first time since World War II the international community is united. . . . The world can therefore seize this opportunity to fulfill the long-held promise of a new world order.”

SO SAID a president of the United States in the last decade of the 20th century. At that time, international events seemed to suggest that world unity was on the horizon. Totalitarian governments fell one after another. The Berlin Wall came down, signaling a new era for Europe. The Soviet Union, viewed by many in the West as an instigator of global conflicts, disappeared before the eyes of an astonished world. The Cold War came to an end, and there was optimistic talk about disarmament, including nuclear disarmament. Granted, war broke out in the Persian Gulf, but that seemed to be just a momentary blip that left much of the world more determined to pursue a peaceful order.

Positive signs could be seen not only on the political front but also in other areas of life. The standard of living was improving in many parts of the world. Advancements in the medical field made it possible for doctors to do things that would have been called miracles just a few decades earlier. Economic growth in many countries moved ahead at a pace that appeared to be leading to global prosperity. It looked as though things were heading in the right direction.

Today, not many years later, we cannot help but ask: ‘What happened? Where is the promised world unity?’ If anything, the world seems to be moving in the opposite direction. Suicide bombings, terrorist attacks, the reported proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and other disturbing developments have become regular features of published news. Such events appear to be pushing the world further and further away from unity. One prominent financier recently said: “We are becoming enmeshed in a vicious circle of escalating violence.”

World Unity or Global Fragmentation?

When the United Nations was formed, one of the stated purposes was “to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.” After nearly 60 years, has that noble objective been reached? Far from it! Rather than “friendly relations,” the expression “self-determination” appears to be more on the mind of the nations. Peoples and ethnic groups struggling to establish their own identity and sovereignty have increasingly divided the world. When the United Nations was formed, it had 51 member nations. Today, there are 191.

As we have seen, toward the end of the 20th century, hope for a united world was in the air. Since then, that hope has turned to dismay as mankind has witnessed the progressive fragmentation of the world community. The violent disintegration of Yugoslavia, the clashes between Chechnya and Russia, the war in Iraq, and the continued carnage in the Middle East​—all of this has been evidence of ever greater disunity.

There is no doubt that many of the efforts for peace have been sincere and well-meant. In spite of this, world unity seems unattainable. Many are left wondering: ‘Why does world unity remain so elusive? Where is the world heading?’

Where Is the World Heading?

Who was that president that said that about a "new world order" at the start of that article? George H.W. Bush, Republican, nationalist, right-winger, patriot, self-professed Christian and apparently globalist in the sense of his desire to realize what he (and others) refers to as a "new world order". Hmm, I know of someone else who either has claimed or demonstrated to be all those things: Republican, nationalist, right-winger, patriot, self-professed Christian and "globalist" in his own words. Both of them are quite supportive of any military expenditures or activities, including business activities such as supplying and selling military, security and protection products (ranging from arms sales to private security firms supplying so-called "security" to the shady dealings of intelligence services).

John Stoessinger, professor of political science said: “I read that wars were caused by nationalism, militarism, alliance systems, economic factors, or by some other bloodless abstraction that I could not understand. . . . I wondered if this could be true. . . . After all, wars were begun by men. Yet this personality [human] dimension was seldom given its due weight in traditional books on war.”

Zoologist Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt wrote: “Public opinion is formed by interest groups (politicians, arms manufacturers, the military) that deceive the electorate by giving them false or one-sided information.” In a similar vein, historian H. E. Barnes wrote: “Since the wars of the French Revolution . . . copious and compelling propaganda [has] been continued and greatly increased to protect warfare against popular dissent, opposition, and factual analysis of issues.”

Austrian economist Schumpeter wrote: “The orientation toward war is mainly fostered by the domestic interests of ruling classes but also by the influence of all those who stand to gain individually from a war policy, whether economically or socially.” These ruling classes have been defined as “elites [that] are at all times involved in trying to manipulate other elements of the population, or the public mood itself, so as to perpetuate themselves in power.”​—Why War? by Professors Nelson and Olin.

Every nation has its ruling class, even though that group may be divided into different political factions. However, many observe that the power of the military elite in every nation should not be underestimated. Former U.S. Ambassador John K. Galbraith describes the military establishment as “by far the most powerful of the autonomous processes of government.”

On what basis can the rulers most easily persuade the population to support their aims?

Professor Galbraith again supplies the answer: “Schools in all countries inculcate the principles of patriotism. . . . The conditioning that requires all to rally around the flag is of particular importance in winning subordination to military and foreign policy.”

Historian Arnold Toynbee wrote: “The spirit of nationality is a sour ferment of the new wine of democracy in the old bottles of tribalism.”

Details here.
edit on 30-10-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 01:14 AM

originally posted by: whereislogic

I guess it's OK when Trump says it. I can already think of a number of excuses, like: 'he didn't mean it that way, he wasn't referring to supporting globalism, or the globalist conspiracy (agenda, to use your term), he was using the word globalist in another sense, he's a different type of globalist', etc.

Or another way to phrase some of that could be acknowledging that he's a globalist but arguing that he doesn't have a "globalist agenda" (using the term Fools used).

posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 01:30 AM

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
You make it sound like the 'corporate gatekeepers' don't own the Republican Party too.

They're just as big of a bunch of whores as the Democrats.

originally posted by: Mahogany

Just as big?

Both sides are whores, and all of our politicians are for sale to highest bidder, but the Republicans have been the Madam in this House of the Rising Sun for a long time. Loooong time.

Well, since the Madam gets to tell what all the politicians are to do and when to do it, she's probably better represented by this 'establishment' if you want to fit it into the same metaphor (also see my first comment for alternate terminologies and the linked comment at the end there before reading the rest of this comment):

“Nationalism’s chief symbol of faith and central object of worship is the flag, and curious liturgical forms have been devised for ‘saluting’ the flag, for ‘dipping’ the flag, for ‘lowering’ the flag, and for ‘hoisting’ the flag. Men bare their heads when the flag passes by; and in praise of the flag poets write odes and children sing hymns.”​—What Americans Believe and How They Worship (1952), by J. Paul Williams, pages 359, 360.

“Twenty-five years ago this June,” observes the Catholic Jesuit magazine “America”, “Americans piously inserted the phrase ‘under God’ into the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.” In reflecting on the reason for this move, “America” says that “most who supported the change in wording (and there were few who did not) frankly admitted that the inclusion of God was a political, not a religious, act.” In those days of fervent anti-Communism, notes the article, “the Catholic War Veterans of Wayne County, Mich., resolved that letting God into the Pledge would give ‘additional meaning to the spiritual defense of our nation.’ God . . . was being recalled to active duty.”

The significance of this was expressed by one religious writer of the time who said that, by putting God into the pledge, America was “adopting a God of war who appears as a nationalistic deity directing bombs and bullets into the hearts of our enemies.” Observes “America”: “Quite simply, the nation was afraid of the future, and it tried to meet this fear by having its children parrot in singsong fashion just how good it actually was. The Pledge was to be a spiritual boot [military training] camp for babes.”

Do you want your children to learn about a nationalistic “God of war” or, rather, about the “God of peace” as revealed in the Bible? (Phil. 4:9) “America” draws this conclusion: “The phrase ‘under God’ is the concrete symbol of what was, 25 years ago, and may still be, the established American religion: worship of the state. We ought to drop it.”​—June 9, 1979, pp. 469, 470.

Coming back to term "Madam" as used before. The bible uses the metaphor of a prostitute for false religion. In that case the position of Madam probably best applies to Christendom.

The owner however who ultimately determins the behaviour of the Madam is yet someone else:

Religion is a Snare and a Racket

Take special note of nrs. 18,19 (at 15:20) and 28-30 (at 24:00).
edit on 30-10-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 04:37 AM
a reply to: Fools

Just so the corporate gate keepers understand

You mean those people that trump gave a permanent tax break to.

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in