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.


Patriots Should Prepare For War

page: 20
<< 17  18  19   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 18 2018 @ 06:35 PM
a reply to: Violater1

I agree. I am ashamed that I missed the opportunity.

I am taking a step to prevent someone else's thread from drifting any more than it has. if you wish to continue the discussion of Theocracy, I'll link a thread ( just for that. if you want to discuss the OP as it us written, do so here on this one.
edit on 18-12-2018 by Theocracy4America because: drifting

posted on Dec, 18 2018 @ 06:42 PM
Notice: This is what this thread is about.

originally posted by: mamabeth
I have found another very interesting article to share with you all.
I know many are prepared for multiple types of SHTF scenarios.I
still feel that the bottom line is divided into 2 camps,you're either
a globalist or a nationalist.
I may not see anything past these 2 types,maybe you can.

edit on 18-12-2018 by Theocracy4America because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 18 2018 @ 11:16 PM
a reply to: Theocracy4America

Am I allowed to suggest a third camp?

One where we sit and talk like rational beings with out banging war drums..

I'm not saying we all have to sit around and sing "we are the world" together.

But This rhetoric is old and tired..

Let me ask you a question. Who is going to be on the frontlines of both sides of the conflict..?

So again one more time..please watch, set everything else aside , LISTEN..

Do you really want to kill the family members extended or not who you argue politics with on face book?

Because that's where threads like this steer us...

I say no.


posted on Dec, 19 2018 @ 12:09 AM
a reply to: Mike Stivic

No one wants a civil war. I'd much prefer a solution like secession. But we all know how the last secession attempt went. It's simply recognizing what is coming. It is war. We are in the cold civil war right now. It'd be asinine to not prepare for a real war. We have to hope the communists will give up their communism without a war. I'm doubtful.

posted on Dec, 19 2018 @ 12:20 AM
a reply to: Dfairlite

I am a fiscally conservative libertarian.

I live in Vermont.

A very left leaning state.

And yet I can still stop in the book store and chat with the Hillary supporting owner.

I simply do not see the animosity in day to day life that the vocal minority would have you believe permeates society.

I respect your right to think, feel, and say otherwise.


posted on Dec, 19 2018 @ 12:23 AM
a reply to: Mike Stivic

It's not going to break out tomorrow. I give it about 10 years. What is happening now is the radicalization of the communists and socialists. Most people are still normal, with just a tad of extremism. But just 10 years ago there was no real extremism in normal people (at least as far as socialism and communism went). Once it starts growing, it grows quickly.

posted on Dec, 19 2018 @ 12:37 AM
a reply to: Dfairlite

I'm in my mid forties,I've been hearing this same rhetoric in one form or another since I was in high school..

Still pay taxes..

Still can't afford coffins and burials for my cousins,uncles, and nephews..

I am going to stop here and try to agree to disagree.

An anticlimactic end to our discourse,but one I hope others can emulate in this "mercury rising " political climate.


posted on Dec, 19 2018 @ 01:18 AM
a reply to: Mike Stivic

That's interesting. I only started hearing this chatter in the last decade. I'm around the same age as you it sounds like. I mean, sure you'd have a person here or there say something along these lines but it seems a lot louder than it ever has before. It seems far more mainstream. Now, maybe that's the social media effect and that's all it is. Either way, I don't want to be caught with my pants down, per se.

But by all means, we all have our own ideas and perceptions. I won't be the one to tell you're completely wrong on this. In fact, I really hope you're right.

posted on Dec, 20 2018 @ 03:27 AM
This thread:

More calls to violence by the fascist right against an enemy that does not exist. What happens when you go to war or prepare for war against an enemy that doesn't exist? Fascism.

You guys are dangerous. I consider myself an anti-fascist, mostly thanks to the amount of fascist propaganda that keeps popping up on ATS.

There is no socialist or communist problem, instead there is a fascist problem, which anti-fascists are responding to, now you're claiming that there's some problem with socialists or communists. As an exaggeration, it's like claiming that Nazi Germany had a socialist, communist, or globalist problem, then joining the Nazis instead, because a jew managed to fight back one time.

Globalist is also a fascist dog-whistle for Jew.

I also think we need to be direct about what "antifa" (it's not a group, it's a movement) stands for. Anti-fascism.
edit on 20/12/18 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 20 2018 @ 07:20 AM
a reply to: Dfairlite

were you around in the 60's and early 70"s???
ever hear of the kent state massacre?
how about the women's rights movement of that time?
the civil rights?
what about all those hippies that left home to join one of the communes?
do you know where the name meathead even came from? have you ever watched the 70's show... what was "meathead" so often called???

what we have now is tame compared to all that!!! we survived intact then, we will this time.

posted on Dec, 21 2018 @ 08:21 AM

originally posted by: mamabeth
I still feel that the bottom line is divided into 2 camps,you're either
a globalist or a nationalist.
I may not see anything past these 2 types,maybe you can.

Well, there are those who claim or have claimed to be both:

Please ignore the anti-semitic picture and conspiracy entertainment in the video.

There are also those who are neither and don't fall victim to the propaganda of some political ideology or view, because they actually follow the bible's advice and God's commandments* and take their information from the bible, rather than those who merely claim or pretend that they do. *: taking heed that the bible mentions that true Christians are “no part of the world,” just as Jesus is “no part of the world.” (John 17:16) In other words and using your terminology in another thread quoted below, they actually do follow the God of the Bible rather than some political ideology, view, party, movement (as in 'left' or 'right') or politician, i.e. putting their trust in "a son of man, who cannot bring salvation." (Ps. 146:3)

What Is False Religion?

Are you distressed about crimes committed in the name of religion? Do the warfare, terrorism, and corruption perpetrated by those who claim to serve God offend your sense of justice? Why does religion seem to be at the root of so many problems?

The fault lies, not with all religion, but with false religion. A widely respected religious figure, Jesus Christ, indicated that false religion produces bad works, just as a “rotten tree produces worthless fruit.” (Matthew 7:15-17) What fruit does false religion yield?

False Religion . . .

▪ MEDDLES IN WAR AND POLITICS: “Across Asia and beyond,” says the journal Asiaweek, “power-hungry leaders are cynically manipulating people’s religious sentiments for their own needs.” As a result, the journal warns: “The world threatens to sink into madness.” A prominent religious leader in the United States declared: “You’ve got to kill the terrorists before the killing stops.” His solution? “Blow them all away in the name of the Lord.” By contrast, the Bible says: “If anyone makes the statement: ‘I love God,’ and yet is hating his brother, he is a liar.” (1 John 4:20) Jesus even said: “Continue to love your enemies.” (Matthew 5:44) How many religions can you think of whose members engage in war?

How to Identify True Religion

What good fruit should true religion produce?​—Matthew 7:17.

True Religion . . .

▪ PRACTICES LOVE: True worshippers are “no part of the world,” are not divided by race or culture, [whereislogic: or political views and ideologies, 'left' vs 'right'] and display ‘love among themselves.’ (John 13:35; 17:16; Acts 10:34, 35) Rather than killing one another, they are willing to die for one another.​—1 John 3:16.

▪ TRUSTS GOD’S WORD: Instead of teaching “tradition” and “commands of men as doctrines,” true religion bases its doctrine on God’s Word, the Bible. (Matthew 15:6-9) Why? Because “all Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight.”​—2 Timothy 3:16.

Source: The End of False Religion Is Near!

31. the promotion of and/or adherence to or love of Nationalism and Patriotism (but it's actually covered under one of the 30 already as it is covered in the phrase “no part of the world”).

If my response seems a bit repetitive (especially the video that points out Trump claiming to be both a Nationalist and a Globalist), it's because the OP is repetitive. Another thread of yours says the same thing and adds that:

What this all boils down to is you are either a nationalist or a globalist.You either follow the God of the Bible or you follow the doctrines of Lucifer.

Implying that a Nationalist follows the God of the Bible. Allthough in that thread entitled "Maybe Why The World Hates Trump", I responded to someone else, pointing out that: reality(/truth) neither self-identified nationalists nor globalists follow the God of the Bible. In practice (or in reality) most tend to follow their own selfish interests (usually financial or economical). Demonstrating they are following someone and/or something else.

Followed by a bunch of bible quotations explaining what and/or who they are 'following' (to use the verb you used). Skipping past your misunderstanding and lack of knowledge regarding the term "Lucifer" (because most denominations within Christendom won't explain this to the flock). Which I explained in my subsequent comment there to someone else spreading misinformation about that topic (deliberate or unintentional). You can find my first comment in that thread here.

Modern Christianity—How Much Is Genuine? (1982)

POLITICAL INVOLVEMENT: Christ said of his followers: “They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world.” He also stated before Pilate: “My kingdom is no part of this world. . . . My kingdom is not from this source.”​—John 17:16; 18:36.

In ancient Rome political office and the state religion were closely entwined. How did the early Christians react toward that situation? The Encyclopædia Britannica explains: “Christians of the first three centuries turned decisively against the state religion of Rome . . . Christians viewed themselves as citizens of the coming heavenly city and as pilgrims and strangers on earth . . . as members of the Kingdom of God . . . which was dissolving its ties to this passing world and thereby also to the political order.”

How does modern “Christianity” stand in regard to politics? Divided from top to bottom. There are clergy identified with just about every political party that exists, ranging from Catholic priests who support Communism in Spain and Latin America to Protestant pastors who serve in the British parliament or identify themselves with the political right wing in the United States. The clergy’s record of abject submission, with few exceptions, to Nazism and Fascism during recent decades in Germany, Italy and Spain is well known to informed persons.

Christendom’s ranks are divided and the faithful are split as to political loyalties. The 20th-century Spanish writer and scholar Miguel de Unamuno was absolutely correct when he wrote: “A Christian’s fatherland is not of this world.” “Christianity is apolitical.” In contrast, the British journalist Anthony Lejeune was moved to write: “The political priest is rampant. . . . If the Church has nothing more than the world to offer, why go to the Church?”
Does your religious practice match the Biblical quality of the early Christians that we have just considered?

The apostle Paul invites us: “Put yourselves to the proof, to see whether you are holding the Faith. Test yourselves.” (2 Corinthians 13:5, The Twentieth Century New Testament) ...

1. Do you participate in national or political loyalties that cause divisions among professed Christians?​—1 Corinthians 1:10; John 18:36; James 1:27.
5. In your daily life, do you avoid lying, stealing, cheating and the use of obscene and abusive language?​—Ephesians 5:3-5; 4:25-31. [I know Donald Trump doesn't]

edit on 21-12-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 21 2018 @ 09:49 AM
a reply to: mamabeth

At times of national crisis and international tension governments step up programs that are designed to rally the support of the populace. Patriotic ceremonies are urged in the public schools, and the national anthem is frequently played. Yet it is at such a time, when nations are ready to fight to maintain their freedom, that they are most prone to trample underfoot within their own borders the liberties that they seek to preserve. It is a dangerous time. “One of the reasons why our times are dangerous,” as pointed out by historian Arnold Toynbee, “is that we have all been taught to worship our nation, our flag, our own past history.”

Anyone who does not join in giving expression to such veneration of the nation, regardless of his reason, is viewed with suspicion. Patriots may denounce his conduct as disrespectful, even dangerous to the welfare of the State. Such was the lot of the early Christians. Far from being a menace to the State, they were outstandingly law-abiding. Yet they could not conscientiously participate in the patriotic rites of the Roman Empire. In commenting on the matter, The Book of Culture says: “The Christians, however, strong in their faith, would take no such oath of loyalty. And because they did not swear allegiance to what we would to-day consider as analogous to the Flag, they were considered politically dangerous.”

The late British historian Arnold Toynbee mentioned earlier said of nationalism: “It is a state of mind in which we give our paramount political loyalty to one fraction of the human race . . . whatever consequences this may entail for the foreign majority of the human race.”

Because nationalism is so divisive and destructive, Toynbee said of it: “Nationalism is a mental disease.”

Nationalism, called by the weekly magazine Asiaweek “the Last Ugly Ism,” is one of the unchanging factors that continues to provoke hatred and bloodshed. That magazine stated: “If pride in being a Serb means hating a Croat, if freedom for an Armenian means revenge on a Turk, if independence for a Zulu means subjugating a Xhosa and democracy for a Romanian means expelling a Hungarian, then nationalism has already put on its ugliest face.”

We are reminded of what Albert Einstein once said: “Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.” Nearly everybody gets it at one time or another, and it continues to spread. Back in 1946, British historian Arnold Toynbee wrote: “Patriotism . . . has very largely superseded Christianity as the religion of the Western World.”

In a flurry of published information celebrating Albert Einstein’s centennial, news columnist Joseph Kraft wrote concerning Einstein’s views on nationalism: “[Einstein] set an example in renouncing nationalism. ‘I never identified myself with any particular country,’ he once wrote.

Similarly, in a letter to the editor of Bombay’s “Indian Express” newspaper, an Indian man stated: “I do not believe in patriotism. It is an opium innovated by the politicians to serve their ugly ends. It is for their prosperity. It is for their betterment. It is for their aggrandizement. It is never for the country. It is never for the nation. It is never never for common men and women like you and I. . . . This sinister politician-invented wall shall divide man from man​—and brother from brother; till one day it shall bring about man’s doom by man. Patriotism or nationalism, to my mind, is an idiotic exercise in artificial loyalty. . . . I take no hypocritical pride in being petty this or that. I belong to mankind.”

Background information on Arnold Toynbee (since he seems to be quite qualified to speak on this subject and I've quoted him a lot in this comment)
edit on 21-12-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 21 2018 @ 11:40 AM

originally posted by: C0bzz

I also think we need to be direct about what "antifa" (it's not a group, it's a movement) stands for. Anti-fascism.

But what does it tell us when Antifa-members* take up the same behaviour? *: the conglomeration of left wing groups named "Antifa", and with members I'm referring to anyone who flies their colors and wears their typical symbols or supports them at an Antifa-rally, that sort of thing.

Aren't they lowering themselves to the same level? Or were they already there all along?

Pause video below at 2:25 and let that sink in for a moment.

There are better ways to combat fascist or nationalistic sentiments without having to resort to violence.

Prejudice and Discrimination—Getting to the Roots

A good start is to acknowledge that none of us are above developing prejudices. The book Understanding Prejudice and Discrimination says: “Perhaps the most important conclusions to emerge from prejudice research are these: (1) no one capable of human thought and speech is immune from harboring prejudice, (2) it often takes deliberate effort and awareness to reduce prejudice, and (3) with sufficient motivation, it can be done.”

Education has been described as “the most powerful tool” in the fight against prejudice. The right education can, for example, expose the root causes of prejudice, enable us to examine our own attitudes more objectively, and help us deal wisely with prejudice when we are victims.

Getting to the Roots

Prejudice causes people to distort, misinterpret, or even ignore facts that conflict with their predetermined opinions. Prejudice may have its beginnings in seemingly innocent, but misguided, family values, or it may be sown by those who deliberately promote warped views of other races or cultures. Prejudice can also be fostered by nationalism and false religious teachings. And it can be a product of inordinate pride.
Nationalism. One dictionary defines nationalism as “a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations.” Ivo Duchacek, a professor of political science, observed in his book Conflict and Cooperation Among Nations: “Nationalism divides humanity into mutually intolerant units. As a result people think as Americans, Russians, Chinese, Egyptians, or Peruvians first, and as human beings second​—if at all.” A former UN secretary-general wrote: “So many of the problems that we face today are due to, or the result of, false attitudes​—some of them have been adopted almost unconsciously. Among these is the concept of narrow nationalism​—‘my country, right or wrong.’”
Pride. In the form of inordinate self-esteem or haughtiness, pride can make a person more susceptible to prejudice. For example, pride can cause a person to be prone to feelings of superiority or disdain toward the less educated or the materially poor. It may also make him inclined to believe propaganda that elevates his national or ethnic group. Clever propagandists, such as Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler, have deliberately nurtured national and racial pride to rally the support of the masses and to malign those considered to be different or undesirable.

In August 2000, more than 1,000 religious leaders met at the United Nations in New York for the Millennium World Peace Summit. They discussed solutions to world conflicts. However, the conference itself was a reflection of the world’s simmering controversies. A mufti from Jerusalem refused to come because of the presence of a Jewish rabbi. Others were offended because the Dalai Lama was not invited to the first two days for fear of antagonizing China.

In October 2003, world security issues were discussed by Pacific Rim nations at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit held in Thailand. The 21 nations present pledged to dismantle terrorist groups and agreed on ways to increase global security. Yet, during the conference several representatives grumbled about one prime minister’s remarks, which were said to be a hate-filled attack on the Jews.

Though there is a lot of talk about unifying the world, we see few concrete results. Despite the sincere efforts of many, why has world unity continued to elude mankind into the 21st century?

Part of the answer is reflected in the comments of one of the prime ministers who attended the APEC conference. He said, “There is this thing called national pride.” Yes, human society is steeped in nationalism. Each nation and ethnic group is driven by the desire for self-determination. National sovereignty combined with the spirit of competition and greed has produced a volatile mix. In one case after another, when national interests conflict with global interests, national interests win out.

Nationalism is well described by the psalmist’s expression, “the pestilence causing adversities.” (Psalm 91:3) It has been like a plague on humanity, leading to untold suffering. Nationalism with its resultant hatred of other peoples has existed for centuries. Today, nationalism continues to fan the flames of divisiveness, and human rulers have not been able to stop it.

Many authorities recognize that nationalism and self-interest are the root of the world’s problems. For example, former United Nations Secretary-General U Thant, quoted in the article before but worth quoting again, observed: “So many of the problems that we face today are due to, or the result of, false attitudes . . . Among these is the concept of narrow nationalism​—‘my country, right or wrong.’”

Nationalism is the “sacred egoism” that divides. Sometimes the people are not in favor of a war. On what basis, then, can the rulers most easily persuade the population to support their aims? This was the problem that faced the United States in Vietnam. So, what did the ruling elite do? Former U.S. Ambassador John K. Galbraith answers: “The Vietnam War produced in the United States one of the most comprehensive efforts in social conditioning [adjusting of public opinion] in modern times. Nothing was spared in the attempt to make the war seem necessary and acceptable to the American public.” And that points to the handiest tool for softening up a nation for war. What is it?

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.”

Charles Yost, a veteran of the U.S. Foreign Service and State Department, expressed it thus: “The primary cause of the insecurity of nations persists, the very attribute on which nations pride themselves most​—their sovereign independence, their ‘sacred egoism,’ their insubordination to any interest broader or higher than their own.” This “sacred egoism” is summed up in divisive nationalism, in the pernicious teaching that any one nation is superior to all others.

Historian Arnold Toynbee wrote: “The spirit of nationality is a sour ferment of the new wine of democracy in the old bottles of tribalism.”
edit on 21-12-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 22 2018 @ 02:52 PM
a reply to: Violater1

Hopefully more people see the light.

top topics

<< 17  18  19   >>

log in