Silent No Longer

originally posted by: aeroscrog
www.whitehouse.gov...

Wow!! That was an amazing speech!!!

There was a movie back in the 90's with Harrison Ford as the president - I can totally imagine him giving that speech!

I wonder who wrote it for Trump?

a reply to: lostgirl

I wonder who wrote it for Trump?

Th e head of the speechwriters for Trump is White House senior advisor Stephen Miller.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: tanstaafl

Just getting started

t

Stop being lazy. I listened to both speeches. Nothing in there about declaring war on the American people.

If you claim otherwise, the onus is on you to point to the precise text, or you're full of BS.

We all know which is the case.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Stop being lazy. I listened to both speeches. Nothing in there about declaring war on the American people.

Feeling a little bossy girl are we?

It's a matter of perspective

Both speeches contained several examples of him declaring certain groups enemies. If you didn't hear it for yourself, my fishing it out for you isn't going to change anything

I am just lazy enough that I'm not going to bother

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

The sole purpose of the CIA is to collect critical information. Like any key organization that deals with sensitive material, it is highly compartmentalized. Everything operates on a "need to know" basis. The primary guiding principle is to retain people who are capable of unquestionable loyalty but also discrete and professional. How do you build an army of clandestine people who can persuade others into doing something that would go against their moral fabric? There is an entire psychology built around this concept.

The Psychology of Espionage

Regardless of what many people think, the CIA does not want "mind-numbed robots." They need people who can think critically and act accordingly. The most successful recruiters are extremely personable, social people and great listeners. They have a charisma that weaves trustworthiness into its very core foundation. (Sounds a bit like a cult leader, eh? No coincidence here...) These are people who know how to leverage psychology at the proverbial level of a professional athlete...

They also recognize that, similar to military personnel, if they are captured or compromised they need to have the skills to resist divulging sensitive information (SERE training). It takes a special kind of person to knowingly take on such risk...for what reward? Well...because they want to be part of something bigger than themselves. They want to do something big for their country, a concept, or an ideology that is the core of their belief system. This, too, is a key personality trait.

Would you die to protect your country? I would....without hesitation.

So...if this model is successful enough to run a critical agency like the CIA, then something must be said for its efficiency. It isn't perfect (as evidenced by double agents uncovered from time to time), but it is an effective model. One that perhaps has been duplicated elsewhere....compartmentalized rings within compartmentalized rings...strategically filled with people who fit a particular mold and personality required to meet a purpose in that role.

Now, let's apply this theory to the original post. You have a group of individuals who want to eliminate the sovereignty of nations. Not just the US...all of them. This is what globalism is.... It is collectivism. The elimination of rights of the individual over the "rights" of the mob.

American individualism falling to socialism, globalism, collectivism

Only, this is not limited to America. Look around the globe at the protests and anarchy that have broken out over George Floyd and BLM on nearly every continent. This is coordinated and strategic...run by compartmentalized rings within rings by people who fit a profile and know how to manipulate others into doing things that they normally wouldn't do.

a reply to: CIAGypsy

So, wow. And also - thank you

And yes - loyalty, dedication. But spying (not everyone in the CIA is a spy) is often about deception. Being deceptive comes with it's own set of personality traits. It doesn't just show up in double agents

Is it also necessary for an agent to be partisan? Can one love their country, be willing to die for it - and also be a liberal?

Only, this is not limited to America. Look around the globe at the protests and anarchy that have broken out over George Floyd and BLM on nearly every continent. This is coordinated and strategic...run by compartmentalized rings within rings by people who fit a profile and know how to manipulate others into doing things that they normally wouldn't do.

Were they though? Not all things are foreseeable. Spontaneous events and reactions often do catch fire. The humans are not always predictable - not even to the CIA. They've been caught with their pants down - plenty

Also, they haven't always been that good at pulling off some of their own stunts

Racism and oppression are very real. It doesn't require a shadowy worldwide organization to create what we're experiencing now. I understand that all that plays well with the conspiracy theorists in this world, but one would have to assume that CIA agents would be hip to all that jazz

:-)

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: tanstaafl
I am just lazy enough that I'm not going to bother

Quoted just because I can...

a reply to: tanstaafl

You seem to think people here owe you something? If you didn't see it when you read it - for yourself, then you're on your own

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: CIAGypsy

So, wow. And also - thank you

And yes - loyalty, dedication. But spying (not everyone in the CIA is a spy) is often about deception. Being deceptive comes with it's own set of personality traits. It doesn't just show up in double agents

No, not everyone is in clandestine service...but compartmentalization applies to everyone, including analysts. Unfettered loyalty and discretion also applies to everyone. Yet, additional traits apply to those in clandestine service which was my point... Their purpose is to recruit assets. Convince people to provide them with information which likely will put those individuals at great personal risk to themselves and/or their families. This means building trust & rapport in people, whom you are asking to break their trust with others, and balancing the resultant cognitive dissonance.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: CIAGypsy
Is it also necessary for an agent to be partisan? Can one love their country, be willing to die for it - and also be a liberal?

Depends on your definition of partisan. Can you be a 'liberal' who loves America and wants to see it keep its sovereignty and the core beliefs founded in the Constitution? Sure.... These are not the people I'm discussing in this post. I know plenty of Democrats and liberals who believe in being pro-Choice, LGBTQ rights, affirmative action, and so on. These are 'partisan' issues which, at their core, discuss individual rights based upon certain beliefs. The same can be said about 'partisan' issues from the right - school choice, gun rights, etc...

I am talking about the Globalist agenda which seeks to eliminate borders, the Constitution, and individual rights to create one world government. It is those individuals who capitalize on the strife and debate, not because they have any particular belief or adherence to one side or the other....but because their goal is to undermine unity (as I mentioned in the OP) to tear down the institution altogether. Notice how these groups who are rioting and protesting moved from the senseless murder of a black man by a police officer into tearing down statues and canceling cultural icons that have nothing to do with what happened in Minneapolis? The situation with Floyd opened up a trigger event that those with other agendas have capitalized upon.

At the heart of this conspiracy (and yes, I mean conspiracy in a very real sense) are people who don't care if you are a Republican or Democrat. They play both sides (compartments) towards an hidden end. If you are distracted by the Red-vs-Blue, then you aren't paying attention to the real game that is afoot.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: CIAGypsy

Were they though? Not all things are foreseeable. Spontaneous events and reactions often do catch fire. The humans are not always predictable - not even to the CIA. They've been caught with their pants down - plenty

Also, they haven't always been that good at pulling off some of their own stunts

I don't disagree.... But in the words of Rahm Emmanuel "Never let a crisis go to waste...."

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: CIAGypsy
Racism and oppression are very real. It doesn't require a shadowy worldwide organization to create what we're experiencing now. I understand that all that plays well with the conspiracy theorists in this world, but one would have to assume that CIA agents would be hip to all that jazz

:-)

Yes, they are real...although I would counter that our generations today don't really understand the true meaning of oppression. Go live in North Korea, China, Venezuela, or one of a dozen brutal African nations if you want to understand TRUE oppression. Does that mean we don't have room for improvement? Of course not.... But I don't believe it is right or necessary to "burn the system down." You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Notice that we don't have a national, civil debate about ideas and truth surrounding a lot of the assumptions that are creating a flashpoint (such as racism and oppression)? Why? Because 1) people have been incited beyond critical thinking and 2) it doesn't serve the ultimate agenda which is to create division.

When you throw into the mix those people who have other agendas, you see that the issues get muddied very quickly. Then you are back where I suggested 3 pages ago - you don't trust the information that the media and those at the top of these institutions expect you to blindly swallow.

Reminds me...I need to get out my copy of CS Lewis "That Hideous Strength". Seems Lewis' metaphor wasn't just for WWII, but is prophetic.

a reply to: CIAGypsy

Nationalism and patriotism is not opposed to or the opposite of globalism. Didn't Trump say he's both a globalist and a nationalist? Yes he did.

Hitler's whole idea of the Third Reich was both globalist and nationalistic, playing on people's pride and patriotic sentiments to rally their support and devotion to the Fatherland.

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.

Arnold Toynbee's globalist views, cannot change the facts of history regarding how nationalism and patriotism have been used and are still being used to win “subordination to military and foreign policy.” (quoting Professor Galbraith) Besides, he wasn't the only one I quoted on the subject.

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.” He continues: “The power of the military embraces not only the significant sources of power but . . . all the instruments of its enforcement. . . . More than any other exercise of power in our time it is the subject of grave public unease.”

Galbraith illustrates his point by reference to the United States military institution, which has property resources that “far exceed any similar source of power; they embrace not only what is available to the armed services and the civilian military establishment but what flows out to the weapons industries.”

...
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? 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.” This systematic conditioning prevails in communist countries as it does in Western nations.
...

Source: same as before (just showing what I was quoting earlier in its context).

a reply to: Asktheanimals

“Either you make the tree fine and its fruit fine or make the tree rotten and its fruit rotten, for by its fruit the tree is known. Offspring of vipers, how can you speak good things when you are wicked? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good man out of his good treasure sends out good things, whereas the wicked man out of his wicked treasure sends out wicked things. I tell you that men will render an account on Judgment Day for every unprofitable* [Or “worthless.”] saying that they speak; for by your words you will be declared righteous, and by your words you will be condemned.”​—Matthew 12:33-37.

As Communism began to disintegrate, U.S. president Bush (Republican) popularized the concept of “a new world order.” However, as many political leaders have discovered, smart slogans are cheap; positive changes are much more difficult to accomplish. In his book After the Fall​—The Pursuit of Democracy in Central Europe, Jeffrey Goldfarb says: “Boundless hope about ‘a new world order’ has been followed quickly by the realization that the most ancient of problems are still with us, and sometimes with a vengeance. The euphoria of liberation . . . has often been overshadowed by despair over political tension, nationalist conflict, religious fundamentalism, and economic breakdown.” Certainly the civil war in what was Yugoslavia is a clear example of the divisive influence of politics, religion, and nationalism.

Goldfarb continues: “Xenophobia [fear of foreigners] and personal insecurity have become Central European facts of life. Democracy does not automatically deliver the economic, political, and cultural goods, and a market economy does not only promise riches, it also creates unfathomable problems for those who don’t know how to work in it.”

But it is evident that these are not problems of Central Europe and the republics of the former Soviet Union only; xenophobia and economic insecurity are worldwide. The human family pays the price in suffering and death. And the immediate future holds no hope of change in these deeply entrenched attitudes that generate hatred and violence. Why is that? Because the education most receive​—whether from parents or from nationalistically oriented school systems—​inculcates hatred, intolerance, and notions of superiority based on nationality, ethnic and tribal origin, or language.

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.”

Remember 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.

From a comment of mine in the thread How do Christians justify their taking the mark of the beast already?

In his inspired Word, God provides the needed clues with regard to the mark of the wild beast of Revelation chapter 13. Naturally, to understand those clues, we need to identify the beast itself and learn about its activities.

The Bible book of Daniel sheds much light on the meaning of symbolic beasts. Chapter 7 contains a vivid tableau of “four huge beasts”​—a lion, a bear, a leopard, and a fearsome beast with big teeth of iron. (Daniel 7:2-7) Daniel tells us that these beasts represent “kings,” or political kingdoms, that rule in succession over vast empires.​—Daniel 7:17, 23.

Regarding the beast of Revelation 13:1, 2, The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible points out that it “combines in itself the joint characteristics of the four beasts of Daniel’s vision . . . Accordingly, this first beast [of Revelation] represents the combined forces of all political rule opposed to God in the world.” This observation is affirmed by Revelation 13:7, which says of the beast: “Authority was given it over every tribe and people and tongue and nation.”

Why does the Bible use beasts as symbols of human rulership? For at least two reasons. First, because of the beastly record of bloodshed that governments have accrued over the centuries. “War is one of the constants of history,” wrote historians Will and Ariel Durant, “and has not diminished with civilization or democracy.” How true that “man has dominated man to his injury”! (Ecclesiastes 8:9) The second reason is that “the dragon [Satan] gave to the beast its power and its throne and great authority.” (Revelation 12:9; 13:2) Accordingly, human rulership is a product of the Devil, thus reflecting his beastly, dragonlike disposition.​—John 8:44; Ephesians 6:12.

Now that we have identified the beast, we are in a position to determin what the mark of the beast is. Those having the mark of the beast proclaim their servitude to the beast. Thus, the mark, whether on the right hand or on the forehead, figuratively speaking, is a symbol that identifies its bearer as one who gives worshipful support to the beastlike political systems of the world. Those having the mark give to “Caesar” that which rightly belongs to God. (Luke 20:25; Revelation 13:4, 8; 14:1) How? By giving worshipful honor to the political state, its symbols, and its military might, to which they look for hope and salvation. Any worship that they render the true God is merely lip service.

In contrast, the Bible urges us: “Do not put your trust in nobles, nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs. His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; in that day his thoughts do perish.” (Psalm 146:3, 4) Those who heed that wise counsel are not disillusioned when governments fail to deliver on their promises or when charismatic leaders fall from grace.​—Proverbs 1:33.

This does not mean that true Christians sit back and do nothing about mankind’s plight. On the contrary, they actively proclaim the one government that will solve mankind’s problems​—God’s Kingdom, which they represent.​—Matthew 24:14.

“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare* [“We do not wage warfare.” [Lit., “we are not doing military service.” Lat., non . . . mi·li·ta'mus.] according to what we are in the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God.”—2 CORINTHIANS 10:3-5
...

You said:

People are obviously so driven by patriotism that wars of states will surely break out.

War is already “one of the constants of history”. Nothing needs to “break out”. The CIA has already done their job of funding and training terrorist groups like Al Qaeda quite efficiently with rather succesful results to get their budget and that of the military industrial complex increased. And they've been quite succesful in creating turmoil across the world, lately, often working closely together with Russia, like they did in Syria for example, both groups of warprofiteers making a nice profit there. While the people who just want to get on with life suffer.

a reply to: CIAGypsy

That was very patient of you - and very thorough :-)

Unfettered loyalty and discretion also applies to everyone. Yet, additional traits apply to those in clandestine service which was my point... Their purpose is to recruit assets. Convince people to provide them with information which likely will put those individuals at great personal risk to themselves and/or their families. This means building trust & rapport in people, whom you are asking to break their trust with others, and balancing the resultant cognitive dissonance.

Unfettered loyalty? :-) Yes, because fettered loyalty is such a drag. It's what some people are pretty much demanding of all Americans right now

Building trust while asking others to break trust - then trying to prevent them from focusing on why they feel like crappy human beings? It doesn't sound very honorable. But, this is what the CIA is looking for - exclusively? People that are base level dishonest and dishonorable - so that they can do the honorable thing? Greater good outweighs being good? Sounds tricky

I'm not sure that your description is accurate, but it is interesting that this is your view of it all

Depends on your definition of partisan. Can you be a 'liberal' who loves America and wants to see it keep its sovereignty and the core beliefs founded in the Constitution? Sure.... These are not the people I'm discussing in this post. I know plenty of Democrats and liberals who believe in being pro-Choice, LGBTQ rights, affirmative action, and so on. These are 'partisan' issues which, at their core, discuss individual rights based upon certain beliefs. The same can be said about 'partisan' issues from the right - school choice, gun rights, etc...

I am talking about the Globalist agenda which seeks to eliminate borders, the Constitution, and individual rights to create one world government.

Yeah - not what I'm asking. Can you be a liberal and be in the CIA and save America?

I get that you're talking about the globalist agenda - is it the CIA's main gig to prevent this coming one world government?

Notice that we don't have a national, civil debate about ideas and truth surrounding a lot of the assumptions that are creating a flashpoint (such as racism and oppression)? Why? Because 1) people have been incited beyond critical thinking and 2) it doesn't serve the ultimate agenda which is to create division.

Oh there's been some serious discussion alright. I'm guessing you aren't really interested in all that. It kinda sorta seems like you may have been incited by something - beyond your ability to think critically. But there has definitely been some discussion lo these many hundreds of years

I take your point however: only a certain kind of person has the correct traits and qualifications while also being sufficiently motivated to prevent America from caving in on itself - and those people should be trusted. Without question apparently

Interesting

I'll let you get back to your Jedi fantasy. Let me know how it goes

talk is cheap

I was in Santa Ana at 10 pm on the 4th and it was fkn awesome btw - it sounded like ww3 and was litterally everywhere, on ever street, down every block and people DGAFF - saw people using the flat area where the battery is on the no firewroks cal-trans signs as a base for launchers, cops driving around lost haha.

Tell the latino community you cant celebrate America, btch plz - san francisco, oakland, chicago - blacks and latinos using 2 way radios to fake out the police helicopters and do synchronous launching from miles apart, que bella. If we ever go to civil war its the karens that are on the endagered list. So they can keep talking that commie news network the end is near BS, it's not - people are pissed everywhere and it's barely under control.

Try convincing them that CNN matters too btw, care they do not, November is gonna be redrum.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: CIAGypsy

Unfettered loyalty? :-) Yes, because fettered loyalty is such a drag. It's what some people are pretty much demanding of all Americans right now

Yes, unfettered loyalty. If you think any leadership is going to entrust the collection of classified intelligence to someone whose loyalties are flexible, then I'd *love* to hear your justification for that kind of position....since you seem so knowledgeable about what the goals, mission, and requirements are of this organization....

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: CIAGypsy
Building trust while asking others to break trust - then trying to prevent them from focusing on why they feel like crappy human beings? It doesn't sound very honorable. But, this is what the CIA is looking for - exclusively? People that are base level dishonest and dishonorable - so that they can do the honorable thing? Greater good outweighs being good? Sounds tricky

I'm not sure that your description is accurate, but it is interesting that this is your view of it all

Don't ask for what you don't want to hear.... We can debate all day long the virtues and psychology of social manipulation. It didn't start with the CIA. It isn't limited to the CIA. And it sure as hell won't end with the CIA.... But go on being snarky and sarcastic...no skin off my back.

Again, I ask you a key question again....would you die to protect your country?

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: CIAGypsy
Yeah - not what I'm asking. Can you be a liberal and be in the CIA and save America?

Save America from what, exactly? Clarify your question.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: CIAGypsy
I get that you're talking about the globalist agenda - is it the CIA's main gig to prevent this coming one world government?

Depends who you ask. It goes back to those "need to know" compartments that I mentioned... There are pockets of any given ideology everywhere... But I do think that the average CIA employee believes in America as it was founded and *thinks* they are engaging in actions to support the safety, security, and sovereignty of the United States. Do I think the upper leadership of the CIA is invested in preventing one world government? At this time, I'd rather not comment on that...

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: CIAGypsy
Oh there's been some serious discussion alright. I'm guessing you aren't really interested in all that. It kinda sorta seems like you may have been incited by something - beyond your ability to think critically. But there has definitely been some discussion lo these many hundreds of years

How very presumptive and condescending of you. You know nothing about me, what conversations I've been privvy to, or reasons why I have come forward to even remotely make a judgement on my ability to think critically or to speak honestly.

Why are you so afraid for people to hear what I have to say? Why feel the need to comment on this thread at all? If you think I'm spilling nothing but senseless drivel. Perhaps because you want to deflect away and minimize so you can try to keep control of the narrative? Well, I am not alone so good luck with that....

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: CIAGypsy
I take your point however: only a certain kind of person has the correct traits and qualifications while also being sufficiently motivated to prevent America from caving in on itself - and those people should be trusted. Without question apparently

If this is what you have absorbed from my numerous posts in this thread, then I'm sorry that you have limited comprehension skills. Maybe go back and read through it again slowly. Take notes. Then think on it a while.... If the prospect of that is beyond you, then just move on and stay in your little bubble.

originally posted by: CIAGypsy
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

...CIA? Do you know what criteria they must possess to even be considered? ...

I recon the ability to lie and deceive is quite useful for some members. Some business acumen to handle the dope, arms and human trafficking trade for some:

But probably first and foremost, complete loyalty and obedience* to the needs and desires of the US military establishment which former U.S. Ambassador Professor John K. Galbraith described as “by far the most powerful of the autonomous processes of government.” *: “subordination to military and foreign policy”, as Professor Galbraith put it, achieved by inculcating “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.” “Worship of the state” is also included, or involved (when thinking about your question about “criteria”). See quotation bolded further below.

Jesus said to them: “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I have not come of my own initiative, but that One sent me. Why do you not understand what I am saying? Because you cannot listen to* [Or “accept.”] my word. You are from your father the Devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father. That one was a murderer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of the lie. Because I, on the other hand, tell you the truth, you do not believe me. Who of you convicts me of sin? If I speak truth, why is it that you do not believe me? The one who is from God listens to the sayings of God. This is why you do not listen, because you are not from God.” (John 8:42-47)

Some may find it hard to accept that there is an evil, invisible spiritual power motivating the political rulers of the world. Yet this is a keystone to understanding the overall picture that the Bible presents of a clash over universal sovereignty. (Revelation 12:7-9) Satan has used politics to divide mankind and divert man’s attention away from the true hope for restored righteous rulership, namely, God’s Kingdom government by Christ.​—Matthew 4:23; 9:35.

How successful Satan has been! By his exploitation of divisive politics and nationalism he has used men who “exalted the state as divine . . . or identified it with the march of God in history.” For some, the “worship of the state as the personification of the spirit of the nation was essential for realization of the national destiny.” (Ideas in Conflict, Edward Burns) Nazi Germany was a classic example. “Nothing was sponsored so much as worship of Nazism and its Führer,” states Professor Palmer. Even now politicians are using this same tool to advance their ambitions, but to mankind’s detriment.

As mentioned before:

As The Encyclopedia of Religion states: “Nationalism has become a dominant form of religion in the modern world.” (See also Nationalism in a Global Era, page 134, and Nationalism and the Mind: Essays on Modern Culture, page 94.)

In our age, “nationalism’s chief symbol of faith and central object of worship is the flag,” wrote historian Carlton Hayes. “Men bare their heads when the flag passes by; and in praise of the flag poets write odes and children sing hymns.” Nationalism, he added, also has its “holy days,” such as the Fourth of July in the United States, as well as its “saints and heroes” and its “temples,” or shrines. (What Americans Believe and How They Worship (1952), by J. Paul Williams, pages 359, 360.) In a public ceremony in Brazil, the minister general of the army acknowledged: “The flag is venerated and worshiped . . . just as the Fatherland is worshiped.” Yes, “the flag, like the cross, is sacred,” The Encyclopedia Americana once observed.*

The aforementioned encyclopedia more recently noted that national anthems “are expressions of patriotic feeling and often include an invocation for divine guidance and protection of the people or their rulers.” The book The American Character stated: “That these daily rituals are religious has been at last affirmed by the Supreme Court in a series of cases.”

*: “The flag, like the cross, is sacred. . . . The rules and regulations relative to human attitude toward national standards use strong, expressive words, as, ‘Service to the Flag,’ . . . ‘Reverence for the Flag,’ ‘Devotion to the Flag.’”​—The Encyclopedia Americana (1942), Volume 11, page 316.

Nationalism, Patriotism and the Mark of the Beast

Associated commentary on ATS.

That last link goes into the “worship” angle a bit more. Where I added the following example (among others):

In 1979, the Catholic Jesuit magazine “America” observed:

“Twenty-five years ago this June, 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.

originally posted by: CIAGypsy


The only way to bring down the system is to corrupt it from within.

What's the difference between that and historical change?

You see yourself as defending a great system from those who would destroy it. Another person might read it as your resisting the forces of historical change.

The late John W Campbell used to write about the buggy whip manufacturers of the late nineteenth century. They were sitting pretty, rolling in cash and the future looked great. Some adapted to the new century, the rest were consigned to the dustbin of history.

While we're on the topic of history, what does the last fifty years in Latin America and Asia tell us? Who are the termites, undermining and eventually destroying the fabric of society and rebuilding a new economy on what's left? Who in the US and the UK is explicitly saying we must tear down the body politic and build it anew? What do Steve Bannon and Dominic Cummings say? What do Milton Friedman and the Chicago Boys say?

originally posted by: KansasGirl

a reply to: CIAGypsy

What are some concrete things we can do? What do you suggest?

I’d say start with turning the news off.

Every single time I turned it on in the last month or so, I heard BLM this, BLM that. Defund the police.

Wear a mask, go out and protest ..... seriously MSN?

That’s where I’m starting.


Also, mandatory bodycams turned on at ALL times for law enforcement!

If you are victimized by police or other groups, file a complaint, get a lawyer, sue!


Prosecute destruction of property, ticketed fines maybe as jails are full, blocking of roadways, Assault on others, bring in the National Guard if you have to.

Governors’ don’t stand in the way of an elected President, and then cry when your cities become overwhelmed with crime.

Ugh, this all seems like common sense to me!

a reply to: CIAGypsy



It is 2.0 of that plan Helter Skelter imho .

Add in a virus that is pretty weak , Crashing job numbers and civil unrest worldwide , The USA is getting set up and led into a trap ,WW3 has already started some people have not received their draft papers yet , you should see what is getting pushed to the young inside China on state tv PROGRAMMING

a reply to: CIAGypsy

Yes, unfettered loyalty. If you think any leadership is going to entrust the collection of classified intelligence to someone whose loyalties are flexible, then I'd *love* to hear your justification for that kind of position....since you seem so knowledgeable about what the goals, mission, and requirements are of this organization....

If part of the price of entry into the CIA is loyalty, it can't be considered unfettered loyalty. How would one even go about determining that a person's loyalty comes with no strings attached? It rarely does

My point, if you're really wondering - is that humans are flexible and self interested. Even at the CIA. This is all humans - and it's not a bad thing, it's a good thing. Being able to change your mind, think through a situation, not allow yourself to be forced into actions that go against your own sense of self, your belief in right and wrong is a strength

Demanding unquestioning obedience feels like loyalty, but it's not the same thing. Loyalty, true loyalty - is something harder to pin down

Save America from what, exactly? Clarify your question.

Excellent dodge. We'll just put you down as a *no*

Do I think the upper leadership of the CIA is invested in preventing one world government? At this time, I'd rather not comment on that...

As I suspected. Suspicions don't count for much, but it would follow that as the country goes, so goes it's organizations

How very presumptive and condescending of you. You know nothing about me, what conversations I've been privvy to, or reasons why I have come forward to even remotely make a judgement on my ability to think critically or to speak honestly.

It really was. I'm glad you noticed - I was beginning to wonder if you could even pick up on it. It was no more condescending that that bit I was replying to however. You've been presumptuous and condescending as well. But as long as we're here - you actually suggesting that there have been no conversations concerning all that's happening now, and that other people have lost their ability to think critically is not a good look on you

Why are you so afraid for people to hear what I have to say? Why feel the need to comment on this thread at all? If you think I'm spilling nothing but senseless drivel. Perhaps because you want to deflect away and minimize so you can try to keep control of the narrative? Well, I am not alone so good luck with that....

Why do you assume I am afraid of your thinking? I'm not interested in controlling your thinking, I am very interested in hearing your reasoning

You wouldn't understand my motives (apparently), so we'll just leave it there

The CIA is like any organization - and any group of people. There's good and bad. That statement will rankle both sides. I confess that I find myself in the position of relying quite a bit on the good men and women at the CIA coming through for us

I know you must love someone there very much. It shows. That is not snark :-)

I will say this though Gypsy - we both love America. We have different ideas about what would help our country I think, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. We'll just have to see how all this works out

I wish the very best for every last one of us