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.


Why the United States needs to change

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:20 AM
So after doing a little thinking of our problems in the United States and how this has come about I thought of some interesting answers.

You first need to look back to the creation of our large “known” civilizations. In our past, all large known civilizations have failed, whether it was from destruction from within, or destruction from an advancing army and a hostile takeover. Some might say it was a lack of food that killed some civilizations but in my opinion, it might have started with a lack of food, but it eventually led to destruction from within.

Second, you need to look at how our old civilizations got its laws. As far as I can tell, it seems all old civilizations got there law from their religious beliefs. The United States was founded from people moving here for their own religious beliefs. If you look at our government and laws from early times you can tell, religion had a lot to do with what went into our laws.

Third, why are there so many religions? There was not much if any, communication between different civilizations in the past so, different religions were made. In my opinion, religions were created for power over the people, and to keep some law in place. What better way to keep people doing what you wanted because it was “GOD” who told you to do these things, and to not break “these” law. If you look at Egypt, the giant statues and pyramids were more or less built for the “Gods”.

Now, with all that being said I thought, how did we get to this point? We have a bunch of laws in order that are suppose to help “the People” yet, we keep on seeming to get bent over. Why? In my opinion we are in the position because almost all government and people of power have only two things in mind, money and power, and they are destroying us by finding loopholes in our own laws to take more money and power.

Why haven’t we decided to regulate the banks and change laws so what just happened won’t happen again? They are greedy that’s why, and not just some, almost all. Why do we keep giving the banks and Auto Company’s money? Greed that’s why, just today GM said it lost another 4.3 billion and will probably need another 12.3 to fund its pensions until 2014. What does the government do? They say that they are all to big to fail and we must give them money!

So let’s say a crook, meets someone on the street and demands money. The crook tells him if he doesn’t give him money he is going to kill him and, if he tells the police he will kill him also because, he is with the police. So, this person gives him money and the crook leaves. The next day, the crook sees the man and says the same thing. Give me your money or I will kill you and, don’t tell the police because I am the police and I will kill you. So again and again this happens, which is what the government and corporations are doing to us right now. They don’t use the word “Kill” but they use other words like “To Big To Fail”.

So my conclusion is the government will only get worse not better. The corporations will only get worse and not better. The only way to make the problem go away is to make the crook go away. The government needs to change and the corporations need to change. Everything that is going on right now is because of greed and power. It doesn’t matter Democrat or Republican they are all the same. All they want is power and money. How can things change when the crooks are the ones in power.....

[edit on 8-4-2010 by Trudge]

[edit on 8-4-2010 by Trudge]

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:00 AM
While "religion as means of control" is certainly a historical fact, it does not apply to the actual founding fathers of British America, be they the Pilgrims or the Quakers. The Anglicans, mainly in the south, were of course attempting to create for themselves here what they could not have, as "second sons of second sons", in their ancestral England despite their aristocratic blood.

Having said that, the problem is one of what I call the "Liberty" gene against the more common human condition, that of peasant-serf and his master.

America was originally populated by people who were obviously carriers of the "Liberty" gene, whereas the mass waves of immigrants were not motivated by Liberty so much as simple survival.

While this may be a difficult concept for some to accept, their essentially peasant breeding, it explains much. Peasants make poor leaders as they are not trained or bred for leadership. They tend toward corruption, as the histories of any number of peasant revolts testify. Further, their instinct for survival makes them keep a low profile, lest they attract negative attention from the landlords. So ultra-conservative values, motivated by the need to procure food, clothing and shelter, with a survival interest in anonymity and invisibility to the political structure, are the hallmarks of the peasantry. Should they somehow ascend to power, they remain corrupt - the Sicilian Mafia is a perfect example of the criminality of peasant genes given authority.

America was constructed for the earlier population of freemen - English and kindred peoples with long histories of self-rule and independence. It took literally centuries to breed a population capable of honorable self-rule and Protestant Christianity was critical to this, especially of the Calvinist branches.

Today in America, we are polyglot. The population was selected for their willingness to be cheap laborers, with little value proposition beyond offering their bodies to the highest bidder. While I do not dispute a starving peasant's need and ability to procure food/clothing/shelter, I am forced to ask, Why were the Huddled Masses not evaluated for their ability to serve as Americans, rather than as compliant, obedient, inexpensive drones for burgeoning capitalism?

Anyway, this is the correct vector to pursue for understanding out present condition. Peasants require an iron rule, express or implied, whereas Freemen, whose interest is Liberty, behave themselves according to the principles of their own conscience -- informed and ordered by their Christian faith.

No other land has enjoyed such a spell of Liberty as America and I doubt it possible under any other condition. (Keep in mind the recent experience of Canada and Western Europe was largely dictated by the overwhelming presence of the United States armed services.) I predict here and now, as America has fallen from Grace and the West is left to its own devices in a post-Christian civilization, they will atavisticly return to their homeostatic culture of serfdom, ruled by a small number of incredibly powerful aristocrats. We are there already except for a frank admission by Our Royal Masters who seem to forward the illusion of self-determination. Perhaps "Free Agent" serfs are cheaper and easier to keep than the old style serf.

[edit on 8-4-2010 by joeofthemountain]

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:34 AM
reply to post by joeofthemountain

Hi joeofthemountain-

First I would like to thank you for your response. I think that all people are not born toward corruption, but rather are taught during there childhood.

When I was a child, I didn't know right from wrong. I remember as a child (I think I was 6 or 7) there were these sunglasses that I wanted but my mother told me "no". So when my mother wasn't looking I took them. When we got home my mother found them and made me not only return them, but pay for them out of my Allowance (I had to do alot of work to pay my mother back). When I was in the store giving back the sunglasses and paying for them, tears were running down my face while I cried. I remember the lady behind the counter saying, "what an honest child you are" of course, I would have never done that without my mother making me. From that day forward I didnt' steal again.

So I don't think that people lean toward corruption, we learn from others, and if all we see is corruption then we will tend to be corrupt ourselves, but if we have others around us to teach us to be honest, then most will trun out to be just. Same thing goes with being a leader, if we are taught to think for ourselves and to earn our way then we will have leader qualities. If we are taught to not ask questions and do what is told, then we will become a follower.

If you look at today most of what is being taught is to be a follower and not to ask questions. Most people today only think about themselves and not others. Just in driving there are many examples of people only thinking of themselves. For example, I notice alot of people who don't use there turn signals when turning. The turn signnals are to help others behind you so there isn't an accident yet alot of people don't use them. Another is people driving in the fast lane going much slower than others behind them. They are only thinking of themselves when they do this. There are alot more examples just in driving but i'm sure most people aware of these things.

I don't think people need to be taught with an "iron rule" but rather need to be taught early on to ask questions and to be honest and truthful. Think of others and to learn that your actions affect others. That is why I think religions were made to keep the law, but in the end was used to gain power. I think that there will always be what we call "good" and "evil" becasue if one exists, so must the other. It falls apon us as to which will be more dominate, and it seems right now that "evil" is the rule of law in the United States and is pick up steam, not slowing down.

[edit on 8-4-2010 by Trudge]

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 01:39 PM
Stretch that thought-box!

You've got lots of details and points, all great food for thought.
Push the envelope and carry the ideas forward, love the "gene" reference.
For some time I've had no "moral legal equivalence gene" - you know the thought circle if-it's-not-legal-it's-not-moral if-it's-not-moral-it-should-be-illegal. Once the notion of ethics enters the fray everything turns upside down, because few understand the difference between ethics and morality.

Keep up the good work,


top topics

log in