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.


The Polarization of ATS and the World

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on May, 24 2010 @ 05:46 PM
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

When you read only opposition to your own agenda into every statement, you delude only yourself.
Your correct that government cannot give you rights. That is exactly what I said. You have privileges. No one has a right to anything. Hopes, dreams, wishes and aspirations...most certainly. But rights ? No sir, not even in the most enlightened of cultures.
Anything that can be taken from you is a privilege not a right.

Do not make the mistake of confusing modern sophistication with enlightenment. Under the thin veneer of civilization we are still the animals we were, with the bloody history (ancient modern and ongoing) to back it up.

To actually understand my views instead of simply attributing them. This quotes states it best.

Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
-- Winston Churchill

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 06:00 PM
I think it is the nature of internet forums to generate debate and debate generates polarisation.

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 11:30 PM
reply to post by Noncompatible

When you read only opposition to your own agenda into every statement, you delude only yourself.

Uh-huh. Well let's just take a look at your next remark:

Your correct that government cannot give you rights. That is exactly what I said. You have privileges. No one has a right to anything.

You are quite clearly in opposition of freedom and it is you who are deluded if you honestly believe you can put an end to freedom simply by declaring rights non existent. Those who understand they have rights have no interest at all in accepting privileges, as they fully understand the price that comes with such acceptance, and that price is freedom.

Hopes, dreams, wishes and aspirations...most certainly. But rights ? No sir, not even in the most enlightened of cultures. Anything that can be taken from you is a privilege not a right.

The only way a right can be taken away is through force, and such force, in the most enlightened of cultures, will be met with force. Conversely, in a culture where fools rely upon privileges to flourish and prosper will only whimper and simper when these privileges are taken away, and therein lies the difference between freedom and subjugation.

Do not make the mistake of confusing modern sophistication with enlightenment.

Do not make the mistake that your own flawed reasoning constitutes enlightenment. There is a reason that the several books, documents, and doctrines that spoke to Natural Law, Inalienable Rights, equality under the law, and freedom came from what is commonly known as The Age of Enlightenment, an age long since gone as we flounder away in the so called Age of Information.

Under the thin veneer of civilization we are still the animals we were, with the bloody history (ancient modern and ongoing) to back it up.

Civilization is not a veneer, it is the outcome of the efforts of individuals in that society, and the obvious fear you hold for your fellow brothers and sisters only reveals why you so desperately hope to have freedoms abolished and replaced with privileges. Long before Churchill declared democracy a bad idea, the Founders of The United States of America had all ready spoken to the flaws of such a system, which is exactly why they set up a republic, and that republic has been usurped by philistines who believe themselves enlightened and modern sophisticates. Certainly Woodrow Wilson, (an academic) was the one who first declared that the U.S. must make the world safe for democracy, and philistines and sycophants of tyranny have taken his lead ever since, and done what they could to undo a republic that would prevent majorities from disparaging the rights of minorities and replace it with a democracy.

Make no mistakes about it, your arguments stand in direct opposition to any one who expects to have their rights respected, and I certainly did not need to look this far to understand your opposition, you quite clearly presented it from the very beginning.

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 08:41 AM
I'm gonna *bump* this, and see if I can get more bites. This second page is a perfect example of polarization in action.

Do you both clearly see that there is quite the division between the two of you? Obviously you do or else there would not be this debate. Jean Paul, you speak for freedom at the very basic fundamental levels and Noncompatible, you say that freedom is just a privilege. You are both right, and you are both wrong. We have to go back and try and figure out where our thought systems came from. Who put these ideas in our heads to begin with? As I was trying to allude to in my original post (and as davidgrouchy picked up on), somewhere along the lines, our belief systems were taught to us. They weren't learned over time. I will stick to that point. The fact remains: which statement is truly correct? From certain points of view they are both correct. Is this a human trait? Did we just evolve to have different belief systems, or was it taught to us? I would lean toward the latter statement. You don't see opposite belief systems in nature. Yes, you have different collective groups that fight each other for territory, for breeding females, for food, etc. However, do said groups fight over ideals? Are they capable of doing so? Why are humans so different? This is the point I was trying to make from the beginning. This is why I believe that this is the granddaddy of all conspiracies. Humans are the only species that doesn't live in harmony with each other. Even opposing groups in nature will take time to cool off. Humans don't. It is interesting.

And Jean, you are one of very few people that have debated me in my life and won, so I congratulate you on that.
You are a very worthy opponent.

Anyway, take my words for what you will, and think about it for a while.

Peace be with you.


[edit on 25-5-2010 by truthseeker1984]

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 09:19 AM
reply to post by truthseeker1984

This song came to mind.

Chicago/We Can Change the World
Graham Nash

Though your brother's bound and gagged
And they've chained him to a chair
Won't you please come to Chicago
Just to sing
In a land that's known as freedom
How can such a thing be fair
Won't you please come to Chicago
For the help we can bring
We can change the world -
Re-arrange the world
It's dying - to get better
Politicians sit yourself down,
There's nothing for you here
Won't you please come to Chicago
For a ride
Don't ask Jack to help you
Cause he'll turn the other ear
Won't you please come to Chicago
Or else join the other side
We can change the world -
Re-arrange the world
It's dying - if you believe in justice
It's dying - and if you believe in freedom
It's dying - let a man live it's own life
It's dying - rules and regulations, who needs them
Open up the door
Somehow people must be free
I hope the day comes soon
Won't you please come to Chicago
Show your face

Nothing will change.

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 05:56 PM
reply to post by truthseeker1984

I thought I would wait a bit to reply, first because I have limited time to do so, but also because I thought it might help this thread to wait and see if it needed another bump.

Yes my friend, I do see very clearly the division between myself and the other poster you refer to. Where I do indeed speak for freedom on a fundamental level, I am also unclear why freedom should be spoken of on any other level. Where you suggest that both myself and the other member are both right, and both wrong, this sort of truth can only be true on a higher level of awareness. On a higher level of awareness, there is no evil, there is only good. Everything is good on that level, because everything we do is what we declared will be done, and it is that will that is good. It is free will, and on that higher plane of existence, even the infamous and most popular poster child for evil, Adolf Hitler himself was not evil, but merely one who did what he willed be done.

On a higher plane, one can understand that Hitler's actions were a response to a collective desire for such action. Hitler was a conscious reflection of us all at that point, and served to teach us all that is wrong with wanting the sort of Utopia that Hitler promised, and yet, there is no right or wrong, simply what is. These seemingly contradictory thoughts, that evil is good, and that there is not right or wrong, are truly a reflection of who we are. I believe that what you are speaking to is that higher plane, where we are all interconnected, and made of the same stuff, and very much a part of each other. Yet, this is on a higher plane where biological constructs are merely that, biological constructs of which we inhabit. On a higher plane of awareness we are more than our bodies, we are thought itself, and thoughts are things.

When we exist on this higher plane, we are no longer simply biological constructs, but instead we are thought and awareness inside a body. These thoughts give clues to our immortal nature, for surely thoughts outlive biology in the most obvious of ways. This is why Shakespeare's words remain as profound today as they were when they were written, and this is why the mythologies since time immemorial continue to be told to this day. Indeed, the characters names of mythology will change from culture to culture, and Heracles, or Hercules will tell a similar hero's journey of that of Jesus, and today that similarity is told in myths such as Superman. Batman parallels that of Demeter and Orpheus, and even the Buddhist hero Radish, or the Ashanti mythic hero Kwasi Benefo, all of whom journeyed the pits of hell to find their lost loves, and isn't this, after all, what Batman is doing? Building his own underworld to battle the demons of Gotham, all to find some sort of resolution for his own loss, the death of his parents.

These mythic tales survive as they do as they speak to our soul, they offer truth in the form of fiction, and seek to instruct us all in how to act in a mortal world, for there is no greater contradiction than that of the immortal being agreeing to exist in a mortal shell that comes with a simple biological command; to survive! What a great contradiction that is, to be immortal and agree to play a game of mortality where the winners survive and the losers don't. Herein also lies much of the confusion and turmoil we face as human beings. There are many who would reject this assertion of immortality that outlives our biology, and this is their will and right to do so, and it is neither right nor wrong, but simply what is. However, it is hard to imagine how one can exist on higher plane of existence without recognizing the reality of our immortality. Thus, either this higher plane of existence is very real, and worthy of discussion, or it is merely delusion.

You speak of going back to understand where our thought systems come from, but who taught me I was immortal? Surely there are plenty of teachings that make this assertion, but how could I possibly know this to be true without simply knowing it? Can knowledge be taught? Can we simply teach a child that fire burns, and this will suffice as knowledge? The knowledge that fire burns comes from experience not teaching, and while both the child and the cat will likely learn that a hot stove burns, the difference between the two, is that once a cat gains such knowledge, they are less likely to know the pleasures of sitting on a cold stove, where a child is more likely to gain such knowledge, and even further, discover for themselves what makes a hot stove hot, and what makes it cold.

What can be learned, can be unlearned, but knowledge remains knowledge. To reduce human evolution to simple biology is to ignore the very real spiritual nature by which we live. On that spiritual level we are, as you put it, all in this together. However, it should be quite clear to anyone other than the truly insane, regardless of what level of awareness we exist on, that in today's modern world, the situation is clearly insane. What is causing this insanity? Is it simply just the polarization you speak to, or is this polarization simply a symptom of the insanity of which we struggle with? In your O.P., you offer two possibilities that might happen if we don't all find a way to heal this insanity and pull together as a species.

The first scenario you offer is some eminent disaster that would speak to our consciousness in a way that we would recognize the common enemy we face and work together to prevent this disaster. There is, in today's modern world, such scenarios presented as just that disaster, and the debatable prophecy of anthropogenic global warming" or "climate change" has been offered as one such disaster. It remains debatable for several reasons, but one of those reasons is that the solution being offered, is one of tyranny. Solutions are nothing more than methods of solving problems, but if that method is useless, then it will not bring about the correct answer. Thus, it is not solutions we should be looking for, but answers. Solutions are fine if they can help get us these answers, but it is often the solutions that become the very source of polarization you speak to.

As a teacher, I suspect you need not be lectured on the predicament of New Math and how this concept of teaching mathematics is now considered to be a failure. Of course, the basic concepts of New Math were not wrong, and there is great value in teaching basic concepts such as use of sets, and understanding mathematical theory. The problem was not in the conceptualization of New Math, but in its implementation. It was offered as a solution, and not an answer. As a solution, it confounded parents who couldn't keep up with what was being taught, and felt helpless when it came to teaching their own children simple arithmetic. It has been almost 30 years now since the National Commission on Excellence in Education first warned that in their report A Nation at Risk of the rising tide of mediocrity" in American schools, and much of this mediocrity can be seen in the levels of mathematical skills our young students graduate with. Today we have PISA, coordinated by the OECD, that informs us that the U.S. is ranked 24th out of 29 nations surveyed in mathematics.

Clearly we need answers, and not just solutions. What are the answers to healing an insane populace? What is it that is making us all so insane? Is it just simply polarization, or is that polarization a symptom of insanity? I keep coming back to this basic question. Where we once sought to find answers to our psyche through spiritual practices, increasingly we turn to pseudo-scientist's who call themselves psychiatrists to heal our psyche's and yet, all these new age Shaman's can offer is the same as the old, that being a life time relationship between the person and his or her Shaman. Clearly no healing process is begun when all that is offered is a lifetime relationship of healing. How insane is that?

What I find so compelling, and why I am increasingly drawn to this thread, is that I have come to believe with all my heart, that you truly are seeking truth, and that you are asking for a healing process to begin. You have shown through your composure, to me, both publicly and privately, a remarkable capacity for compassion and a willingness to understand me. You have won me over as a friend, and earned my utmost respect, and for this respect and friendship, I have been quite hard on you. I am so, because I expect so much of you, and yet this is just a justification for my own personal views. Here is the thing, my good friend, we need not agree in order to come together. However, we must learn to respect each other, as you have shown you are quite capable of doing so. Perhaps in attempting to instruct through demonstration and example, you will accomplish bringing souls together much quicker than I with my vehement ways and passion for freedom.

Yet, where you offer respect and mutual understanding, there are others who would offer disrespect, not of personality, but of the right to life, liberty and pursuit. I purposely omit happiness or property as it is that pursuit of either that defines in many ways freedom. Where some would argue that absolute freedom means disregarding others freedom, I argue that what causes no harm, outside of defending life, liberty and pursuit, is by nature a right, and this is how I have come to define freedom. Not because I was taught to believe this way, but because it is what I see as self evident. It has become for me, knowledge. What can be learned can be unlearned, and much of the knowledge I have gained, only came after a process of unlearning.

With limited space, I conclude with gratitude and thank you sincerely for your time

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 07:18 PM
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

You never cease to amaze me my friend. Thank you for the kinds words. You really have no idea how much it means to me.

I'd like to address your post...but maybe not so eloquently as you put it. I am not a trained writer after all. My passion is composition of a different type.

You are starting to see the very fundamental argument that I put forth at the beginning of this thread. We are all interconnected and we are all the same. We are thoughts put into a construct of flesh and bone, and thoughts and ideas live on (much like the spirit). This is obviously apparent when looking at the great Greek Philosophers. In a sense they are immortal, for if we are thoughts contained within a biological organism and nothing more, then they too are immortal. Is this really a concept that escapes much of humanity? I agree with you that, in fact, it does escape many.

My main assertions have been that our ideals and values and "Yin and Yang" if you will, were and are taught behaviors. Why would I still stick to this assertion? In nature, our biology says one command (as you touched on in your post): to survive. There is nothing more important than survival. However, based on humanity's various core beliefs, ideologies, and philosophies, it would seem to me that survival cannot be achieved. Why? Survival requires cooperation on all levels. This is a basic tenant of nature. Without cooperation between species, without making sure all parts of the chain are intact, ecosystems die. Even Lions and Hyenas (fierce natural competitors) will work together toward a common goal (eating) when they need to. Humans by far are one of the only species who fight over ideologies, destroy whole ecosystems, and kill in the name of a mystical being. How does this ensure the survival of humanity? By our very nature we fight over such things. We fight over land, we fight over religion, ideologies, and the like. If we were to follow our core programming, we would survive, and survival means cooperation. Even creatures in nature have disputes over territory, food, resources, etc., but they eventually learn to coexist to keep the balance of their individual microcosms. So the only logical conclusion to come to is that humans were taught these ideologies, these beliefs, etc., because if they weren't taught such things they would be peacefully living together and coexisting in their "natural habitat."

Now on to spirituality, which I will address, seeing as I am a devout Spiritualist. The very nature of the spirit is that of cooperation. Some see it as part of the same whole, because in the end, are we not made of thoughts (energy)? Do we not bleed the same color blood (in a biological sense)? This is the very argument I believe to be the greatest of all: To transcend ideologies and beliefs would to become of spirit, as spirit is the purest form. It is cooperation and understanding. By this very sentiment, the joint understanding and cooperation of all would make the creatures of nature more spiritual than we humans. They have learned to coexist without petty arguments over ideology, religion, and the like. They have found a way to exist that is beneficial to all involved. Why have not more humans learned this behaviour? It would seem to me that to ensure the best outcome of survival, cooperation would have to be a necessity. Some of us have learned or discovered or intrinsically have had this knowledge since the day we were born. I believe that as humanity starts to test the waters outside of ideology and religion, they will start to realize that we really are in this together, and that peaceful coexistence isn't so far-fetched. We will become, once again, the spiritual beings we should be, existing in nature, cooperating, and being part of that greater whole.

This in itself is the greatest of humanity's challenges: to come together as a part of a greater whole of knowledge and understanding, and on the most basic of levels, survival. This is also the greatest conspiracy of all. For with the ideologies, beliefs, etc. that we each hold, we are pulling apart that greater whole, which makes me question what made us this way? Surely it was not a learned behaviour, and surely as it wasn't learned, it must have been taught. By whom was it taught to us? And by whom were we taught to disrespect those who do not believe in our individual views? Surely as cooperation is about mutual respect, survival would be of the same. Humans display neither of those traits (or they are rare and are displayed by those who have learned how to transcend them), and we are slowly but surely ending our time on this planet. It might not be in the near future, but it will eventually be our undoing.

That is the greatest question of all, and the greatest conspiracy in the history of mankind.

Thank you once again for your kind words. You are one of a kind my friend.

Peace be with you.


posted on May, 26 2010 @ 09:37 AM
Does no one else on ATS think that this issue is important? I'm hoping that there are more of you out there that would be willing to give your thoughts to this debate.

So I'm giving it one more *BUMP* in hopes that someone will bite.

Peace be with you.


posted on May, 27 2010 @ 12:09 PM
While I don't consider myself old, not often anyway, I am quite a bit older than TS, and I agree with him, and I agree with you.

Yes, things are now as they have been in many respects. That said, there are some extreme differences in the world at this time, and many more changes to come, IMO. Change can be a blessed thing, and it can also be a horrible thing. The key, for me anyway, is what changes I am willing to embrace and what changes I will fight. I have always been an advocate for personal freedom, but for me, at least, when that personal freedom takes away from the greater good, or will harm the collective whole, should it be allowed? I hate many of the laws on the books, because they are disguised as protection of personal freedom, but they truly only serve a select few. This is happening more and more every day. Mom told me once that I was a Marxist Communist as he meant for Communism to truly be. Unfortunately, men have egos and egos always dictate what will happen. My idea of a great way to live is described by Starhawk in her book, The Fifth Sacred Thing.

I think it will take an event of a magnitude not seen previously in this world to bring about the change that is needed for us to survive and become the beings we were meant to be. We have such capacity for goodness and love and we allow fear and religion and social and governmental pressures to dictate our behaviors rather than working together to create the best life possible. For me, it isn't supposed to be about ME, it is supposed to be about US. I am not saying I am perfect or practice what I preach all the time, but I am trying to be a better person.

I don't voice my opinion on political or religious discussions, either here or in person, because it is not my place to tell others that they are right or wrong. If they want to hear my thoughts, I will tell them, but will not listen to the right or wrong speeches from them, nor will I issue them. If I don't agree with what I hear, then I don't agree. Period. I don't argue those things, because it serves no purpose nor does any good. That said, I will defend to the end another person's right (privilege) to think what they will, without fear of persecution. Always have, even when I disagree.

TS, I think it will take a global change of epic proportion that is immediate and sudden to make the sweeping change in human mentality that is needed. Don't know what that change is, don't know if it is good or bad in the short term, but do know that it is coming.

Originally posted by Oneolddude
reply to post by truthseeker1984

Well, your age is an indicator of why you are concerned.

The issues that are dividing the country and the world have been almost the same since the beginning of the last century.

Nothing has really changed except for the ability to communicate on a global scale.

Mankind some how figures it all out and society goes on.

That is how it has been for millenniums and that is how it will continue.

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 12:28 PM
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Your last post today really impressed me. I haven't agreed with everything you have argued, but I am very much in agreement with how you presented this post and the content, for the most part, of it. I look forward to reading more of your thoughts in future.

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 12:46 AM
I've thought about the "polarization problem" for a long time.

I think the basic reason is a decline in educational standards. They are not teaching critical thinking well these days (if indeed they ever did), and its also being undermined by the media.

The habits of mind that are necessary for critical thinking involve slow, nuanced "mulling things over." They involve the ability to admit when you are wrong. They involve the ability to speculate without jumpting to conclusions. They involve logic, reasoning skills, and emprical cognition. They involve patience, care, attention span, the willingness to listen...and so on.

All of this is being ignored in schools and further damaged by the media. We are seeing a media environment where everything is reduced to soundbites, screaming, and "shock tactics." Everything is simplified, made black-and-white. "Strength" is no longer identified with the internal consistancy and clarity of one's argument, but rather by how loud one can shout it and how hard effectively can ignore opposing views.

It's really nauseating.

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 10:21 AM
Reply to silent thunder

I agree with you on a microcosm level, absolutely. There are so many things that are affecting not only our kids, but our adults as well. When you look at the media, and the damage it does to young minds, it is really frightening to realize that some may never learn or understand the critical thinking skills that they need to truly progress in this world. Many kids that I have worked with over the years are getting many of their "opinions" from the MSM. Whenever confronted about why they have the views that they do, they respond: "well, that is what I heard on television." I absolutely agree with you about critical thinking skills not being taught enough in schools. Being a (now former) school teacher myself, it made me sick realizing that these kids do not have these skills, nor are they being taught. 60% of instruction in schools in these days is geared toward taking a standardized test. There is no critical thinking involved, especially when most of these exams involve some sort of multiple choice selection.

These same students will go into the world, and immediately gear their thoughts to whomever speaks louder in the media. If their favorite celebrity starts speaking about some issue, they immediately jump onto that bandwagon, if for nothing else, to follow what their "star" is following at the moment. It truly makes me sick.

But as I said in a prior post (talking about the macrocosm now), I really truly think that this polarization of thinking was taught to humans long before we had religion, ideologies, politics, and the like. There is a reason why people cannot learn to come together as a whole, and therein lies the conspiracy. As I said before, if it is not "natural" to have fights over ideology, religion, politics, and the like, we would not have learned these things. The best course of survival, at a basic level, would be cooperation. Some groups of humans do not display this characteristic, because of the polarization that we have. These things must have been taught. While I do not want to go any further than that in my theory, this is something that must be addressed. I think that without all of the polarized thought patterns, humans would have developed quite differently.

And that brings me to my next thought point.

If you look at Native African tribes, Native American Tribes, and Aboriginal Tribes from Australia (we're talking pre-white man invasion), you could clearly see that they lived in harmony with their respective environments. They fit the perfect mold of what humans should have developed into. Yes, each of these groups had their wars, they stole each others' women to keep the gene pool fresh, and they fought over territory, but in the end, when push came to shove, they worked together for a bigger goal: survival. I would use the Native Americans (pre-white man) as an example of how humans have been able to live in harmony with nature. If you look at my previous argument, I stated that the fundamental basis of spirituality is cooperation at all levels, mutual respect, and living in harmony with your surroundings; just as the creatures of Earth do on a daily basis. They obviously weren't taught about ideology, religion (although they did and some still do practice animal worship, but this I believe is out of respect to their environment), and so they developed differently than the white man.

Cue in the white man:

When European settlers came to the Americas as missionaries, you saw a distinctive decline (in some groups) in the very basics of being in harmony with your natural surroundings. Native Americans were especially hard hit, because they did not understand the concept of land ownership, because they believed that the land did not belong to anybody but Mother Earth. They took from her, and they gave back. That was their way of life. Why they did originally develop that way? Because at the basic level, their whole purpose was that of survival. Cooperation is the very basic concept of survival. The white man comes in and takes what they want, destroys millenia-old forests, starts polluting streams, rivers, lakes, etc., farm land until it is barren, kill creatures off, etc. This concept was eventually developed between most Native Americans by the end of the Civil War, if not 40 years after. White men brought technology, and eventually (as we know) became the dominant humans in North America.

Now before I go on, the next argument may sound a bit strange, but go with me on this one.

There is no way to completely flesh out my argument without including this concept that I brought into my head. So I will present it as it is. If the Natives of Earth were indeed capable of survival before the entrance of the white man, I would present the argument that perhaps the Natives of Earth, were truly that: Natives of Earth. Now I'm not completely convinced about the Ancient Astronaut theory, and that humans were a genetic experiment, but it's starting to make more sense as I delve deeper into this topic of polarization. Once again, look how the natives lived before the entrance of the white man; they were in perfect physical and spiritual harmony with their respective environments. They did not know such things as religion, ideology, and politics. These were concepts brought in by the white man. At a much bigger level, the white man must have learned about the concepts of ideology, religion, politics, and the like, far before the natives did. If they didn't, then they may still be living in harmony with their environments.

So let us say we go with the humans as a genetic experiment argument. Let us say that there were several races of beings that contributed bits and pieces of their own genetic code plus that of the natives of Earth, to perhaps create something of a "better" being*.

*before I go on, let me state to you, that I in no way support the Aryan agenda, so don't even go there.

The beings were able to genetically engineer this being made of part of all the races involved. They left these 'humans' to develop on their own accord. Now, in the process of creating this new race, there were others out there that were jealous that they were not involved in this creation process. These jealous races came to Earth, and planted the seeds of all the thought patterns that I mentioned above. It would go beyond the "natural programming" of a living organism: to survive. As these types of humans began to develop their own ideologies, they began to expand, fight, and kill in the name of whatever religion/god/ideology that they had.

When we talk of the Native Tribes of the world, I believe that they are truly the Native Tribes of the World meaning that they are truly "Terran," that they evolved and developed from the creatures that were already here. This would not only solve the discrepancy in religious ideals (because none of them had heard about "G-d," Jesus, Buddha, Vishnu or any other religious icons until hundreds of years later), but it would solve the greater problem of the polarization in ideals. The perfect way to destroy a culture, race, ecosystem, etc. would be to introduce such concepts into the daily patterns of a completely biologically driven species, causing them to go against their natural programming, and eventually destroy everything in the process. This would go even bigger by stripping humanity of its very spiritual fundamentals, such as living in balance with everything around us.

At a microcosm level, look at what the white man did to the natives. Couldn't have this same event happened at an even bigger level, thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years before that?

I obviously don't have anything to back up my claims, but it is a theory that I have thought about for quite a long time. Let me know what you think, and if my argument makes sense.

Peace be with you.


[edit on 28-5-2010 by truthseeker1984]

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 12:03 PM
Okay, I have to write this down before I forget the thought. In my mind, I just pieced together the puzzle, and I have to share it.

So, after what I said in my last post, let's look at Christianity specifically. The origin story starts something like 6,000 years ago. Of course, there are many interpretations of time, etc. That is of no concern to me. What if, instead of a tool that was used to control the masses, what if the "creation story" had some credence to it?

This of course goes back into the ancient astronaut theory, but it's something I just put together in my mind. What if it was a documentary of what actually happened? Some of you are familiar, I'm sure, with the theory that Adam and Eve were actually part of two separate tribes that were "created" to mine gold for the Annuaki (sp?). Now, like I said, I'm still on the fence about the whole theory, but hear me out.

We know that the people of Europe were unfamiliar with much of their outside world. Their world was that of Europe. They did not know, for quite some time, about the Americas, and actually, much of southern Africa until much later in their development. This would fit into the fact that they thought that they were the only ones that "existed" at this time. Their 'world' was in fact only that small portion of Northern Africa and Europe in which they developed. They were very surprised when they arrived in "The New World" to find that there were people living there. This is a pretty well-documented fact. What I'm getting at, is that maybe the Christian version of the creation story was true (from a certain point of view), which would also fit into the ancient astronaut theory in that the people in that area were "created" by "God." This would explain why the Natives had no idea about religion and the like until the white man came to the Americas. The Natives were first, and were always here, and the European people were "created" by a "God." This "God" put these ideologies into the head of the people of the area, whereas those of the Americas, mid and southern Africa, and the Australian Islands didn't go this route, because they weren't created. They evolved.

I think if I can get my hands on some real archaeological evidence, that my theory may prove to be true. It may not be the whole picture, but for me, this is a mind-blowing revelation in my own mind.

Now, I am not a Christian, and I do not support Christianity, but I respect those that worship it. If we look at the Bible, and more specifically, Genesis, as an actual documentary of what was going on, then maybe the answers lie in there as clear as day, and the POLARIZATION that came from such beliefs has hidden the true story of how at least some of the people of Earth came to be.

I don't know how mind-blowing this will be to some of you, but to me, it is perhaps the greatest revelation that I have had in my life, and perhaps the greatest conspiracy ever.

Peace be with you.


posted on May, 28 2010 @ 02:39 PM
Neutrons, outside of the protection of the polarized nucleus of an atom last a little less than 15 minutes.

Identifying anything as differentiated from context is a form of 'polarization'.

If you aren't polarized, why do you even exist,

oh wait, very shortly you won't.

Get polar or die. Your choice.

Just hold still long enough while everyone else is crossfiring bullets.

Yeah, move a little more to into the crosshairs, i mean 'center' . . . perfect.

[edit on 28-5-2010 by slank]

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 02:47 PM
What you are saying here in this last post makes a lot of sense TS. It is certainly nothing I ever really entertained, rather merely thinking of the bible as a history book written by man for his own agenda, and then rewritten countless times whenever that agenda changed. I think the stories that were handed down from clan to clan that were the basis for the bible could certainly be looked at the way you describe, as a documentary of sorts. I have thought my whole life of Native peoples as people who were born of the land, and others as something else. I didn't honestly really even realize I was making the distinction until reading your post and then writing this reply.

I think that one of the largest problems we as humans face is not the exterior polarization we all experience and participate in every day. It is the INTERNAL polarization we are constantly fighting. We always battle what we want to do vs what we are told we should do. What is deemed "right" by society and what feels right to us. If we could learn to depolarize ourselves, we might make great inroads towards changing society as a whole. Until we have external support for our internal struggles, though, it will be a long, hard-fought battle.

It is going to take groups of us, small groups, to come together, find common ground, discuss openly, and support each other no matter what, and then pass that idea and knowledge of working structure on to others to emulate, until these small groups exist everywhere, functioning the same way, and come together as larger groups, etc. (LONG run on sentence I know) to make the changes that are needed. Either that, or as I said earlier, a change none of us expects, or can plan for that is life- and world-changing to make us instinctively come together in that fashion.

[edit on 28-5-2010 by Ceriddwen]

posted on May, 29 2010 @ 08:16 PM
I may be wrong but in my opinion until people no longer feel the need "to belong" the problems will continue. I'm not that great at words but I'll try to explain.People have this need to "belong" so they all find groups to which they can fit. They feel the need to continue to prove their loyalty by standing with and for those groups despite any and everything. We don't all think and feel the same way we don't all find passion in music, sports, literature so we don't all belong to one big group because that would somehow diminish the passion for say a great painting in an artist opinion versus the greatest play done by an athlete. To an athlete its just paint thrown on paper to the artist its just playing ball. The artist, would argue the painting meant more than throwing a ball, because thats where they need to belong at defending their fellow artist and group. The athlete would argue that the best play is more important because they understand sports better than colors on paper. They both would be right in their respective passions, however the need to belong with people causes them to try to convert as many as they can to their group. I know this is simplistic and it's just my opinion but I hope I made at least a little sense.

posted on May, 29 2010 @ 08:48 PM
Sorry it took so long to return. I do have to function in the real world, unfortunately

TS, yes the viewpoints I espouse are indeed the polar opposite of my worthy opponent. They immediately flag me to him as a establishment figure.(Which truly could not be further from the truth, but I digress)
His contra wise, show him, from my viewpoint, to be an idealist, a worthy thinker but naive (stay with me here, there is no insult intended). He espouses ideals but I have the impression there is limited actual experience of the lack of rights.
I can only speak from my own life experiences. I have traveled across all but one of the continents on this planet in my life so far. From these experiences I have formed my opinion, it has polarized if you will.

So to state it one last time. The freedom, as described in the original post I responded too, is a privilege, one to be admired and vigorously and actively defended. For without freedom you do not have the luxury of taking the opposing view.
Take heed, you espouse freedom you preach privilege.

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."
-- Sir Edward Gibbon (1737-1794)

posted on May, 31 2010 @ 02:05 AM
reply to post by Noncompatible

Well, I was waiting for a reply.

When I spoke of absolute freedom, this of course is in the context of ones self, where one's action do not harm another's absolute freedom.

Now, if you take into context any repercussion to society at large by my actions, my very breath could be considered a detriment to the "system", as we see by the governments of the world attempting to regulate my exhalation gas CO2.

The reason I believe my view has evolved to this point, is that I see the fallacy that the "supposed" effect of the world at large my actions are. This is the reasoning behind governmental control. The ones in control do not want people to realize their actions in the whole scheme of things do not matter at all. The government wants us to believe this to be true to further their ambitions or endeavors. Now, you may say this is for the betterment of mankind. Is it? If one must be forced into a system, where freedom is curtailed for the betterment of the whole, what was the purpose of the whole? To enslave? To remove freewill? To foment distrust and polarization?

I will always be a defender of the individual over the system. Always.

Life is not even worth it if there is no freewill. It is enslavement to the system at large then. You may very well have traveled the world, I have traveled my own, be it virtual or in reality.

Some would say thoughts or ideals like mine are idealistic, nay, I would say they are true, inspirational and very worth fighting for.

posted on May, 31 2010 @ 03:10 AM
A special note to my good friends; Truthseeker, Ceriddwen, and endisnighe, and of course, my most noble opponent; Noncompatible:

Please accept my sincerest apologies for not responding in this thread sooner, but there has been much on my plate, both in this site, and in the real world as well. It is not that I do not see this thread as important, quite the contrary, because I place an extreme amount of importance on this thread, I have wanted to wait to post again until I could distill my thoughts in a meaningful way.

I have been thinking much about this issue of polarization, and how polarity in the physical universe is actually a good thing, not bad, but that it is being viewed in this context in the opposite way. This is just one thought I have had regarding polarization, the other has to do with the Law of Attraction and the simple rule that like attracts like. Because I am so fiercely defensive of freedom and rights, it is only natural that this would attract others fiercely opposed to the notion of absolute freedom and rights, not to say that Noncompatible is opposed to freedom, but certainly opposed to how I view it. Like attracts like and if I insist on defending freedom, then the universe will send me those foes worthy of my defense.

However, this is not to suggest that I should not defend freedom, or Natural and Inalienable rights, only to say that in doing so, I will surely find Cause to defend it. Cause and effect, and for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. There is so much to consider, and so many areas of which I would like to become more familiar with in regards to polarities and the physical universe, and how we either act as Cause in that universe or as the Effect of it. For this reason, I have been reluctant to post in this thread at this time, but didn't want to appear as if I had simply abandoned you all. I have much on my plate, but I am doing my best to somehow distill my thoughts in a way that first make sense to me, so that they hopefully make sense to you.

Thank you all for your considered posts and your patience with me, and I look forward to seeing much more from you all in this very great thread.

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 01:05 AM
Individual before the system ? Most definitely. Wholeheartedly agree. True freedom to exercise that..none. Others will always (attempt to) exert their influence.
Here is where our viewpoints become polar opposite. Rights. Anything that can be taken away (not saying will/should or that you would not oppose it) is not a right. It is a privilege by definition.

This is also our bone of contention. I actually respect both of your opinions and your ideals. I simply cannot agree with them, for even in the "land of the free" your rights can be removed. Reference Japanese Americans circa 1942 for the standard. Reference anything under the Bush administration (shocking! I'm not right wing after all) for further abuses.
Elsewhere you have a lot worse.

I guess you could say the viewpoints = Me. Recognizing the system for what it is and adjusting around it. Basically I'll accept the illusion of freedom and play the system.
You...well you know your beliefs.

I say....let's agree to disagree on the issue and move forward with the wheres and hows of media/religious/regional/jingoistic manipulation to create specific cliques and groupings in direct opposition for the purposes of control.
This is after all way more interesting than my stubborn refusal to be an optimist, non ?

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in