The Vox Populi Pathogen

page: 2
30
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by Hefficide
 





How long before a world with harmony can exist again?


Again?

That world never existed, your questions and observations have been pondered by great minds since the beginning of time.

I guess that is one reason man has always looked for a savior, and some even look forward to the end of days,

To kill us/the virus,
edit on 113131p://bWednesday2012 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)


Please explain Iceland, where you are more likely to be endangered by a volcano than by violent crime. Of course if you value your freedom you might want to think twice about becoming a corrupt banker or politician.




posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by lovizall
 



I am an optimist. Just like Iceland, the whole of the people can and will react. I think it will be easier on a smaller scale, but the organism will defend itself.


Great minds and all that. You beat me to the Icelandic punch.



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


You are right, and I will agree on a more positive note, that the vast amount of people on this planet coincided in harmony for the most part.

We have many differences of opinions, but many, even with those differences, will come to one anothers aid when necessary.

edit on 123131p://bWednesday2012 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)
edit on 123131p://bWednesday2012 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
Would you please direct me to the part where I suggested turning people into "clones"?


Your OP is long, wandering, ambiguous and non-specific. Maybe you could simplify it and say what you mean, you know, for the benefit of ignorants like me.


So, in absence of any direct statements, there seems to be a strong implication of uniting as one people, under one paradigm, one school of thought and one code of conduct. In your distorted and warped view, people need to stop disagreeing with one another in order that the voice of the people is strong and singular. There is no way that is ever going to happen unless we become clones. People will always distinguish their own differences, just as I am doing by disagreeing with your OP - an action you predictably find distasteful as you accuse me of being part of this imaginary "disease". By insulting me that way aren't you going against your own philosophy?


Or where I used any terms such as "cookie cutter zombies" or "mindless, uneducated consumers and unwitting political tools".


I never said you did. You expect me to read and understand a 3 post OP but cannot take the time to understand a little post?


In the OP above you'll find no suggestion of, or push for any sort of purity, whether it be racial, gender, religious, or otherwise


Your post is politically correct progressivism in an elaborate disguise. You are intolerant of the fact there are real world disagreements between groups. You think all strife between groups is the product of a malevolent force rather than real issues.


Rich v poor, black v white, Christian v Muslim, right v left, man v woman .... The disease is easy to see


In other words you are pushing an extreme egaliatarian philosophy, something that I think is very intolerant in and of itself.


The symptoms of this pathogen are easy to see. Bias, hatred, racism, judgment, and selfishness...


The danger is that you classify the expression of real issues as bias, hatred, racism, judgment, etc. That is what ideological liberals do in their effort to create a new society.


And, yet, here you come, sneezing all over it and happily trying to spread the disease.


Rolling your eyes and being petulant is not going to aid our agreement but rather exposes your divisive intolerance which was obvious from the opening text. Remember, you are the one calling me a disease, not I you. So who is being more inclusive?

You claim to appreciate difference (the fundamental surface argument of these same ideological liberals) yet you bemoan difference at every juncture:


Even with seven billion Fawkes masks, covering seven billion faces, we would still fragment. We would still break off into tribes and factions. We would remain ripe for divide and rule. Even if for no other reasons than accent, voice, or stated thought. Even if we all sought to be as generic and alike as possible - fragmentation based upon nuance would occur. This is the truth of things. This is an aspect of the diversity that helps us survive, and it is the single most important tool in the enemies arsenal.


And again:


The unnatural and abhorrent comes when a willfully infected aspect of the whole seeks to create disharmony by tightening and tuning those collected choruses... leading them off key... changing the very structure and stability of the endless song. They fragment the voice.


You constantly point at fragmentation as being the root of the problem. The truth is the real world is naturally fragmented and the more you try to suppress recognition of that in your ideological effort to create oneness, the more that truth will backfire on you.
edit on 2012/12/12 by SteveR because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 


~Sigh~

Parsing is always the last refuge, eh?

It's a simple concept. It was also a choice to use the specific words and images that I did, and in exactly the amount applied. Sometimes words need to be used like hammers. At other times, like a paintbrush.

No matter.

I can dilute and over-simplify the notion into a single sentence. It's far less palatable in this form, but speaks to the general idea. Our differences don't matter at all. Only our obsession with pointing them out does.

For you, this concept obviously means egalitarianism... a homogeneous and nondescript herd. There is almost an implication that "equal" is a filthy word to you. This speaks volumes to me... as only a person who felt themselves to be superior would possess such a negative reaction to such a simple and universal word

But, still, your perceptions is entirely wrong. I do not speak of equality. Simply of harmony. Very different people can sing in one voice, if they possess the talent and the will to sing in the same key. Nobody has to give up their individual voice to be in a chorus. They only have to agree to sing the same words, and the same notes, as their peers.

Anyone who finds that idea revolting and offensive? Well I am left to wonder how that person thinks and believes. I've not suggested anyone give up their identity, only that they not feel themselves superior to others, nor to act in hatred or intolerance based upon the individual identity of others. Oh, and for the record... all of their identities and points of view are just as valid as yours. Yet you dismiss the notion, out of hand. And the sad part is, you probably don't even realize that you're just reacting the way you were taught to. That beliefs and biases are learned and passed down.

I've always found it amusing that all one has to do is to whisper the word "peace" to illicit screams of anger and war.

It's very telling and lets me know that humanity is far from that day when we'll stop judging others based upon things other than ones own actions.

~Heff



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Divide and conquer...Assemble together and conquer...Separate and conquer....Assimilate and conquer...Overthrow and conquer...Destroy and conquer...Bring to life and conquer...Annihilate and conquer...etc. etc. As a wise man once told me...Never underestimate the minions, they are the best minions monopoly money can buy they will not likely fail me and I have great faith in them...So why so serious?

It is in the nature of things to accumulate and come together then at its cumulative point to break apart and go there own way, it is simply the way of things and how the universe works, you can either look at all the bad of it, or you can look at the good of it, or you can do both. But in the end no matter how you look at it. Do as you will, for time and everything else will always march on and one day it not only is likely that none of this would matter but for its moment, but its likely that nobody would even remember what they were getting all worked up over. After all does anybody really remember what all the fuss was some few years past which people were getting all worked up over?




So... if we all make just some level of effort towards prophylactic containment? How man generations will it take for the first child to be born, at some point in the future, completely free of infection and with no prospects of later contamination? How long before a world with harmony can exist again?

You are aware that without viruses, without germs, without the fact that you caught a cold while young you would perish at the first little germ you would come across. Humans are just another organism in and on another organism, really we are even part virus if you look at the genome, we are made up of all kinds of cells and organisms which at one time were nothing more then viruses and bacteria, we are whole colonies of cells, bacteria, viruses, and other organisms all working withing the confines and the scope of the human form.

Basically there is nothing wrong with anything, even in death and disses there is balance and harmony, it just so happens that it may not be balance and harmony for you personally, but its always there, and you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs. I think people just need to chill, but before they chill they first need a place and spot were that would be possible without all the noise and meaningless jabber that our society like to drum up.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


I like how each reply from you has to be personal. You postulate that I am being superior yet I believe that is a good description of your position (and your problem) in its entirety. How much arrogance do you have to have to sum up all the world's strife and say it should not be? Have you been personally involved with all the world's conflicts and know them intimately? Who gave you the omniscience to judge all strife as not valid? Who are you to say what is a just cause and what isn't? Your words are the sentiments of someone who believes he is the only adult in a world of children. I only have to come to the thread and disagree with the OP you present, and I get immediately labelled as part of the "disease". It was predictable and spoke volumes. It is your sense of superiority and arrogance that is the problem in your thinking. As Einstein said, condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance. You condemn 'all' strife very generally with a broad brush with no analysis or deconstruction of any of the specific issues you brought up, leaving no room for the complexities and experiences of others involved in the conflicts you dismiss, your operating philosophy thus requires condemnation with zero investigation. Wishing strife away (under the pretense it is all baseless) is a position that comes from a sheltered liberal fantasy land, the same environment that produced the childishly unrealistic movie on which your OP repeatedly referenced.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 


While I truly detest having to resort to parsing. There is simply so much going on here that I have to do so in order to address all of the incorrect information bundled into this post.


Originally posted by SteveR

I like how each reply from you has to be personal. You postulate that I am being superior yet I believe that is a good description of your position (and your problem) in its entirety.


You are aware that people can actually read the things that we've both said, right? That they can simply read 5 or 6 posts and see just who is resorting to these tactics and who isn't? Also they can see who is putting words into the mouths of others and who is not. It's not that complicated.


Originally posted by SteveR

How much arrogance do you have to have to sum up all the world's strife and say it should not be? Have you been personally involved with all the world's conflicts and know them intimately? Who gave you the omniscience to judge all strife as not valid? Who are you to say what is a just cause and what isn't?


Forgive my impertinence, but what the ruddy Hell does this have to do with anything I've said, at all? Not only is it highly misrepresentative of what I've said. This statement truly leaves me wondering if you even read the OP, or if you simply made a supposition, based upon the title or the Fawkes picture at the top - and decided to take a few swings?


Originally posted by SteveR

Your words are the sentiments of someone who believes he is the only adult in a world of children. I only have to come to the thread and disagree with the OP you present, and I get immediately labelled as part of the "disease". It was predictable and spoke volumes. It is your sense of superiority and arrogance that is the problem in your thinking.


You're entitled to any opinion you wish to have. But to speak of your opinion in the definitive. Well that, I am sorry to say, portrays the exact sort of sense of superiority and arrogance that you feel the need to accuse me of possessing. Irony, it's a hell of a thing.


Originally posted by SteveR

As Einstein said, condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance. You condemn 'all' strife very generally with a broad brush with no analysis or deconstruction of any of the specific issues you brought up, leaving no room for the complexities and experiences of others involved in the conflicts you dismiss, your operating philosophy thus requires condemnation with zero investigation.


Again. I am left wondering if you even read the OP. I did not address "'All' strife" in my OP. I addressed a very specific issue - the issue of intolerance. There is no complexity to intolerance. Hating that which is different is easy. It requires no work whatsoever.

Irony strikes again, here, however. I write an OP stating my thoughts on those who condemn with broad brush strokes and without analysis - people who engage in "condemnation with zero investigation" and here you are, trying to invert it by using those very ideas to argue against it? Fascinating.


Originally posted by SteveR

Wishing strife away (under the pretense it is all baseless) is a position that comes from a sheltered liberal fantasy land, the same environment that produced the childishly unrealistic movie on which your OP repeatedly referenced.


From the list of 25 Disinformation tactics, so far, I've happily suffered the use of numbers: two, four, five, seven, nine, thirteen, fifteen, seventeen, eighteen, nineteen, and twenty. So kudos to you on a nearly clean sweep.

What I am tired of abetting, however, is the putting of words into my mouth. Dispute them, ridicule them, spit on them, whatever you wish. But do not twist or manufacture them from whole cloth any longer please. Other than the opening paragraph:


The film, V For Vendetta - one that is most likely familiar to, and a favorite of many ATSers, ends with a very powerful and compelling series of scenes. One of these scenes shows the masses of London, all dressed as Guy ( or Guido, historically ) Fawkes, in unity, as one, walking through a series of highly armed military checkpoints, erected specifically to keep them out. A visual iteration of vox populi, vox Dei ( The voice of the people [is] the voice of God ).


And the two words following it - "The film" - could you please direct me to what justifies: "the childishly unrealistic movie on which your OP repeatedly referenced." As I cannot seem to find further reference.

Further, the op was not based upon the film. Only an image of a group was harvested from it. So please clarify if you are able.

~Heff



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Very nice thought provoking thread Heff.



Personally, I think consciousness as a whole, hasn't evolved to a point, where humans can collectively break free of materialistic desires. I am talking about the desires that have impeded humans throughout our short existence on this Planet. Once "price" is taken out of the vocabulary, what is revolution ? I have often heard there is a price to everything we do, regardless if its life, loss, etc. I still have faith that we can become unchained, although its harder to have faith, as the rest of the World does show signs of The Vox Populi Pathogen.


S&F
edit on 13-12-2012 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   
You are correct that humanity as a whole is an easily manipulated disease. As a collaborative collective they can never succeed, because of their weakness, that's why the establishment has afforded themselves safeguards against tactical individuals of extreme expertise. They don't fear the minions, those sheep can be controlled, its the lone gunman that knows precisely where to. all the propaganda in the world can never stop someone whose serious and doesn't have the disease of ignorance working against them





new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 1   >>

log in

join