Division truly is the conspiracy. Let us not forget, hate and anger are merely manifestations of fear.

Only to fear is.. Fear itself..

Kennedy right?

Does it matter?

Fuck fear.

That'd be an interesting time.

Fear is great bro. It’s one of the biggest rushes you can get

You are a whore.

Nature divides everything. Fear, anger, and the survival instinct drive evolution. Without that, we would literally never have evolved humanity to this point where we can safely sit on a high horse and say that division and fear are the enemy.

Apply this to the divisions people are trying to push on this forum - accusing people of being shills for posting in other forums, calling other subreddits “festering pools of hate” etx

That's not why people call some users shills.

Shills come here specifically to propagandize and divide the community. And they do that by manipulating threads with bots. It's insidious.

And now that the word has a negative connotation, anyone they disagree with who supports something they don't like is now labeled and discarded as a shill. That's probably what the OP was more referring to.

Ive seen a lot of people say that but I haven't seen it or experienced it myself. I think people just call users shills who behave like shills and benefit from vote manipulation

Not true. I agree with shills all the time. Nothing pushes an agenda like a little truth.

Many subs are

T_d

Politics

Someone has done a good job at dividing those in these subs. They are polar opposites.

I'm not a fan of either, but it feels disingenuous to equate them as the same. Politics is a circlejerk where you get instantly downvoted for having certain opinions, but T_d is full of terrible people who have no empathy for anyone who disagrees with them. Politics thinks conservatives are stupid/evil, while TD thinks liberals deserve to suffer.

So one is right and the other proves it?

Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.

suffering leads to strength. Strength leads to courage, courage leads to revolution

Revolution also leads to suffering. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGpmVs0_Dbc&index=11&list=PLW9kaBubSrNIfI11wiF_szso4w19xG_zq

life leads to suffering budd

Not murderous, bloodthirsty human sacrifice. Don't conflate these two just because it seems romantic.

femme fetale

Ooh, that's bad... But does the revolution come with sprinkles?

Through suffering you gain passion, through passion you gain strength, through strength you gain power, through power you gain victory, through victory the...uh...chains are broken.

If we are going that route ;-)

"Peace is a lie. There is only Passion. Through Passion I gain Strength. Through Strength I gain Power. Through Power I gain Victory. Through Victory my chains are Broken."

There is no emotion..

Fear leads to anger in the weak. In the strong, anger is brought upon by injustice. Anger from injustice can be turned positive and directed like a laser at the infringing party. If more angry righteous people existed, we could literally shine the light on the evil bastards above us and burn them away.

The fact that this thread got instantly down vote nuked is hilarious. Only because I can smell fear.

Everytime I point out the false issues that propagate conflict ... downvote. It's enough to make me think there is a conspiracy. To my thinking it is bloody fucking obvious. Follow the money.

Keep doing the right thing.

Curious when this sub and online conspiracy culture is going to come to grips with the fact that Russia played them like marks to sow dissent and division and are most likely continuing to do so. The conspiracy is right there staring you in the face and all we get are vague pussy proclamations like "follow the money." Do people enjoy being marks? Do they like getting played? Does being someone's useful idiot turn them on? I just don't get it.

I have no doubt that Russia's oligarchy is as involved as the rest of them. They all make money. No need for name calling.

It got downvoted because it's hippy bullshit. Life isn't a Beatles song. Many people HAVE lost their property, religion, and borders. It hasn't exactly made them dancing, ecstatic Hare Krishnas.

We don't need boomers preaching "peace" at the younger generation. You were the ones that got had. War is fine, humans seem to be apt at it and it brings great change. Maybe we agree that our modern wars work against are own interests. It is only the privilege of our Western gluttony that makes one believe it's "elites" that turn man against you.

You do not know who I am. Do not bitch at me.

Or else, you’ll go to war with him!

War is fine

This is how I imagine you.

Would be more apt if he was nowhere near the fire, pointing and saying “that is fine”

If they learned peace they might not go to war, and that is worth everything. How many should die for the sake of 2 selfish men? Maybe we need to give peace a chance....

I would fucking love to watch you cower in a warzone.

That & the meaningless, shit-disturber comments. Boy, they really don't like it when we veer onto this topic lol. I see it every time. Very telling indeed.

Most "reminder" posts probably deserves down-votes. Just seems like pushing a narrative. In this case it's bucking the trend, at least.

Nah I just think this is some "John Lennon - Imagine"-type hippy bullshit.

Scrolled down to look for TMOR vs /con argument. Obviously too early, I'll come back later.

I think the problem is people funamdentally disagree on what the problem is. There are a lot of Trump supporters around who refuse to think he does anything wrong. Any Russian stuff is absolutely off limits. Pretty much Any bad news for Trump is off limits. So we can't talk about the leader of the government, we are forced to talk about old shit all the time like Hillary's emails and pizzagate. So people just don't agree on what is worth talking about. And a bunch of people absolutely refuse to talk about certain subjects.

The conspiracy is simply stated: wealthy people cooperate.

I'd have to say wealthy people, perhaps, at (psych-) spychological war with one another. Perhaps more than those without wealth.

Though I know many middle class folks heavy into spychology also. (gossip, breaking down one's self, maybe spreading 'rumors' ?) Any way thats some random thoughts on it.

Humans cooperate somewhere. And what better place than here. And what better time than now.

It's all about keeping up with the Joneses. People care more that their next door neighbor upgraded to an entry level BMW for a mid life crisis car than they do anything else

Some old friends of mine did this and it was bizaare to observe, first guy 20k wedding, second guy 30k wedding, first guy 500k house, second guy 650k house. And this is where I checked out so it is still probably going.

Funniest thing is second guy is living on inheritance and a shitty call center job, while the other guy is an accountant.

BERNIE CAN STILL WIN

F E E L T H E B E R N

MATCH ME

YES HE CAN

“White people dont know what it’s like to be poor”. Bernie is a Jewish conman.

If he really said that, he can fuck right off!

He didn't.

You can duck right off! You've never said something you didn't mean before?

He didn't say it like that. He was talking about inner city ghettos this did just chopped like 2/3 of the actual quote off

"When you're white, you don't know what it's like to be living in a ghetto. You don't know what it's like to be poor. You don't know what it's like to be hassled when you walk down the street or you get dragged out of a car."

Even in context, it's an odd statement. I understand the point he wanted to make but that delivery was terrible

Thanks for clearing that up

Not sure if sarcasm or not haha. I just get tired of people complaining about something they have the means to correct. "YOURE MISQUOTING HIM!"

Prove it.

No sarcasm

I too can take a portion of a quote put of context to change it's meaning

ZarathustraSays Marxism Oh the irony

That is a very loose definition of marxism

It's a classist, materialist take on history. That is what Marx did.

It is my understanding Marx also wore clothes, so you better strip off right now, hypocrite

Did he innovate clothes?

Lol go read Capital dude. There is a reason it was so groundbreaking and influential.

Yup. Changed my life in college when I was becoming a tinfoil hat guy myself. Rich people have been influencing public opinion since the 1890’s when socialism was becoming a threat to their monetary interests.

Read a shit ton and did my research. Went from a right winger to a farrrrr left winger once I realized we also painted the USSR and China as demonic totalitarianistic hellholes despite our own country being just that.

did you read about how the OSS trained and funded Mao's army, and capitalist oligarch David Rockefeller's pretty consistent praise of Maoism?

I know we trained and funded Mao’s army to fight the Japanese during WWII, but we were also allied with the USSR, so it doesn’t seem too odd. Although, I do know that the United States funded Nazi Germany during the 30’s right up until they invaded France. It’s a pretty common tactic we reuse. Aid allies and enemies, provoke wars, clean up mess, profit. Just look at the Middle East lol

I’ve never heard Rockerfeller praise Maoism and that’s something I’d really like to look into considering how much I studied him in high school way back when.

I'd say all those things are pretty "odd", especially if I'm to be expected to believe the pop-culture history of the World Wars - imo it operates at the "grand strategy" scale, not tactical or profit-driven motives

here's a link to an NYT article about DR and Maoism: http://archive.is/Kq8la

Not too far fetched if we’re talking about short term goals, but long term illuminati goals, maybe. I could see it being part of some “grand scheme.”

Thanks for the interesting read.

So you're saying that the phrase "wealthy people cooperate" is a Marxist statement. Nobody had ever before him come up with the "innovation" of realising this.

If you insist on name dropping economics history - Smith was talking about the invisible hand half a century before Marx popped out the womb.

yeah, an incredibly simplistic and ideologically motivated "theory" of history

Oh. Damn. I think I'm going to make stickers of this and tell it to everyone.

I want one!

They would make better toilet paper. Rich vs poor is another false dichotomy meant to keep people bickering and not confront the true evil in our world, centralized authority! Rich people got their money usually because people engaged in voluntary transactions, while authoritarians are the ones throwing people in fucking cages and dropping bombs on brown people! You might confuse corporate crony capitalism with libertarian free market types but just know that when you buy yourself privileges in the government that is not fucking capitalism and most rich people never do this!

Not wealthy, greedy.

Not greedy, similar.

Not similar, successful.

Not successful, powerful.

It's the Rich and Powerful Doctrine.

I think their are two types of greed at play... Monetary greed and power greed. Both ruin our government which in turn ruins our country

money = lasting power on a global scale.

Exactly

The lust for money is always a grab at power. And the lust for power is a deep deep DEEP-seated fear of the unknown, of one's own vulnerability, of one's own inevitable demise. Scared little babies building fortresses to protect their smushy little faces.

Lol wet? Everyone is greedy mate

Those we shun for greed are doing the things most people would do if they were in their position.

Greedy people are not the cause but just symptoms of a system that rewards greed. It's easy to blame fat rich fucks, but if they were gone someone else would take their place. It's not a conspiracy, it's an inherent property of the system.

Well that's because our society is materialistic in general. It's ultimately just karma of the current time...Kali Yuga.

It’s a misnomer to say that it’s an inherent property of the system. They created the system to model after themselves and benefit themselves at our expense and we the let them do it. We can and will obsolete this system once we accept the fact that our lack of assertiveness is what caused this problem, and that once we decide not to participate in contracts/organizations that massively benefit them we can move towards creating ones that benefit all of us.

Greed of rich people cam only cause limited damage on an otherwise healthy system. A healthy society would only have the occasional rich person bieng evil, and he would be branded a criminal, and be dealt with.

Who corrupted everyone? Is there a driving ideology that allows evil, and actually condones it and encourages it? Maybe even needs it?

There is an idea, that explains what's wrong with the world. It explains how the tiny minority of rich and powerful can treat us with such contempt. It explains all the suffering. The decay of our time. The harm to children slavery and sexual abuse. Poverty, sickness and death. Wars and famines. Conflict and loss of rights. Destruction of morals. Destruction of the family. All if it.

It's Judaism.

Greed is more of an Afterthought when it comes to wealth...

As in, it takes wealth to be greedy (greedy in a manner that hurts millions of real people).

Nah, seen poor people that are greedy.

You’ve seen poor people that are greedy in a way that hurts millions of people?

Sorry if it wasn’t clear from my sentence, but that was my point. Greed isn’t that bad without power.

No but collectively, tons of poor greedy people ruins a nation.

But why are tons of poor people greedy?

Because of lack of spiritual culture

I meant to only post my other comment, currently deleting this one.

Cuz they need to survive.

Please refer to my other comment i made, the one you replied to I posted by accident. Thanks

Good point.

But why are more and more people becoming poor?

Because all the wealth is in the hands of the rich greedy. So either you can agree that the rich are the Cause of what you say, or at the least they coexist to ruin a nation together.

The cause is greed. The harm is on everyone. It's a cyclical karmic reaction between different phases of incurring and receiving karma. The poor and rich switch places. Consciousness reflects.

no, theres no way you can be individually wealthy without exploiting the worker.

Greed is another word for Fear. Socialists are motivated by fear and jealously. They justify theft with mass delusions and mind viruses.

That's just a class warfare way of looking at things. Commonly used by marxists to divide and conquer. You are actually using marxist divide and conquer talking point on a post against divide and conquer.

The American elites set up the OSS/CIA to wage war on a global scale to protect their class interests. They've killed millions in order to protect their wealth and power. And you're on about class warfare being waged by common people?

Class warfare is real alright, but only one side is actually fighting.

This comment still falls under what OP is getting at, its divisive

Right, now it's rich vs poor? What if we got the rich on our "side"? It's not fair to lump the all "rich" into one category, thats what is getting us into this mess. Hate somebody for WHO they are, not WHAT they are.

We don't hate the rich. America worships the rich. We're all temporarily embarrassed millionaires over here.

Lol, I'm a broke millionaire myself. Waiting for that 300k entry level salary everyone claims they will get after college.

Pffft salary?? What are you some kind of pleb, gotta go work for the stock market and take advantage of that carried interest loophole so you only pay 20% taxes instead of 35%.

Someone lied to you. They don't just hand you 300K jobs out of college.

look man, corporate money is all over politics and its influence has been rising for like 40-50 years now with no end in sight. As this has happened, income disparity has risen to levels that are destructive to almost everyone else. The game is intentionally rigged to be in the favor of the economically elite. I wont hate on most people, but until corporate money and the influence that comes with it is removed from politics, they will not get a free pass from me. It most certainly is rich vs poor. But that doesn't mean that your neighbor is part of the problem.

A war has been continuously waged since the agricultural revolution and only one side is aware of it.

Funny how we don't have to formally declare wars anymore in order to go to war. Politicians are aware but we now don't need approval and we formally call them extended police actions or whatever else, but not war.

Exactly. Employers and employees will ALWAYS have intrinsically competing interests under capitalism. For the past few decades the working class has been anesthetized while the wealthy have continued fighting for their own interests.

You will never stop money from bribing those in power. It would be easier to stop people from ingesting/selling narcotics and we all know that's impossible.

There are more ways than ever to hide wealth and transactions. If you made political bribes illegal then they would just use some kind of crypto currency to anonymously bribe them. You cannot stop this. It's a futile endevour.

The good news though is that you don't need money anymore?! What is stopping a politician from making broadcasts on the internet that people can watch?! If people only could get their minds around the fact that the debates are bullshit and secluded then watching youtube videos would suffice. Politicians don't need money anymore and they don't have to travel to meet their constituents.

By "rich" we really refer to the psychopaths at the top of the pyramid. Literal parasites. Vampires. A totally different species

White male breeder scum! Get in the oven!

The right kind of divisive. Who do you think is trying to divide us peasants?

Do you think that the solution is to ignore the massive exploitation of wealth and power?

? weird to assume all that just for pointing out this user isn’t getting the message that OP was trying to get across.

wealthy people didn’t ask to be born wealthy, hating them for being wealthy is just as evil as a wealthy person exploiting somebody simply because they are poor.

wealthy people didn’t ask to be born wealthy, hating them for being wealthy is just as evil as a wealthy person exploiting somebody simply because they are poor.

No one brought up hating wealthy people. The person you responded to was pointing out that division is due to action by the wealthy. We who are being divided up are the common people, the working class, and the wealthy are doing the dividing. Not every wealthy person is an evil monster, but everyone who is on top and is benefiting from this sick society is wealthy. Comparing material exploitation that ends lives to feeling hate toward an oppressor is ignorant.

Okay.

Poverty is maintained through violence, poverty is a result of violence, poverty is violence. Poverty is theft

Thank you! Someone gets it! Rich vs Poor is another false dichotomy! Rich people in many cases help poor people start businesses for example.

The real dichotomy is authoritarians vs libertarians. There is a trend for millennials to assume it's ethical to use force as long as it's democratic, sad!

And they tend to try to keep less wealthy people from doing the same.

Way to go ahead and blame the problems on another group of people, making them into "others" and perpetuating the very cycle he was pointing out here... it is never as simple as "that group of people with x label are evil".

Sorry but psychopathy is the literal definition and embodiment of human evil

Collectivist abstractions much?

Not wealthy, jewish.

Removed. Rule 1

What bigoted term did i use? What slur was there? Would you like statistics to back it up? Will you succumb to any evidence?

You're the bigot if you think that a group of people should be treated differently from all the rest.

This is one of those thoughts that I will play with over the next week. Thank you for this.

good god, stop with this communist drivel. It has nothing to do with wealth. It has to do with power and evil. Evil people tend to be smart and manipulative, which also makes them good at making money. The money isn't the cause of the issue.

It should be "evil people cooperate".

Poverty is a choice

not wealthy people. Rich people. There is a difference

wealthy people cooperate

Have you ever been around wealthy people? They're competitive as fuck and they'll fuck anyone over at the drop of a hat. They're just psychopaths.

Wealthy people disregard morals when it conflicts with with making money.

Wealthy doesn't automatically mean evil - there are plenty of wealthy folks fighting this new fucked tax bill.

By paying their fair share anyways?!

Thought not.

I don't really understand your argument.I'm all for the wealthy paying more, their "fair share," etc but I don't get the point of lumping in those among the wealthy who are trying to enact policy to ensure All the wealthy have to pay fair share with those who are trying to skirt the system. We should be rewarding good behavior, right? Are you saying they should just send checks by mail to the Government equivalent to whatever their "fair share" is after paying their original taxes, or something?

If these rich Dems care about doing good for society through taxation they should be willing to pay their dues as though the bill never passed. It's legal and acceptable to overpay taxes.

Do you know that they don't?

Yeah that's my exact point, hombre.

wealthy people cooperate.

Man are you as bad as everyone else with that limited thinking. Corrupt unions, welfare leeches, politicians, corporations, EVERYONE is fucking up the nation because there is no oversight, no system can function without massive oversight.

It is because YOU spend all your free time complaining and none of it providing oversight that the world is run by incompetents and thieves.

Detroit as an example is a hellhole because the people allow it to be, electing the greatest mayor in the world won't fix it, it is top to bottom fucked because millions of people helped in fucking it.

The only way to fix Detroit is for millions of people to choose to unfuck it, and it's unlikely that will happen, because most smart people would just move to a better place, leaving only a handful of motivated enterprising people to fight a losing battle against millions of lazy leeches waiting for someone else to fix their problems.

Sure they elect some corrupt officials, because they the citizens are largely corrupt, but there are also a lot of people there busting their fucking asses day in and day out to help make a difference, but a few hundred people can't fix hundreds of thousands that don't give a fuck.

Not until YOU hold your local officials and then your government officials accountable, will you get change.

Not until YOU pick up a garbage bag, will your parks be clean.

Not until YOU hold those accountable to the fire will children be fed nutritious meals instead of prison slop.

This sub has half a millions whiners and bitchers but very few doers. Imagine a world where all half a million subs spent their days looking at budgets, finding corruption and waste and fuck ups and working to fix them.

The world sucks because WE SUCK. If you want kids to be fed, posting here does DICK, and they will eat shit or not eat at all until we all storm the offices of those in charge and demand they stop blowing money on corruption, PR projects to put their name on, and back room deals and direct it to feeding all children healthy meals.

wealthy people cooperate.

lmao

Yeah the rich people boogeyman. Keeping millennials entitled since 2001.

Wealthy people sometimes conspire against everyone else, sure. Cartel like behavior is one way. But the most common way for wealthy individuals to conspire against common people is USING THE GOVERNMENT. They buy influence and there is no way to stop this even if you made it illegal that would not change a thing.

This is why the state is a failed concept. We need to figure out some kind of decentralized way to be accountable for agreements like pollution and then for everything else the NAP will suffice.

You want to know what else le ebil rich boogeymen do??!?!? They fund kickstarters, patreons, loan money for starting businesses, invest in start ups and so on. If you would just be willing to do something for yourself instead of expecting a job to fall in your lap you would realize that rich people are out there that would help you make your dreams come true.

Here is a video about how easy it is to get start up capital from le ebil rich boogeymen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjcIRQuCXr0

You missed a bit

The conspiracy is simply stated: wealthy people cooperate *to enslave and extort the working classes.

Indeed they do

And you are so fucking wrong. Most conspiracies take place within GOVERNMENT! Authority breeds conspiracy! Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely!!!!

Jesus fucking Christ you millennials with your rich vs poor divide and conquer bullshit!

we need this thread to be on the sidebar. seriously.

Love you for this post.

I hope /conspiracy goes more positive now.

This post is in the right direction.

I really like; "give that superiority a good use and help the other being achieve a similar state. For every service you do for another is also a service for yourself"

This is a bad post. Tribalism is natural to humans.

If anything, the real conspiracy is to trick gullible people like you into thinking tribalism is bad so you do away with religion, property, and borders.

We are, in essence, all the same

No we aren't

And of course, even though you accurately point out the glaringly obvious flaws in the OP's premise, you get downvoted to the bottom. It doesn't even bear repeating at this point how obvious it is that /r/conspiracy is a thin shadow of its former self.

Sounds like you've been brainwashed to think that.

Sounds like you've been brainwashed to think otherwise.

Or, hmm, maybe throwing around accusations of 'brainwashed' in response to a post isn't particularly insightful or useful?

No, he’s right and it’s obvious if you just open your eyes

No, it is hardwired human nature.

So is Death. I love death so much because of the naturalistic fallacy too. It’s just so cool.

It’s true but getting mad and killing people is also hardwired. Is law hardwired? Do the laws that prevent us from killing people stem from what is hardwired in us?

How is it that the fear of being arrested is also hardwired and the urge to kill also conflicts with this fear?

Why would our hardwired contradict?

So collectivism and globalism emerges not from our hardwired tendencies?

Do the stem from god?

It’s true but getting mad and killing people is also hardwired.

Yes, with some people it is, look at the murder rates of countries around the world.

Yes, yes. The defectors are the brainwashed ones.

This looks an awfull lot as if you're part of the conspiracy. On a throwaway even.

Tribalism is like anger. It's good when it's good annd it's bad when it's bad.

We are, in essence, all the same

No we aren't

Yes we are. You just haven't grown to realize it yet. There is one consciousness and you are merely a part of it. When you hurt others, you are hurting yourself. You'll see. You will recall my words, in time.

Go move to a third world country and tell me about being the same. Maybe choose one of those countries in africa where they rape virgins to cure AIDS.

We're not all the same.

We're all part of the same picture and come from the same source. We all experience being alive. We are in essence, all the same.

Some of us are disconnected from feeling that spirit within that we are all connected to. That's not just hippy bs, if you meditate you'll see for yourself it's true.

It's the beliefs about ourselves that we place on top of this that are different and change are personalities and our priorities, but at the end of the day we are all the same and OP is correct, some need more guidance than others to realise this. Some are so disconnected and "dead inside" that they are pure evil - but even they are part of this world and deep deep down are connected to this source, they just don't acknowledge it.

It's possible to work together against the elites and without getting rid of borders, religion, and other components of tribalism.

People are people. There are cultural differences and whatever. But for the most part, 98% of people want the same things. To have hope, to be happy, to take care of their loved ones. Get off the internet and actually meet some people in the real world. Don't just read or hear about them from others on a message board.

Get off the internet and actually meet some people in the real world.

I have. Not all people are the same based on who I have met. Some people just want to eat, fuck, and commit crime. Others want to explore space. We're not all the same.

I love how the butthurt brigade is downvoting anything that resembles reality.

How did this get so many votes and gilded? It's the dumbest shit ever.

I think it’s a globalist psyop. This thread absolutely reeks of fuckery.

What is the goal of doing away with religion, property, and borders?

To create the new 'global citizen' of course. A person without a strong sense of identity is much easier to control/persuade.

We are all the same is definitely one of the biggest conspiracies of our time. Many of us have probably even believed it at some point. But this 'hippy bs' just makes things easier for the elites. An honest evaluation of the past and present will show that reality has always followed more of the law of the jungle model.

Also you should be cautious to say both “trick” and “gullible” within the same concept. You assume tribalism isn’t bad but haven’t really explained.

You might even say the way you know they are gullible is simply by not agreeing with you.

I can’t see any other possible interpretation so far because your comment is too cryptic.

I brush away troll comments too often as bots, or TMoR [insert other boogeyman here] drumming up nonsense and drama.

This post is too true though, we are a deeply divided nation right now. That divide has been fermented by the deep state by the exact mechanisms described in the OP.

Amen! Don't care who you voted for, how many virtual dollars you have, or what deity you worship, you are human and I love you.

I love you too

Yes! And lets extend that love to all beings, including the wonderful animals that walk this Earth.

I am a living being and I see you are one as well, thus you deserve to be as happy/content/peaceful as much as I do. If we try out best, slowly we can make freedom possible for all beings.

Yes, I love all the animals... especially the tasty ones. Well, except for ticks, wasps and mosquitoes. Fuck those 3 in particular.

Can you truly say that you love Hitler though? There is a line when it comes to that, right?

I like the sentiment but this is (no offense) without a doubt the most profoundly naiive thing I've read in quite a long time.

Basically boils down to "I think the world would be a better place if we could all stop hating each other and work together =']" That's really cute and everything but if I wanted to read a fifth grade level assessment of the flaws inherent in the human condition I'd go be a school teacher...again, no offense.

Property, Religion, Borders, all those tools are being used to give you a reason to hate.

What am I reading here!?? What do you suggest we do about "Property, Religion, and Borders?" if they're such a problem? Get rid of them? Because...you know...that sounds an awful lot like the kind of mentality that is actually part of the problem in the sense that - as far as I can tell - part of "the real conspiracy" is a small, insular group of internationalist financiers and bankers who want to erase national identity (religion and borders) and abolish private property for the masses so that they can rule the world with a pseudo-one world government with little or no opposition from the people.

It's pretty hard to argue with "all this hate and anger have gotten way out of hand." It's pretty hard to argue with "the real conspiracy is divide and keep the people separated and hating each other." Both of those premises are undoubtably true. But uh...what exactly are you suggesting we do about it?? Seems like you have some very odd ideas on what are causing these problems when you talk about borders, religion, and private property being the root causes..what about usury and speculation being the foundation of the modern economy? What about international bankers controlling vast financial entities and living as supra-national entities? What about the deep state?? Or is the problem just that we need to get rid of our borders and religion??

Honestly want to know your opinion on this, OP.

I’ll volunteer my opinion for them!

You are a contrarian asshole! Happy New Years!

What is the point of even posting something like that?

It's true though.

Lol...trust me that the irony isn't lost on me that this is a post calling for civility, yet I am here calling this dude an asshole.

But damn dude...lol

100% in agreement Jim.

But most don't realise the no borders, hippy mindset totally dove tails with the idea of creating some monoculture that is devoid of all purpose besides buying cheap shit off of Amazon.

Utopia is impossible but it makes for great Coca-Cola ads. And, apparently, /r/conspiracy posts.

Jim, we all know that Pepsi goes down better wearing a tinfoil hat....c'mon now.....let the soda wars commence!!!!

Drink up that sugar water. It's funny to me that you have to be 19 to smoke, but can drink soda at any age. There's nothing beneficial about a can of soda, it doesn't really hydrate you because of all the sugar either. If they really cared about people health, shit like soda would be banned.

Sugar....the other white gold besides Cocain, but just as addictive!

It’s the sodium content in soda that dehydrates you, the sugar is certainly not healthy but to my knowledge sugar doesn’t dehydrate you

On the other hand, living in another culture and realizing all the things you took for granted in your own culture is a fast track to getting woke. I don't think eliminating borders is practical, but I do think it's the ideal. As Ronald Reagan told Gorbachev in Reykjavik, (when arguing for repatriation of Soviet Jews to Israel) an individual should be allowed to live and work anywhere in the world. That's true liberty. And free governments should work to make that possible whenever practical.

A border-less world may happen one day, but it will be hundreds of years from now. It MUST be a ground-up phenomena too, not a top-down one like is attempting to be perpetrated today.

but it will be hundreds of years from now.

Not saying you're wrong, but our current level of globalization is vastly more than it was 30 years ago.

I agree, I don't think it will happen tomorrow, but I could deff see it happen in less than hundreds of years. The world is changing and evolving at exponential rates.

The world is essentially borderless for the elite.

an individual should be allowed to live and work anywhere in the world.

Why?

A visit is one thing; permanent dwelling is another. There is no motivation to permanently live in a foreign country unless your home country is trash or you do not identify with your countrymen.

And I'm sorry but a people allowing their enemies to enter into their nation and live there permanently amounts to nothing less than damage to the inhabitants. It is detrimental. If you think true liberty means being able to do whatever you want without restriction, that is just satanism.

Also, Ronald Regan, although his administration did some good things for the economy, was a Vatican internationalist traitor. Regan was the one to formally open diplomatic relations with the Vatican after those relations had been broken off in 1867 when it was shown the Vatican shielded John Suratt - one of the Lincoln assassination conspirators, from being brought to trial. Regan was honored by the internationalist Sovereign Military Order of Malta and was advised by other Knights such as Alexander Haig.

"...no motivation to permanently live in a foreign country..."

"...allowing their enemies to enter their nation..."

What a load of small-minded, pussy ass scared little weak bitch thinking. It amazes me that people are this fearful. Better hide from them brownies.

Ad homienem fallacy. Open borders are ignorant of mechanisms of civilization, to which you have no response.

It's not an ad hominem fallacy, it's just an insult and an opinion of that user.

Yes it is, you are ignorant. It is an attack against my motive.

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Yes, and he didn't attack your character or notice. The poster didn't say we shouldn't listen to you because you are/ believe (fill in the blank), he insulted your position. But I guess attacking the position is attacking the man now.

I guess attacking the position is attacking the man now.

Read the definition, moron.

I did. I already knew the definition as well, but thank you. Just trying to correct a common misconception that insults are ad hominem attacks, but I'm sorry to try and correct you. I suppose you knew that already, since your insult game is pretty strong.

You realise borders are actually a relatively recent invention in comparison to all of humanity? The mechanisms of civilisation always change. The world has become more harmonised as time goes on, we do not have to have enemies unless they are trying to spread hate. Even then, it's better to educate them rather than simply exile them or ignore them

Every Island nation ever has had natural coastal borders. And I don't consider "recent" to be 1648, when the Peace of Westphalia established the concept of Westphalian sovereignty and border systems. Every civilization ever, besides primitive or nomadic tribes have had some definition of what they considered to be their territory.

The mechanisms of civilisation always change.

Nope, they are static.

The world has become more harmonised as time goes on, we do not have to have enemies unless they are trying to spread hate. Even then, it's better to educate them rather than simply exile them or ignore them

Communism has already been tried and has failed. That is because the notion that everyone can get along, which you are saying, contradicts the nature of man.

Every Island nation ever has had natural coastal borders.

And yet many of them have been claimed by empire like Britain or France, and were simply no longer an independent nation anymore.

And I don't consider "recent" to be 1648, when the Peace of Westphalia established the concept of Westphalian sovereignty and border systems

Do you consider a few decades to be "recent"? That's how old Germany is. Yugoslavia only broke up into smaller countries about 3 decades ago. Many European nations are rather recent, same goes for the borders that western nations imposed on Africa and the Middle-East. They never existed until we made them.

Nope, they are static.

Not even remotely. Ever heard of the Schengen area? It's a free-movement area in Europe. It is an expansion of and removal of borders, and it is beautiful. You don't need to go through some ultra-serious procedure just to visit another country, you can fucking walk there nowadays.

Nope, they are static.

Not really. Borders have become much more free and open over time. They are no longer manned with armies, and most of them in Europe have been entirely eliminated.

Communism has already been tried and has failed. That is because the notion that everyone can get along, which you are saying, contradicts the nature of man.

Fascism under the guise of communism has been tried and failed. You give up so easily on a unified human race. You seemingly love having enemies or people to look down on.

And yet many of them have been claimed by empire like Britain or France, and were simply no longer an independent nation anymore.

Annexation does not dissovle the nation; soverignty over land is not a requirement to be a nation. See: "Indian Nations" of North America.

Do you consider a few decades to be "recent"? That's how old Germany is. Yugoslavia only broke up into smaller countries about 3 decades ago. Many European nations are rather recent, same goes for the borders that western nations imposed on Africa and the Middle-East. They never existed until we made them.

You ignored what I said. The concept of borders and the implementation of borders are as old as civilization itself, and were formalized as a legal doctrine in 1648. Saying that new nations have formed later is not a rebuttal to that.

Ever heard of the Schengen area?

That is not a mechanism of civilization or a nation. That is an area comprising many nations.

Not really. Borders have become much more free and open over time. They are no longer manned with armies, and most of them in Europe have been entirely eliminated.

Saying that allies don't heavily guard their borders is not addressing how mechanisms of civilizations are not static.

Fascism under the guise of communism has been tried and failed. You give up so easily on a unified human race. You seemingly love having enemies or people to look down on.

That does not address how what you are saying contradicts the nature of man.

Okay let's just point out some definitions. 1. A country is a geographic separation. 2. A nation is a governmental separation.

You are crazy if you think governmental separations have not been changed, dissolved, created, etc. over time.

Saying that new nations have formed later is not a rebuttal to that.

It literally is, since it disagrees with your idea that nations, borders and loyalties are static and unchanging.

That is not a mechanism of civilization or a nation. That is an area comprising many nations.

That is the destruction of borders internally. It shows borders can change drastically, even in our lifetimes. Why is it so hard to apply this concept to the world in your mind?

Saying that allies don't heavily guard their borders is not addressing how mechanisms of civilizations are not static.

What the hell do you call the "mechanisms of civilisation"? People changed loyalties, people grow their loyalties to larger circles, ergo, that mechanism changes. People are not as narrow-minded as you think they are.

That does not address how what you are saying contradicts the nature of man.

It does, because the nature of man changes, as I just said.

No need to point out definitions, especially false ones. I have already stated the definition of nation, which is not how you have defined it.

You are crazy if you think governmental separations have not been changed, dissolved, created, etc. over time.

That has nothing to do with the definition of a nation.

Saying that new nations have formed later is not a rebuttal to that.

It literally is, since it disagrees with your idea that nations, borders and loyalties are static and unchanging.

I never said borders or alliances were static. You are just making that up. You are unable to address that the concept of borders are not recent inventions like you ludicrously claimed.

That is the destruction of borders internally. It shows borders can change drastically, even in our lifetimes. Why is it so hard to apply this concept to the world in your mind?

Those nations all still have borders; they all still have territorial possessions, it is not the "destruction of borders" it is merely relaxing some laws about how they are regulating their borders, given that these are allied EU countries; if it were Israel and Palestine, it would be suicidal. These borders as concerning geographic boundaries which separate territories have not changed. All of those nations remain distinct as well. The French remain French, the Germans remain Germans. And you are not addressing the point here either: what you said is not an argument against mechanisms of civilization being static.

What the hell do you call the "mechanisms of civilisation"? People changed loyalties, people grow their loyalties to larger circles, ergo, that mechanism changes. People are not as narrow-minded as you think they are.

The state of alliances or loyalties are not mechanisms of civilisation. What we are talking about, or more specifically, what you are guilty of, is what has been termed an "Ignoring Mechanisms of Civilization fallacy." The Southern Israelite who has coined this term states there are "basic causal mechanisms inherent in all human civilizations given the nature of man and the world he lives in. If your position contradicts or ignores one of these mechanisms your position is incompatible with human civilization itself. You would then be logically required to leave human civilization and become a Buddhist or a hermit of some kind."

Without going into detail, the following are said mechanisms:

• Knowable objective value

• The Fallen/Wicked Nature of Man

• The Family

• Collectivism

• Discrimination

• Hierarchy and caste

• Human Property

• Hereditary identity

• Male Supremacy

You have already rejected at least two of these.

It does, because the nature of man changes, as I just said.

No it doesn't, and you asserting that is does, does not make it so.

I really can't be bothered responding to you anymore. Google the definition of nation, one of the synonyms is "sovereign state", which would identify it as a governmental separation.

The French remain French, the Germans remain Germans

And an increasing number of people prefer the term "European" to identify themselves. You can almost FEEL a nation forming.

Without going into detail, the following are said mechanisms:...

You have already rejected at least two of these.

It does, because the nature of man changes, as I just said.

No it doesn't, and you asserting that is does, does not make it so.

Firs of all, man is not inherently evil or "wicked", he is neutral, morally speaking. Secondly, value is measured in subjective ways, and is therefore subject to change, and therefore always subjective. Thirdly, Male supremacy is reducing recently, and the importance of equality is always being touted, and will continue to be so, until male supremacy is a thing of the past. Fourthly, same thing applies to caste and hierarchy, and discrimination. So that's about 4 "objective" mechanisms of man that are pretty much already being destroyed. I don't know who the fuck educated you on this, but I sure as hell hope you don't pass these ideas on to your children.

That's just a basic definition of freedom - being able to do anything that wouldn't harm your neighbors. I'm wondering why you classify the individual as an enemy. My grandparents were immigrants; am I your enemy?

You did not address anything I said.

You just repeated that you are a satanist by conflating the definition of freedom to mean absolute, unrestrained, individualism and saying that ANYONE should be allowed to go ANYWHERE. I am not going to patronize you, as I assume you are over 13 years old according to the sitewide rules, and are able to discern why letting for example, ISIS generals into America is a bad idea.

I'm wondering why you classify the individual as an enemy.

I never said this.

My grandparents were immigrants; am I your enemy?

If you are for open borders and globalization, yes, you are my enemy.

Have you ever lived in another country?

One reason why letting ISIS generals in the country would be a good idea is that we would then have legal jurisdiction to fuck them up, instead of throwing bombs in random locations.

Open borders allows awful spiteful ideas to be drowned out in a liberal sea of ideas. Many people from the middle-east come to Europe or America and become enamoured with our culture, and eventually, become more socially liberal. On very few occasions does this happen the other way around though. Ergo, open-borders would lead to discord and spite being drowned out by harmony and liberty.

One reason why letting ISIS generals in the country would be a good idea is that we would then have legal jurisdiction to fuck them up, instead of throwing bombs in random locations.

No, no. What you are saying does not follow the framework of my example. You saying we could let an ISIS general in, in a controlled fashion and do harm to them. That user thinks anyone should be allowed anywhere, and interfering with the ISIS general's free will (i.e. killing or imprisoning them) would be wrong.

Open borders allows awful spiteful ideas to be drowned out in a liberal sea of ideas.

Your notion of what a "spiteful idea" is, is subjective.

Many people from the middle-east come to Europe or America and become enamoured with our culture, and eventually, become more socially liberal.

How is people becoming liberals a good thing? Again, totally subjective on your part.

Ergo, open-borders would lead to discord and spite being drowned out by harmony and liberty.

I'm sorry but how naiive can you be? That increases violence as exemplified today by the refugee invasion and mass gangrape of European women, as well as the situation in South Africa where White people are being systematically killed by Blacks for which reason the Afrikaaners have started their own exclusive community to protect themselves and their families from being robbed raped and murdered.

You saying we could let an ISIS general in, in a controlled fashion and do harm to them. That user thinks anyone should be allowed anywhere, and interfering with the ISIS general's free will (i.e. killing or imprisoning them) would be wrong.

He never suggested we let all the fucking prisoners go free now did he? He just suggested free movement of the law-abiding people. We already tried it in Europe, and from experience, it is amazing. Being able to simply move to another beautiful area of Europe, enjoy it for a while without some immigration controllers throwing you back into wherever you HAPPENED to be born into. It's freedom, real freedom.

Your notion of what a "spiteful idea" is, is subjective.

I would argue Muslim ideas about covering up women by force is spiteful and hate-inducing. I would also argue that those ideas tend to change when these people are exposed to western culture.

How is people becoming liberals a good thing?

Ah sorry, guess we don't want liberty, right?

That increases violence as exemplified today by the refugee invasion and mass gangrape of European women

Which you assume simply doesn't happen if it happens in another country right? As long as the police don't deal with it in Syria, it didn't happen? But as soon as it happens in Europe it's important?

as well as the situation in South Africa where White people are being systematically killed by Blacks for which reason the Afrikaaners have started their own exclusive community to protect themselves and their families from being robbed raped and murdered.

Which is an issue solved with peace and love and getting rid of racism. See? Believe it or not, the hippy way works.

He never suggested we let all the fucking prisoners go free now did he? He just suggested free movement of the law-abiding people. We already tried it in Europe, and from experience, it is amazing. Being able to simply move to another beautiful area of Europe, enjoy it for a while without some immigration controllers throwing you back into wherever you HAPPENED to be born into. It's freedom, real freedom.

So you have no problem with anyone at all in the world at this time moving next door to you, provided that they are not currently prisoners. Got it.

I would argue Muslim ideas about covering up women by force is spiteful and hate-inducing. I would also argue that those ideas tend to change when these people are exposed to western culture.

Muslims do go over the top with the covering of their women. Modest dress for women however is an imperative part of a decent civilization without which, we men become uncouth and lustful. Western culture is degenerate.

Ah sorry, guess we don't want liberty, right?

Liberty to betray my own people? No.

Which you assume simply doesn't happen if it happens in another country right? As long as the police don't deal with it in Syria, it didn't happen? But as soon as it happens in Europe it's important?

When did I ever say that? What you just said only strengthens my point. Those people are viciously violent and you don't mind having them live next to you.

Which is an issue solved with peace and love and getting rid of racism. See? Believe it or not, the hippy way works.

Let me guess, you believe a "two-state solution" will work too, don't you? Just like all situations end between every rival group of people in proximity, one will ultimately be annihilated or assimilated.

So you have no problem with anyone at all in the world at this time moving next door to you, provided that they are not currently prisoners. Got it.

This has some underlying tones of racism to it. Do you have an issue with that? If a black person moves next to you, do you clutch your pearl necklace in fear?

Muslims do go over the top with the covering of their women. Modest dress for women however is an imperative part of a decent civilization without which, we men become uncouth and lustful. Western culture is degenerate.

Okay and this is the point where I have given up. Men have rationality, we do not need to be fucking controlled like sheep around women in bikinis. If we do, then we all need to be locked up. Western culture is not even remotely degenerate, and nobody should force women to cover up fuck all.

Liberty to betray my own people? No.

Your people are of earth. In denying most of them liberty, you have already betrayed them.

When did I ever say that? What you just said only strengthens my point. Those people are viciously violent and you don't mind having them live next to you.

I think having them associate with our culture makes them overall less violent, because we have the capability to stop them and arrest them, along with convincing them through dialogue that their ways are wrong. So the ultimate, utilitarian good here is to associate with them and assimilate them into better, more liberal culture.

Those people are viciously violent

Who? Muslims? Black people? This point is just straight up fucking racist. Most Muslims, and most blacks, are not viciously violent, so you are fucking wrong, and fucking racist.

Let me guess, you believe a "two-state solution" will work too, don't you? Just like all situations end between every rival group of people in proximity, one will ultimately be annihilated or assimilated.

Yes, it fucking will. The only reason it doesn't is because the Israelis keep breaking the law and encroaching on Palestinian land, and the Palestinians react violently. There is an obvious 2-state solution, it just needs to be enforced.

This has some underlying tones of racism to it. Do you have an issue with that? If a black person moves next to you, do you clutch your pearl necklace in fear?

Wow. I said nothing that suggested what you are implying. Here is a more specific example: I hypothetically know someone who means you harm. You don't want them living next to you.

Okay and this is the point where I have given up. Men have rationality, we do not need to be fucking controlled like sheep around women in bikinis. If we do, then we all need to be locked up. Western culture is not even remotely degenerate, and nobody should force women to cover up fuck all.

Do you know what emotions are? These are things which cause people to not think rationally. And if you think western culture is not even remotely degenerate, I have some strip clubs to take you to, some X-rated media and pornography to show you, some Blacks rapping about using women as objects and shooting people and doing drugs, I have legal weed shops to show you, I have the party culture to show you, the promiscuous sexual climate especially among young people, drunkenness, adultery, fornication, drug use, gluttony, greed, sloth, pride. All of these things are ingrained in Western culture. And the Muslims are CORRECT in saying that this degeneracy deserves divine retribution.

Your people are of earth. In denying most of them liberty, you have already betrayed them.

You are not of my brethern. You are not of my people. I do not identify with you nor 99.9% of the people on this planet.

I think having them associate with our culture makes them overall less violent, because we have the capability to stop them and arrest them, along with convincing them through dialogue that their ways are wrong. So the ultimate, utilitarian good here is to associate with them and assimilate them into better, more liberal culture.

You underestimate, and basically ignore what is called religious ideology. Remember that guy I said who means you harm? That is his religious ideology and you are not going to convince him otherwise. Letting him or anyone else into your domain is harmful. Conversion is futile.

Who? Muslims? Black people? This point is just straight up fucking racist. Most Muslims, and most blacks, are not viciously violent, so you are fucking wrong, and fucking racist.

The same people who you said were causing violence in the middle east. You are saying I am racist for using the very example you gave.

Yes, it fucking will. The only reason it doesn't is because the Israelis keep breaking the law and encroaching on Palestinian land, and the Palestinians react violently. There is an obvious 2-state solution, it just needs to be enforced.

And here is the pinnacle of your hypocrisy: you believe in sovereign nationhood with territorial distinctions for the Palestinians and the Israelis, yet you want to dissolve all borders. That was a trap and you fell right into it.

Wow. I said nothing that suggested what you are implying. Here is a more specific example: I hypothetically know someone who means you harm. You don't want them living next to you.

But your suggestion is that you want to stop certain people (based on geographic location or race) from coming into your country, because SOME of them might commit a crime, correct?

And if you think western culture is not even remotely degenerate, I have some strip clubs to take you to, some X-rated media and pornography to show you, some Blacks rapping about using women as objects and shooting people and doing drugs, I have legal weed shops to show you, I have the party culture to show you, the promiscuous sexual climate especially among young people, drunkenness, adultery, fornication, drug use, gluttony, greed, sloth, pride. All of these things are ingrained in Western culture. And the Muslims are CORRECT in saying that this degeneracy deserves divine retribution.

The very fact that people can go through life and not rape someone shows that rationality can control emotions. We are not animals. I have very few words I can say to convince you here. I believe in fucking liberty to all people, and you will not stand in the way of that, no matter what I have to do to protect it.

You are not of my brethern. You are not of my people. I do not identify with you nor 99.9% of the people on this planet.

Where do you live? Let's assume America. America has 4.4% of the world population. If you say you only identify with 0.1% of the population, then you better start creating local borders to enforce immigration limits, right?

. Remember that guy I said who means you harm? That is his religious ideology and you are not going to convince him otherwise.

In the same vein there are fundamentalist Christians who believe people should be stoned for being gay, killed for sex before marriage, etc. That is a religious ideology. The world is not so black-and-white, and people can change, no matter the religion. Even taking this the opposite way, is there some method of getting rid of all the christians from my country to protect myself and my family? What a shame.

The same people who you said were causing violence in the middle east. You are saying I am racist for using the very example you gave.

WHITE PEOPLE CAUSE SOME VIOLENCE IN MY COUNTRY, that does not result in me fearing ALL white people, does it? It amazes me how you can't see this.

And here is the pinnacle of your hypocrisy: you believe in sovereign nationhood with territorial distinctions for the Palestinians and the Israelis, yet you want to dissolve all borders. That was a trap and you fell right into it.

Short-term solutions versus long-term solutions. Long-term, I would like people to get along and stop being dicks, short-term, borders are necessary to stop violence as a result of people being dicks. They are not in contrast with each other.

Nations are arbitrary scratchings on bits of paper.

Nation:

a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.

You can pretend that a nation, or a car is anything you want. Meanwhile, I and others know what a car is. We know how the car works, we know how to operate it; we know the car has an engine, that it has a battery, a steering wheel, can accelerate, etc, and we are going to use the car to our advantage while you libertarians are stuck thinking the car is a piece of paper with a license plate number, or that a nation is a piece of paper sitting at the United Nations office.

I’m not a libertarian, I’m a globalist.

Then you are my enemy.

K

Saying 'k' does not bolster your belief that Germany, the Netherlands or Japan are pieces of paper.

He's not saying they are literally pieces of paper, just that the borders certainly are.

If you are to say a nation is "a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.", then one could argue Europe is a nation based on ethnicity, or Western Europe at least, or the English-speaking world is a nation, Asia could be a nation based on culture and ethnicity, Africa, Middle-east, South-america.

He is saying nations are arbitrary, and can be changed, adapted, unified, etc.

He's not saying they are literally pieces of paper, just that the borders certainly are.

He is saying they are abstractions which is objectively false.

If you are to say a nation is "a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.", then one could argue Europe is a nation based on ethnicity, or Western Europe at least, or the English-speaking world is a nation, Asia could be a nation based on culture and ethnicity, Africa, Middle-east, South-america.

No, you can't. Western European Nations are not the same culturally or linguistically, nor are Asian nations, nor are Middle Eastern Nations, nor African nor South American.

He is saying nations are arbitrary, and can be changed, adapted, unified, etc.

Nations are not arbitrary. That's like saying Hindus are arbitrary, or French people are arbitrary. This group dynamic is the reason why geographical bounds, which are part of nations, form.

The attitudes of peoples within a nation can change. That does not change the nation itself i.e. the definition of a nation is static. A nation by definition has certain attributes. To change the attributes of what constitutes a nation is to change the dictionary, and at that point we are no longer talking about a nation.

A nation, by definition is, unified in the sense of comradery. The United States toady is a country, but does not meet the criteria to be a nation.

He didn't say they were abstractions.

Western European Nations are not the same culturally or linguistically,

Yes they are. Arguably England has more in common historically with France than with the Northern Irish people, yet Britain exists whilst a French-English Union does not. Your argument is simply an appeal to the status quo, or status quo bias, whichever it's called. Europe in general shares a very close history, and a lot of them speak English nowadays.

nor South American.

Most south Americans share history and language. So again, what's your argument against that specifically?

Nations are not arbitrary. That's like saying Hindus are arbitrary, or French people are arbitrary. This group dynamic is the reason why geographical bounds, which are part of nations, form.

They are arbitrary. They happen to have been born into a slightly different culture and language to other places. Those arbitrary separations can also be broken and moulded over time, just as the British Empire eventually got the Irish to speak English instead of Gaelic. These things CAN be changed, the group dynamic you talk about IS changed over time.

That does not change the nation itself i.e. the definition of a nation is static

You realise many nations in the world are very young nations? Most of Africa, for example. Many middle-eastern countries too, and western asian, and south american. Nations are in fact arbitrary, they arise spontaneously, not by some natural order but by separations being instigated by small groups of people.

To change the attributes of what constitutes a nation is to change the dictionary, and at that point we are no longer talking about a nation.

But this has happened quite a lot throughout history, so what do you say to that?

A nation, by definition is, unified in the sense of comradery. The United States toady is a country, but does not meet the criteria to be a nation.

The US is a nation... They share a history, culture, and language.

He didn't say they were abstractions.

"Scratchings" means representation, rather than implementation of an idea, and not only that, but an arbitrary scratching would be the opposite of a specific scratching, and being that abstraction and specification are antonyms, this is indeed an abstraction. The main point is that the user ignores how physical borders exist for historical, strategic, economic, and all sorts of reasons.

Europe in general shares a very close history, and a lot of them speak English nowadays.

Most south Americans share history and language. So again, what's your argument against that specifically?

All you are doing is acknowledging that they have differences which ipso facto validates my point. I never said there is anything wrong with visiting other countries yet that is what it sounds like you are implying.

They are arbitrary. They happen to have been born into a slightly different culture and language to other places.

No. There is a natural human inclination to herd with others like ourselves, and that is again why we have nations as these structures are generationally, or hereditarily assumed.

just as the British Empire eventually got the Irish to speak English instead of Gaelic. These things CAN be changed, the group dynamic you talk about IS changed over time.

That is called cultural assimilation, and does not guarantee what is called social homophily, which is what you are trying to argue. As wiki states: "Homophily is from Ancient Greek ὁμοῦ (homou, “together”) and Greek φιλία (philia, "friendship") is the tendency of individuals to associate and bond with similar others." And to the point: "Cultural assimilation does not guarantee social homophily though as this article states, geographical and other natural barriers between cultures even if started by the same dominant culture will be culturally different.[1]"

You realise many nations in the world are very young nations? Most of Africa, for example. Many middle-eastern countries too, and western asian, and south american. Nations are in fact arbitrary, they arise spontaneously, not by some natural order but by separations being instigated by small groups of people.

Nations are in fact arbitrary, they arise spontaneously, not by some natural order but by separations being instigated by small groups of people.

Saying a nation is young does not mean it is arbitrary, and neither does saying they can arise spontaneously. And when saying: "not by some natural order but by separations being instigated by small groups of people," YOU ARE ADMITTING THEY ARE NOT ARBITRARY.

But this has happened quite a lot throughout history

The definition of what a nation is has changed in the English lexicon? Citation needed.

The US is a nation... They share a history, culture, and language.

Almost one fifth of US inhabitants speak Spanish. That is not a nation; we have already been over the definition of a nation.

The main point is that the user ignores how physical borders exist for historical, strategic, economic, and all sorts of reasons.

Yes, and many of these "natural" borders have been removed. Most borders implemented today are by our own volition, ergo, abstract.

Most south Americans share history and language. So again, what's your argument against that specifically?

All you are doing is acknowledging that they have differences which ipso facto validates my point

Sorry, where did I say they had differences?

No. There is a natural human inclination to herd with others like ourselves,

Okay, so if this natural inclination grows in size, we can change and expand borders, can we not? So borders are abstract, and can be changed.

that is again why we have nations as these structures are generationally, or hereditarily assumed.

What if I don't want to inherit a nation? What if I want to be a citizen of the world? By should birthright dictate the place I MUST belong to? We are all one species, we belong together.

That is called cultural assimilation, and does not guarantee what is called social homophily, which is what you are trying to argue

I'm not trying to argue it, it's a fact. The United Kingdom is a nation, yet has countries of different histories within it.

Saying a nation is young does not mean it is arbitrary, and neither does saying they can arise spontaneously. And when saying: "not by some natural order but by separations being instigated by small groups of people," YOU ARE ADMITTING THEY ARE NOT ARBITRARY.

Arbitrary: "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.". Therefore, by saying they aere instigated by small groups of people, I am in fact admitting they are very much arbitrary.

I'd argue the personal whims of monarchs gone by, fighting for their arbitrarily created "nation" based on the personal whim of the people, with changing borders throughout history, on another whim, would count as "arbitrary".

The definition of what a nation is has changed in the English lexicon? Citation needed.

Borders and nations have changed throughout history, so a nation is not static, so you are wrong.

Almost one fifth of US inhabitants speak Spanish. That is not a nation; we have already been over the definition of a nation.

Yep and the definition of "nation" is BROAD AS FUCK, which is my point. You can STILL argue Europe shares a common history, common descent, and in many ways, a common language. You could even argue Northern English people have a DIFFERENT history to Southern English, yet they are combined as a nation. SO, the definition of nation is broad and arbitrary as fuck, and can, has, and WILL be changed throughout history.

Yes, and many of these "natural" borders have been removed. Most borders implemented today are by our own volition, ergo, abstract.

If borders were just imaginary things with no implementations, then there would be no way of knowing if someone had crossed one. If an enemy crosses my border I am going to submit them. That goes for the borders of my personal property too. If you maintain there are no such things as borders, that they are only ideas, then you are must accept for the neighborhood to use your lawn as a shooting range or a slip and slide and your house for a brothel.

Sorry, where did I say they had differences?

Keyword: "most." That is an admission as to the existence of differences. Of course, your estimation is completely biased anyways. Try telling Chinese people they are the same as Japanese people and see how that goes over.

Okay, so if this natural inclination grows in size, we can change and expand borders, can we not?

What do you mean "grows in size?" This doesn't even make sense.

So borders are abstract, and can be changed.

If you are saying borders can be changed, then you are admitting they have real implementations and that they are not abstract.

What if I don't want to inherit a nation? What if I want to be a citizen of the world? By should birthright dictate the place I MUST belong to? We are all one species, we belong together.

You just completely ignored the argument. Hereditary assumption refutes the the claim of nations being arbitrary. One cannot un-assume nationality. You will always be of your nation. If you want to disown your nationality then you are just a traitor to that nation.

I'm not trying to argue it, it's a fact. The United Kingdom is a nation, yet has countries of different histories within it.

Again you just totally ignored the argument: "Cultural assimilation does not guarantee social homophily..."

Arbitrary: "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.". Therefore, by saying they aere instigated by small groups of people, I am in fact admitting they are very much arbitrary.

No you are saying there is a reason for which nations form, which makes it not arbitrary by the definition you just provided.

I'd argue the personal whims of monarchs gone by, fighting for their arbitrarily created "nation" based on the personal whim of the people, with changing borders throughout history, on another whim, would count as "arbitrary".

Then you'd be wrong, in more than one sense.

Borders and nations have changed throughout history, so a nation is not static, so you are wrong.

Yet again, can you address anything I said in my previous comment? Or is this just some kind of game to you? I said: "To change the attributes of what constitutes a nation is to change the dictionary, and at that point we are no longer talking about a nation." You then said: "But this has happened quite a lot throughout history.." Saying that various manifestations of attributes of nations have changed, is not an answer to this. As I also said said, the attitudes of members of a nation can change, but that does not change what a nation is. I said the definition of a nation is static, not the attitudes of its members.

Yep and the definition of "nation" is BROAD AS FUCK, which is my point.

Ipse dixit. You are just repeating an assertion, and ignoring the argument again as well as the definition of a nation. The definition of a nation is specific. A common language is a requirement for a nation, which the United States does not possess which ipso facto means it is not a nation.

You can STILL argue Europe shares a common history, common descent, and in many ways, a common language.

All of Europe? No you can't. Spain is completely different from Sweeden as a basic example.

You could even argue Northern English people have a DIFFERENT history to Southern English, yet they are combined as a nation.

They are combined as a country, not a nation. The Northern English see themselves as being so different from Southern English people in fact that there were talks of Northern England joining Scotland. Northern England is an example of what is called a cultural area which is very closely related to a nation.

If you maintain there are no such things as borders, that they are only ideas, then you are must accept for the neighborhood to use your lawn as a shooting range or a slip and slide and your house for a brothel.

Borders are not "non-existent", nobody has ever said this. They are simply arbitrary. So if I remove the fence between my garden and my neighbour's, the border does not remain by some static force stopping me from removing that border.

Keyword: "most." That is an admission as to the existence of differences.

Okay, northern english people are different to southern english people, they have differing history, ideas, even language can be very different. In many ways, language is dissimilar too. So when do I get to make a border and a separate nation for the North then?

What do you mean "grows in size?"

We've gone from tribes, to cities, to city-states, to big sprawling nations. Our "borders" have grown larger over time, and you could argue that eventually they might disappear entirely, or rather than the earth as a planet, would simply be the border.

If you are saying borders can be changed, then you are admitting they have real implementations and that they are not abstract.

You realise there is no obvious border between, say, Norway and Sweden, except on a map? For something to not be abstract, it has to have a physical existence. The border between these countries does not, it is not obvious, it is simply an idea drawn onto a map.

One cannot un-assume nationality. You will always be of your nation. If you want to disown your nationality then you are just a traitor to that nation.

You realise I can revoke citizenship of pretty much any country? That would make me a citizen of nowhere. That does not make me a traitor to anyone.

I'm not trying to argue it, it's a fact. The United Kingdom is a nation, yet has countries of different histories within it.

Again you just totally ignored the argument: "Cultural assimilation does not guarantee social homophily..

You realise I'm taking your argument to the extreme here right? If cultural assimilation does not guarantee social homophily, then anywhere can make a nation based on the sheer definition of being somewhat different to other members of the nation, right? Like the example I gave above.

I'd argue the personal whims of monarchs gone by, fighting for their arbitrarily created "nation" based on the personal whim of the people, with changing borders throughout history, on another whim, would count as "arbitrary".

Then you'd be wrong, in more than one sense.

He then proceeds to give absolutely no rebuttal to my statement... Well done sir.

"To change the attributes of what constitutes a nation is to change the dictionary, and at that point we are no longer talking about a nation." You then said: "But this has happened quite a lot throughout history.." Saying that various instances of nations' borders have changed, is not an answer to this, and for that matter, borders only change as a result of wars, treaties, etc. As I also said, the attitudes of members of a nation can change, but that does not change what a nation is. I said the definition of a nation is static, not the attitudes of its members.

Wait wait wait, so this whole time your argument has been "the definition of a nation does not change"? Alright, so here's my question, HOW THE FUCK DOES THAT DISAGREE WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF REMOVING INTERNATIONAL BORDERS? Which by the way, is the fucking core idea we are arguing here. We can remove borders and simply make nations bigger, based on increasingly close relations between countries.

A common language is a requirement for a nation, which the United States does not possess which ipso facto means it is not a nation.

Your definitions are so ridiculously stringent. So let's look at it from this angle, less Canadians speak English than Americans do, and yet you would agree Canada is considered a nation, correct? But you believe America is not? So if America simply declared English as their language, they would magically become a nation? By comparison, Luxembourg has THREE official languages, yet they consider themselves a nation. Do you disagree with their right to call themselves a nation?

Spain is completely different from Sweeden as a basic example.

He then proceeds to again provide absolutely no argument here. You can make the point that western spain is completely different to eastern spain (House Aragon and House Castile were at war with each other viciously for centuries), ergo, by your definitions, they should be 2 nations, and yet they aren't, showing that nations can grow and expand, and eventually, as the centuries go by, this might happen between Spain and Sweden too. In fact in many ways, it already has, there are no solid borders between those 2 countries, and there is an overarching government linking them both (The EU).

They are combined as a country, not a nation.

They are considered a nation, both by me (I am British), by my government, and by fucking international law and recognition, yet you stand against this for some, silly reason. Why?

The Northern English see themselves as being so different from Southern English people in fact that there were talks of Northern England joining Scotland

There are a whole host of reasons why they consider themselves to be different... The talks about joining scotland are not even anywhere near the top 10...

Northern England is an example of what is called a cultural area which is very closely related to a nation.

Seems to me like you're just making up definitions for the fun of it. Nations change, people change, nations could potentially grow bigger in the future, which may result in all of Europe eventually being considered a "nation". These are facts.

Borders are not "non-existent", nobody has ever said this. They are simply arbitrary. So if I remove the fence between my garden and my neighbour's, the border does not remain by some static force stopping me from removing that border.

You already said you believed borders were abstract, so yes, you are saying they are imaginary. Now, provided you are talking about a lawless, barbary situation, and not one where property borders are a matter of law, if one wishes to have a border, then they can have a border; the enforcement of the border is what makes the border non-abstract. A fence is only one means of enforcement. If the fence were removed, the border would still exist. Suffice to say, it is clearl that borders are not arbitrary, nor abstract. Maybe a source of your confusion is what a personal whim means in the context of the word arbitrary. A whim is a spur of the moment, unusual or inexplicable desire. Myself, or a nation wanting to protect themselves, are not personal whims. In summation, you have just been ignoring definitions and arguments. You have already already admitted borders arise for a purpose. And your beliefs on erasing borders and everyone getting along with sunshine and rainbows is a wishful thinking fallacy. This conversation is over.

If the fence were removed, the border would still exist.

If it were removed, the border would be abstract, as in, by definition, it would only exist as an idea, since it does not have a physical presence.

An individual, or a nation wanting to protect themselves, are not personal whims

Yes they are. In all likelihood, I have more in common with many more Germans than I do English, therefore my desire to maintain the border diminishes, and if enough people think this way, the existence of the border becomes arbitrary, as it does not have a rational reason to be there. And in our case, the EU removes borders because of this idea.

If it were removed, the border would be abstract, as in, by definition, it would only exist as an idea, since it does not have a physical presence.

This has got to be the tenth time you have ignored an argument and definition. This is the last time I am responding to you. The border indeed exists in the real world, as an enforcement boundary: to experience the boundary, assuming it is a boundary between hostile factions, all one must do is cross it and be detected. The trespasser will be submitted. Just because you cannot necessarily see the border, does not mean it does not exist. By this logic, you must then be forced to say gravity and wind do not exist. Just as those forces can be felt, the force of a border too can be physically felt, whether that is a fence or a line of machine gunners mowing you down the instant you cross it, like at the edges of the Korean DMZ.

Yes they are. In all likelihood, I have more in common with many more Germans than I do English, therefore my desire to maintain the border diminishes, and if enough people think this way, the existence of the border becomes arbitrary, as it does not have a rational reason to be there. And in our case, the EU removes borders because of this idea.

Yes they are.

No, they are not. Protection is not an ad-hoc desire, it is a requirement for a human life.

This has got to be the tenth time you have ignored an argument and definition

abstract: existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence

The border indeed exists in the real world, as an enforcement boundary

If it is enforced. You put force an example where it IS NOT enforced physically, and therefore abstract.

to experience the boundary, assuming it is a boundary between hostile factions, all one must do is cross it and be detected. The trespasser will be submitted

But this doesn't happen in practise, in Europe for example. Ergo, before the point at which it IS enforced, it is abstract

Just as those forces can be felt, the force of a border too can be physically felt, whether that is a fence or a line of machine gunners mowing you down the instant you cross it, like at the edges of the Korean DMZ.

Yep, that's the difference between a physical border and an abstract one you dumbass. Our example was Spain and Sweden, neither of which enforce borders with each other, so therefore they have no physical force or existence.

Protection is not an ad-hoc desire, it is a requirement for a human life.

Implying an entire nation of people are something to be "protected against", which is the very principle we are disagreeing with you on. People generally desire peace. Those who don't would be better dealt with if the peaceful people were to band together.

You do not need explicit or constant enforcement for something to be non-abstract. Just because the wind is not blowing, or blowing noticeably, does not mean wind is non-existent. I appreciate the ad homenum fallacy though.

Just because the wind is not blowing, or blowing noticeably, does not mean wind is non-existent.

Air is ALWAYS moving, whether you feel it or not, ergo it is never abstract. Borders are not ALWAYS enforced physically, ergo they an be abstract.

I appreciate the ad homenum fallacy though.

Ad hominem would be where I say your argument is wrong BECAUSE you are a dumbass. I simply proved you wrong, and THEN called you a dumbass.

I said nothing about air. I said wind. Just because you can't experience wind at any given time, does not mean wind does not exist.

Wind as what exactly? Because I'm pretty sure you define it as "moving air".

You just acknowledged air is always moving. Yet we do not experience it always moving. This is the point. One may not necessarily experience border enforcement when arriving at a border, but that does not mean the borders are completely unenforced or do not exist.

One may not necessarily experience border enforcement when arriving at a border, but that does not mean the borders are completely unenforced

Yes it does, in this particular timeframe. Once they start being enforced again, they are no longer abstract, but they can be. Air on the other hand, is ALWAYS moving.

If something is abstract, then it can never have an instantiation. You just admitted borders can in fact be instantiated. There is no such thing as being conditionally abstract.

Sorry I didn't realise you universally decided upon definitions for the world. There is literally a thing called being "conditionally abstract", in fact, you just put it into words for me.

No there isn't. The object still exists and will always exist. If I am letting you through my border I am not saying the border doesn't exist. I am saying I am not enforcing it upon you.

If I am letting you through my border I am not saying the border doesn't exist. I am saying I am not enforcing it upon you.

If you enforce it upon nobody then the border may as well not exist. It exists in idea only, until it is enforced.

Just as if the wind never blows at all, it might as well not exist.

Ok, so you admit these things really do exist.

Non-enforcement or degrees of enforcement are also a modes of its existence.

Doing whatever you want without restriction is not what satanism is

Yes it is. Anton LaVey admitted that LaVeyan Satanism is the same thing as Ayn Rand's philosophy of individualism.

The problem with global capitalism as it exists today is that for the most part, it's employers that have a global market of employees they can choose from, but the employees don't really have the same option (in the sense that it is either impossible or impractical). It's cheaper for an American company to pay for an Indian man educated cheaply in India to fly to and live in the US to do IT, computer engineering, etc. than it is to hire an American educated at the cost of an American education to do the same. And you can say "just fix education in America!" Easier said than done and quite frankly that process is much harder than just moving back to globalized trade without globalized employment. And this is completely discounting the exportation of entire factories, call centers, etc. to Mexico, India, China etc that exploit and enslave. The way I see it is that global trade helps everyone, but a global market for employment only helps big business and hurts the little guy.

That's definitely one of the dangers that needs to be guarded against, as is national security. My point is that those things should be balanced against the freedom of people to come and go, which is also valuable.

You are very good at criticizing. Kinda short on offering viable alternatives, though, Negative much?

Viable alternatives to what, exactly?

A Marxist dream, duh! The only solution is to forcibly integrate low IQ subsaharan Africans into native European soil! Then our overlords can rule us peacefully in their infinite wisdom when our great-great grandchildren are all very ambiguous and have no distinguishable heritage to be proud of.

Any day now.

No distinguishable heritage is a good thing. Every cultural meme is available to all. I like Thai food, but live in America. I like Mexican polka, German beer, and out of state weed. Cultural integration and genetic recombination is the only way to save our species: from social, spiritual, and even physical disease.

What's ironic is how this subreddit is designed to do exactly what this user says. It is inherently divisive because it is not a community with knowable objective values. The subreddit does not take a stance on any issues at all which is a huge problem.

It's not divisive except to the close-minded. The best of folk here are critical and prone to questioning others ideas yes... but that's a wonderful thing if it leads to real discussion a new synthesis of ideas in the mind of a few objective thinkers. Ultra polarized people may shout at each other from across the roundtable that is r/conspiracy, but there are people here who gain new perspective or help solidify their current view somewhere in the middle when the back and forth turns extreme and reveals it ridiculousness.

So from a quiet witness who appreciates what happens here... thanks good people.

The problem is there is very little conversation to be had when it involves subjects of controversy because the dissenting opinions get buried and trolled. The fact that everything is open to debate here means there are no knowable objective values which is exactly what I said (someone in this thread actually told me that nations were pieces of paper; not a joke). Without knowable objective vales, there is no community and it is an open invitation for shills and zombies to dominate threads and the front page because they understand opportunity cost: that if they can manipulate a neutral environment to their advantage, it is beneficial to them. By definition, if you have any kind of legal structure, you must have objective vales. Even you just have a family with a wife and children, you are going to have to enact some kind of law system with objective values. There's just no way around it.

Related is how your experience is not representative of, nor does it reflect the experience of all users here, especially not my own. Someone coming here to discuss fluffy animals then is going to have an objectively difference experience than those who discuss serious subjects.

They don’t have to be gotten rid of, people just need to have the mental fortitude to not hate other people based on these arbitrary premises and realize we’re all on the same team.

we’re all on the same team.

Except that we're not.

Why are we not?

It's called by a number of names. I prefer, "The Human Condition."

The human condition has always been changing.

Different belief systems and accompanying values.

Well the elites are all butt fucking us so that's a similarity. There is power in numbers. Why can't we go against the elites and still uphold our differences?

The problem is that there is power in numbers. A lot of ideologies in the world are intolerant of opposing viewpoints. These ideologies have tons of followers and this makes the very notion of "upholding our differences" nearby impossible

So we must educate those people as best as possible. What other solutions do we have? Have a small population go against a global cabal with tons of resources?

I agree that education is a good solution. The problem is that the types of people I mentioned before are completely unwilling to change. The only option right now is to empower the general individual. Moving new generations away from groupthink and giving them the ability to think critically is a way of doing this.

I see this in the similiar category as educating the hardheaded types. If a revolution does occur and some shit goes down, we need as much people as possible. Hardheaded people are notoriously status quo lovers and will fit to keep the system alive. The more former hardheaded types on our side, the better it is.

I see people always talking about a "revolution" here and on other subs. If that did happen then the whole system would fail and probably not recover. We don't live in the days of independence and personal responsibility anymore. Look to the rise of groups like antifa and blm for proof. Trust me when I say this that if a revolution happened then we as a people would just go straight back to a tribal society. There would of course be some remaking of the current societal system but it would be an empty shell of its former self.

So what do we do? Just deal with it and hope for the best like the generations before us? This is OP's point. Yeah let's let political differences get in the way of transforming society. We have to educate them. We need those people like they need us. Divide and conquer is one of the oldest tricks in the book.

Different belief systems don’t put us on different teams. Not everyone has to be exactly the same to work together

Except they do. Militant factions of different religions, political groups and nations will always exist and will always seek to divide. I agree that not every has to be the same to work together. The problem with the current and system though is that there are too many different sub-groups that seek to be dominant. Having several large groups (that may be broken down further in a like manner) is the closest and most likely solution to the issue.

Ignorant people that try to push their views on everyone is always going to be around. It doesn’t mean the rest of us can’t do our best to educate and work together.

I agree with what you are saying as well, I was only proposing the best solution I could think of without major thought. I think that in order to keep current groups, political or not, there needs to be a free exchange of ideas. This means that people should be able to criticize other groups without backlash. (Let me mention as well that this doesn't mean condoning threats). In the current social climate (atleast here in the US and Canada) this ideal is almost unobtainable. The mainstream has it ingrained that critisizim is equivalent to demeaning or attacking. This narrative needs to disappear before any real change could be made.

A problem is that any of these subgroups that you mention think they need to be dominant. It's not a necessity. No one needs to be dominant. They can all exist in their own right. And if you can see that, in respect to whatever subgroup you find yourself in at any given time, then you can be the one to push for a positive change in that group from within.
I think encouraging that behaviour can help to ease current divisions.
It's not about domination. It's about harmony.

I can agree with what you are saying here. The issue is that when people outside of these groups try to push for change (ie. Westerners criticising the hard parts of non-western religions) they are seen as bigoted or even racist by the mainstream. There needs to be critical thinking done by people in and out of each major group about how to help rethink or reform the ideals that they are trying to push. This has to happen without public backlash as well, otherwise you will have people afraid to discus their ideas for fear of ostracism.

This is definitely true, and to a significant degree. It's not possible, or at least very very unlikely, for an outside actor to change a group for the better - with respect to the other groups that coexist at the same time - unless they are able to learn the intricacies of that group. The best positive change comes from within. You're right to say that it's critical thinking which needs to be encouraged. People can be too easily critical of others, yet often not of themselves.

Different belief systems don’t put us on different teams. Not everyone has to be exactly the same to work together

We have a million things in common for every difference we place value on.

why is it so wrong to not hate someone who is clearly dumbing down society with their silly point of views on religion or politics?

how about people just become educated this way they dont just give god all the credit for everything they do or not do in their lives.

People have different reasons for believing religions or dumb ideas, don’t hate them for it, try to educate them if you can. Religion can be really harmful and so can a lot of other things (borders, politics, etc) but not everyone involved with them are bad people.

you cant educate a mind who has already decided for itself that god is the reason for everything.

you can only give them a nice little place to play and have fun with themselves and like minded folks give them a little sanctuary like a really nice nut house.

That’s not true, there’s plenty of extremely religious people who’s minds have been opened. Education is always an option, sometimes it just takes a little while to work and the results aren’t as profound as you like.

I actually have several friends that were crazy religious who have grown to see that they were being very narrow minded. Psychedelics is a pretty good way to get people to see things past themselves and their own views

yes because they break your mind free of the shackles placed upon them. You see reality for what is really is. Random.

So it is possible to change people, is what you're admitting here?

So back to the original point, it's better to try and educate people. Instead of hating people for what they are, love them for what they could be.

all those tools are being used to give you a reason to hate.

I believe they are saying this. Not to get rid of them, but that people are letting themselves be pit against each other over these things that give you a perceived sense of superiority over someone else.

i mean i have a sense of superiority over people giving their money away to some church because some invisible man in the sky said pay up.

religion is a prison for the mind we are already it we are the gods. people just dont know it.

Ok fine, as long as you realize that there are some very intelligent people out there who derive some sense of satisfaction from believing in a higher power and devoting their life to an objective moral system greater than themselves in service of said higher power.

well there always is a higher power. This Life doesnt just happen. There has to be a creator. And if there isnt? and everything is actually just super fucking random and life just sort of happens randomly then shesh i think everything would change. Thats quite the bomb to throw on peoples heads that nothing happens on purpose, everything is random life doesn't have a meaning and everything dies.

Thats quite the bomb to throw on peoples heads that nothing happens on purpose, everything is random life doesn't have a meaning and everything dies.

Even if that were true, meaning is something that is wholly subjective. Saying something "doesn't have a meaning" is itself a subjective assertion based on personal interpretations of reality. A Godless universe can still have meaning, because meaning is something that ultimately depends on the mind of the person who is assessing said meaning.

Ok and what meaning could you possibly give it?

You could just enjoy the time and thats it. Live life to the fullest enjoy yourself while at the same time having some type of code of ethics. In the end everyone just wants to be happy and not have to deal with negativity.

Live life to the fullest enjoy yourself while at the same time having some type of code of ethics.

People can do that without religion. Do you really go by the bible's every code of ethics? Even the rules about clothes woven of 2 fibers? Even the one about the logistics of owning slaves?

Plenty of ethical conundrums are solved without a bible, it just means other people came up with better ethical ideas than are present in the bible, ergo, the bible is not the be-all and end-all of ethics, just as the law is not the be-all and end-all of ethics.

Do you really think no one has meaning in their life without a god? Family, friends, loved-ones, natural beauty, animals. You can find meaning in anything, a God is not necessary for that.

How do you think atheists live their lives every day believing that there is no higher power or purpose? They do it regardless, they don't just end up killing themselves. If "everything would change" by not being religious,. then we are already seeing that change, people are becoming less religious over time.

We can still come together and not get rid of borders, religion, etc. I don't understand why people can't understand that. It's black/white thinking.

It's a nice sentiment but in practice getting disparate interests to work together to achieve a common goal is easier said than done. That is, assuming that disparate interests even share common goals in the first place. Different groups of people want different things. Which is why we have borders and religion in the first place.

It's hard as hell, but what else can we do? We can educate people and hopefully they come over to our side. No sane and educated person wants to be manipulated by the elites.

Hell, I bet people who belong to your race/ethnicity/country need some education too. Isn't that one of the man points here that has been heavily emphasized throughout the years. If we educate the masses, they won't be sheep.

there's very few 'borders' online ...

Go hang out on Voat for a while.

why?

The cultural and systemic differences are definitive a border.

"definitive" how?

It's not like you can't order things from say China ... so where's this "definite border"?

The reason we even buy things from China is because their borders allow them to produce certain products at an absolute advantage, making them cheaper than we could be producing ourselves. We relegate our resources to more profitable investments, which in turn somebody buys cheaper than we could produce ourselves. This is among many benefits of declaring your state independent than another.

so how does the Chinese )or any other) borders affect you in any way then?

I'm not sure what your point is. I'm quite content the world is organized in separate states. But I do agree with OP, and at least on a microcosmic level unity is what we need. I don't speak for anyone but myself, but I am absolutely sick and tired of divisiveness in the real world and on reddit. I'd like my friends back, my countrymen back, and a little bit of peace in the world. Is that too much to ask?

but I am absolutely sick and tired of divisiveness in the real world and on reddit.

Yet nonetheless you "* I guarantee* me ... wtf? Who are you to make such assumptions?

No wonder there's such 'divisiveness' here when people like you insist you know better than ... everyone else!

this place is full of opinionated fools, not unlike FB

You speak of a top down erasure of borders, what about bottom up? What about religion being used to quell the masses and keep them comfortable and sheltered?

You speak of a top down erasure of borders, what about bottom up? What about religion being used to quell the masses and keep them comfortable and sheltered?

I don't know why don't you tell me?

Just trying to offer a fresh perspective, although, I don't have all the answers.

Karl Marx said "religion is the opium of the masses"

Can we please start using the term "socialism" again?

The theory is exactly what you described. It should be bottom up, like the theory, not top-down, like the Soviets.

Just curious, why do you think geographically localized cultures would disappear just because we did away with borders (and more importantly the accompanying nation states)?

I'm just asking because most countries have multiple geographicaly localizes cultures within their borders.

We have to find a way to stop playing the Primate Dominance Game™ or we're going to exterminate ourselves.

Humans are social animals. We're driven to form social hierarchies. This is not a conscious process; bonobos in the wild aren't sitting down with a whiteboard and numbering everybody. Like all beautiful natural structures, it is the aggregate of many smaller, simpler interactions. They look a little bit like this.

1. Encounter another primate who is not obviously foreign and not obviously superior to you.

2. Disrespect them in some way. A noise, a shove, bared teeth, stolen food, call his momma fat, whatever.

3. If they take it like a bitch and experience shame, congratulations; you outrank them. They may then go attack an even lower primate to make themselves feel better.

4. If they resist or respond in kind, generally a fight will ensue that ends either when one of you runs away, dies, or the fight is broken up by a bigger, stronger primate.

If you think humans have evolved beyond this behavior simply because we've mostly outlawed violence, then you don't remember high school. Not only do we still do things the old fashioned way, but we've invented a whole panoply of innovative ways to dominate each other. Things like taste in music or art or which sports you watch or teams you follow, fitness and drug use (or lack thereof), moral superiority, the law, all these ways for people to assert that they're better than each other.

Have you ever heard somebody say, "you think you're better than me?" Did you in turn wonder, "in what sense," and they didn't really have a clear answer? They're talking about this. They're asking do you think you're a superior primate to me. Are you of higher station, do you deserve more from the world than I do.

This is the impulse the rich exploit to "keep us fighting with each other so that they can keep going to the bank." Convince a group they deserve more than another adjacent group and they will fight to claim it.

What do we do about it? We have to learn more about the Primate Dominance Game™ on a societal level so we can train ourselves to stop playing it. You don't need to be at the top of a social ladder to be a happy and functional human being. You don't need to be 'better than' somebody. You can just be. But you can't force this view on anyone. They have to arrive at it themselves.

The thesis feels pretty solid, but I need more examples and a couple interviews with academics before I can fill a book.

You are right. I've experienced it. Most have experienced it (Primate dominance game)

Thank you. OP is an NWO shill, of which this sub has been absolutely flooded of late.

I'm glad someone in here has a grasp on this.

To give an opposing perspective, none of the connections you made have to be negative. If anything removing borders brings us together collectively, makes us stronger, makes us undivided. Our identity does not disappear, it simply grows bigger. Think about Europe, many small European countries like to call themselves "European" instead of their own nationality, because if makes them feel powerful, unified with a larger force.

As for property, he wasn't advocating handing it over to a government, just sharing it with the people, friends, family, even nice strangers.

I agree with the sentiment, but I have a big problem with the elites forcing 3rd worlders into western nations

I agree with the sentiment

I don't think you do...

If you truly feel superior over another being, then give that superiority a good use and help the other being achieve a similar state. For every service you do for another being is also a service for yourself, but in a positive way.

Why import people from an ocean away who can't even read or write? I'm all for helping them but bringing in people who are completely incompatible with your culture is foolish, help them in their own land if they ask for it

Why is there so much drama all the fucking time. It feels like a god damn tv program. It’s like the whole world is fabricated in the big picture and all we got left is our own innovation

When you control the drama or choose which drama you report on you can control the narrative and the feels. Politics anymore strongly resemble reality TV anymore and I don't think it's an accident. They keep us bickering and arguing over relatively meaningless things while they carry on in the background unnoticed because the drama keeps people unknowingly distracted.

Right you are.

Hey, shut up, didn't you hear Trump tweeted something stupid again?

Yes God help us if we pay attention to the dumb shit our elected leader does.

We elected a reality TV star as president

And he is one hell of a distraction himself. He's such a distraction that it has people convinced that anything reported on that isn't about his latest shenanigans is a distraction.

Just like in 1984 when the wars on each side was fabricated to control the populace...you don't think they'd do that here....?

And for good reason. When you evoke strong emotions into someone like fear or anger they will be a lot less critical of what you are saying. This has been proven.

Innovate, my friend. Help free us.

Borders are just outdated and neither democracy nor socialism can ever truly work unless we treat the world as on big ecosystem.

Big picture stuff only. It all starts at birth. Once you are born you are assigned a social security # which allows money to be created form your birth and put into circulation.

The thing to me is, based on what I've learned. It all stems from the banks (using Bayesian Inference). The ones who got this new financial system going and are trying to entangle the planet into it. The more countries that are entangled into it, the more money that can be created, the more wealth can be distributed.. but more importantly for them, if a country under their control gets overthrown by the civilian population, other countries in their grasp can step in and allow corrupt people back into positions of power. Getting rid of slavery sounds like a nice idea, but is it really gone? The system that was in place was unwrapped and repackaged into a more beneficial system that allowed them to control more people, which also lets them create more money, and allow people to believe that they are free. When in reality, we are all slaves to the system now.
Think you are free? Do me a favor, quit your job, and do whatever you want, whenever you want. Once you run out of money, you will have to continue working again, to benefit the system.. which benefits the people who created the system.

We might not have kings or queens and the illusion of democracy is here. But if Republicans and Democrats are the only parties whom can win the highest positions, nothing will change. Could it be because they are complicit in keeping the system that makes them rich in place?
Imagine us younger folks who want change, to come and say nope to all the corrupt old people currently in charge of our society. Change would happen, but how much? How much change would have to happen? and it would inevitably weaken the strength of the U.S. because we would be separating ourselves from the corrupt system that the national bankers have put most of the planet into (and using the U.S. as a military arm).
Now think about a hypothetical: We (the citizens) enact (somehow) a law that says once you reach X age you aren't allowed to stay in politics. So now we have a lot of fresh, non-corrupt people into politics, how exactly do we keep the country as a superpower and avoid the grasp of the tentacles that are reaching out throughout the world?
Do we remake the system to benefit everyone somehow?
I don't have the answers, but I think that the internet is one of the big tools that could help end (intentional, for profit) global catastrophe and prevent wars. That's why they need control over it, to retain the status quo. We know capitalism, and democracy don't work. Just watch the wealth gap keep growing, and the homeless keep growing. Debt is literally built into the system. A time will come if something doesn't change, the rich, and the poor will be the only two classes.
Still think you have freedom?

The elite who control our system are (playing the long game). All of the parties that exist to give us the illusion of freedom through voting, exist for that reason.
Any real change to the status quo won't happen (yet) regardless of the democrats or republicans who are in office.
Right now, it doesn't matter who wins the presidency as it's just a temporary title, and as long as they are within one of the two parties okayed by the elite (Republicans or Democrats; to maintain the status quo), it doesn't matter.
They will maintain the status quo, and that's why they are the main two parties and any natural, organic growth or movements created are demonized or ignored.
Imagine being rich in our current society and having a say in politics to ensure you stay rich, would you want to keep the republicans and democrats in office to ensure that the system that made you rich stays in place? Or, would you be fine with drastic change to the system which could mean abolishing the fed and making your money worthless in a new system?
However, as a tool, America has successfully been used to spread the current banking system around the planet. Which protects the system in a way, because if it fails here, the wealthy would just migrate to another country under the same umbrella of the world bank.
We are but cogs in a machine that is bigger than even our own status as a country. Our country is a military arm of a bigger beast.
When and how the system should change for the betterment of us all, I don't know personally, but a politician might tell you they have the correct answers, which would benefit them personally no doubt.

You get it, my friend.

When in reality, we are all slaves to the system now. Think you are free? Do me a favor, quit your job, and do whatever you want, whenever you want. Once you run out of money, you will have to continue working again, to benefit the system.. which benefits the people who created the system.

This is only half true.

Yes, if you just do whatever you want whenever you want with zero regard for long term survivability, then yeah, you will end up in a destitute situation.

That doesn't make us slaves to the system though for two reasons.

1) You can conceivably choose to live outside the system (hunter-gatherer/nomad lifestyle; off-the-grid housing and commune lifestyles)

2) Regardless of whether you live in our outside the system, you're not a slave to the system, but a slave to scarcity. Resources are scarce and labor isn't free. Food, water, shelter, clothing, healthcare all require laborers and resources.

At this point, our collective and individual survival requires hard work. Until we solve the problem of scarcity, you will never be totally free from obligation (if you demand long-term survivability).

Actually, almost any form of off grid living is illegal or behind huge paywalls in the form of permitting fees more expensive than buying a house and property in a city, in much of the USA. First of all, you have no chance of making a case for it on national park land or whatever anymore, you need your own huge chunk of property, so you already have to be part of the landed-class. Then the expensive permitting for everything, which can be denied without explanation. In all of Oregon, there are 24 properties with approved composting toilets, most of which are owned by very wealthy people that have excess time and money to get through the system. Anyone else trying to live off grid, even on their own property? Nope, get back in the rat-race!

Good points. Never really looked into living off the grid; it's generally the norm that things are more complicated in practice than in theory, and I should've figured off-the-grid housing is no exception.

I haven't looked into this for a while, time for me to refresh on this topic, thanks!

I like where your head is at, it all is true. But, nowadays we have plenty of technology that could free us from most of what back then would have been pretty time and labor intensive. We already know how to cultivate land, and use that to our advantage to farm. We know how to breed animals, and use that to our advantage for obtaining meats. Now add technology and modern day stuff into the equation.
Need food for eating?
Why don't we use a skyscraper and have different plants growing on each floor in it's own self-sustained system, monitored and controlled by computers through algorithms (of course with humans to keep it all under control)?
I understand labor technically will never vanish entirely, however, new technologies and programs could be used to benefit everyone, and minimalize the need for work. Heck, robots are already replacing a lot of peoples jobs right now as I write this.

All I was trying to get at in my above post, is that the system that we are all currently under to rely on for survival is inherently flawed for the elites against the masses. At the end of the day we are working for them, so they don't have to.

1) You can conceivably choose to live outside the system (hunter-gatherer/nomad lifestyle; off-the-grid housing and commune lifestyles)

Unfortunately, the system can't change if we decide to just leave it individually like this bullet point suggests. This system is already in place, and effects everyone globally whether you live in the system or outside of it. If you are outside the system or off the grid, you might seem to have some peace, because you are free from the restraints of bills and other stresses that life presents you from within it. However, humans are pack animals, and living outside of the system is not beneficial to the survival of humanity in the long run. Ever see cast-away? You need interaction to stay sane, well to be more specific your brain does. Yes you could feasibly go and buy your own island (brining along other people) and create your own version of the reality you would like, but you would be living alongside a gigantic beast that has no problems taking lives of it's own citizens. So at what point does living outside of the system 'save' you from it? As time passes, you will be forced to deal with it regardless. Or you stay in society, and help change happen for the betterment of all humans.

A new system, based on protecting humanity as a whole where everyone has a right to survive no matter where they are from could start a change, I mean we are all earthlings right?
Like I said in the original post, I do not know where humanity should head from here, but I think we've fallen so far we've pretty much hit rock bottom, and are dressing it up as paradise.
Think about the struggles you are going through within life, now imagine the wealth gap widening and wars spreading to maintain this system. Are all future children born from this point on just mere cattle to maintain this broken system (more cogs to replace us all, once we pass)?
We are all earthlings, and I wish no one pain no matter where you are born, or because of the color of your skin. It's just everyone no matter where you are born is subjected to propaganda from a very young age, and you are literally taught how to think about certain things you are presented with (race, gender, religion, etc..).

It could be better is all i'm saying. Sorry I went off on a rant there lol.

Why don't we use a skyscraper and have different plants growing on each floor in it's own self-sustained system, monitored and controlled by computers through algorithms (of course with humans to keep it all under control)?

I understand labor technically will never vanish entirely, however, new technologies and programs could be used to benefit everyone, and minimalize the need for work

This right here seems to be part of the solution. Self-sustaining systems that require minimal to zero human labor and produce the basic needs for survival. Once society figures that out on a global scale, that’s the beginning of the end of the power of money and the system as we know it. Don’t know if there’s a path to that, but in theory that seems like where we need to be headed.

Imagine a world where we are ALL taught from birth that The Best Thing a human can Do is to help another human who needs it and wants it ...

and that 'asking for help' is seen as a good thing to do as it gives others a chance to do so.

So kids would be keen to help each other however they could. Wow I could see great things come from such a belief system ... which is basically "do unto others" as we all would like to be helped achieving our dreams (of helping others! etc etc lol)

BUT "greed breeds mean deeds" so we all must be 'fair' in our 'needs'

It won't be long before robotic technology will be able to provide us with ALL the food, shelter and clothing we need -- but IF we don't change the way we interact with others nothing will change or improve.

After all, "do what you did and you'll get what you got, if nothing changes, nothing changes"

Great thoughts OP, thanks for bringing it up. When 'enough' people join together with these ideas, they will happen, and amazingly it only takes the 'square root' of the/a population to effect major changes .... and the square root of 7billion is only a few hundred thousand!

In fact I can see that changes beginning to happen as more people "wake up to" the Lies and Deception that's been foisted upon them by TPTB for far too long now. I truly believe DT is doing some amazing stuff "behind the scenes" BUT nonetheless the effects of these changes will be profound. Shit, what's just happened in KSA in mind blowing ... and the way the Chinese treated him shows he's definitely got a great deal of respect and support from them, and as for Russia, well that's a given with his hotels and Ukraine wife.

I had No idea what to think when he kept banging on about "draining the (DC) swamp" which is a formidable task taking on formidable enemies (the cabal) but imho he's got some solid advisors and he's a smart guy, regardless of what the haters say, you don't get to where he is by being a naive fool!

But fuck me! From what I can see he's doing exactly as he's promised. We won't see much of it reported on the MSM BUT we KNOW there are nearly 9,000 'sealed warrants' which suggests a LOT of people are going down Big Time ... and combine the new EO's he's made regarding human trafficking and pedophilia and I get the feeling we're finally going to see a turnabout in the way these things are handles once the major players have been taken out, already I'd say about 50 prominent people are no longer so!

And the Hollywood "sex scandals" is to 'prime' the masses into believing the stories that will be coming out about the crazy Luciferian shit that goes down amongst the elite and their 'friends'! Which no "joe average' would believe Unless they've been 'led up to it' slowly

just my 3c

I agree with most of what you have said. But I'm skeptical about Trump being a good guy (although I'd much prefer Trump to Hillary) and "draining the swamp" (personnally I think he used this to try to win the presidency). He is a part of the system we are trying to change for the better, after all. Only time will tell really, if he is just another president who keeps the status quo, or actually changes it. Let's say he does change it, how exactly does he do it to where it benefits most people? By creating more jobs? Well that's not helping much because that means more people stay in the current system, instead of embracing technological advancement and changing the system to go along with it. Do we really need everyone working 40 hours a week? Well in this system we are currently in, yes, you work, or your life falls apart. How can we change that? I don't know where to go from here, and the current people (whom actually matter) in government, no matter what side only have $$ on their minds.

IMO what's he's trying to do is a very difficult thing, he's taken on TPTB except I think he was asked to run by a group of Patriots, of which DT is a huge one! I think some people very high up realized that he was one of the few people who had zero connections to the Big Oil money which has financed the last several POTUSs

And being in the 'hotel and high end gold course/resort' business at 70yo no doubt he's made numerous connections of all type BUT they're rarely the Big Oil dudes .. he only knows the Saudi's through his hotels and business investments which is how he got to know so many unique and very wealthy people who I think had a vested interest in seeing Hitlary fail ... and they're the worldwide nemesis of the Cabal, the cunts who have fucked things up for the past 3 decades. It's very much in their interests to get rid of such people

I'm an optimist and I believe there are more 'good' people in the world than 'bad' .. by a great amount, BUT It's taken them a long time to "catch up to" the cunts/cabal/banksters who have been playing the long game for a few centuries, BUT Now, things have changed and there are some incredibly wealthy asians who love DT. The FACT he dined at the Forbidden City speaks volumes about his 'status' over there, shit his grandkid sang a song a Chinese to them!

He's got Powerful allies across the globe and IMO it was a group of high level military who are sick and tired of being 'security' for a bunch of rich cunts business interests and got together and approached DT and told him IF he got the job, they had his back like nobody can and they'd take Great Care of him if he won

He did and 'they have' becoz you can bet the house the kids and the car the D's have done everything they can think of to discredit DT and (surprisingly) he's a step or two ahead of them and NONE of their Bullshit has stuck! Me thinks becoz the NSA are part of who's behind him and they're feeding him A1 info on the actiivities of these 'enemies', who you might notice are 'falling' one by one .. and there's 9000 sealed indictments to go!

No wonder DT appointed a bunch of supreme court judges so quickly, he needed to be sure they'd support his moves which so far they are. The guys playing some really smooth moves BUT I doubt we'll hear about much of it until well after the events

e.g I believe he will give many of the 'bad actors' the opportunity to 'bow out gracefully' and 'retire' Or face the repercussions of his inteligence on them!. iirc so far over 50 senators have either left or will not be continuing after this term. You can bet there's a lot more to follow

I honestly think we're seeing something Truly unprecedented, where this guy who wants for nothing, shit he's already got more fame and adoration from his tv shows than any of the last POTUSs have ever had! He's a popular guy who people have watched for 10+ years and they feel they know his style, he's rough and ready in a classy way, he's a fuckin billionaire and ALL americans idolize the super rich, as they've been taught to

BUT from what I've read, he's appalled by the behavior of the US govt and genuinely wants to change it BUT that's not going to happen overnight. By getting the Saudi King to arrest all those people and seize their funds he's been able to completely cut off mangy people's funds i.e the CF et al. Hillary's got no money coz she owes SO much from promises she made "when she became POTUS" BUT she didn't, and that's fucked her Big time.

Forget "job creation", that's a stupid catchphrase dumb politicians use as a 'blanket accusation/claim' BUT it's crap. Have you heard DT talking about "creating jobs?" No. Why not? Cos he's not into lying. e.g his recent comments about US "aid" to other countries (which just get's spent back to the US for weapons, a SCAM that uses taxpeyers money to buy US wepons for other countries making the US MIC LOTS of Money - DT knows this! BUt it's NOT "his game") He's Made his money without resorting to shit like this. Sure he's no choirboy BUT he's magnitudes 'kinder and more real' than ANY of the last 5-6 presidents were!

He's lasted over a year and he's still going strong. If he doesn't get assainated and I doubt he will, I'm confident he really will do his best with his team to MAGA to the best of their abilities

But first they must neutralize the financiers, Saudi's have been done and now it's the Rothschilds and Soros who must be 'dealt with' .. and they will be for sure. Even the secretive Lynne de Rothschild in a last attempt to discredit DT has taken to Twiiter to denounce Trump! lol

TPTB are running scare my internet friend. And I'm an Aussie who has no dog in this fight, I'm just an objective observer who was most doubtful at first when he got elected BUT NOW I've had a change of heart and wish him all the very best with his mission

and you too internet friend, I hope you liked my rave and I hope it gives you food for thought

Happy New Year!

DT's even mentioned pardoning Assange!

Thanks for taking the time to write that out. I too have hope, but that is all it is. I am trying not to let my hope blind me to what has already happened in the past. Only time will tell.
Remember that the people who run things are masters at creating the stage (politics and the separation of everyone), and the play that the audience (citizens all over the world) see's. I just hope your faith that what is happening, isn't blinding you to the bigger picture. For example, I hope MAGA does happen, but I also hope it doesn't just stop there and actually continues and incorporates the planet into it somehow in the process. Baby steps i guess, as the current system has been put in place over a long period of time, and will take a while to chip away it it's armor that protects it, and exposes it's weakness to everyone.

Happy new year to you as well. And thanks again.

I'm impressed you read it ... it was a stream of thought I wrote it as I think it.

And it's not the easiest topic to condense but I surprised myself with how well I did! Not to mention I wrote that around 4am after a very long day!

Anyway I'm glad you found it a worthwhile read and I sincerely hope my 'guesses' are not too far from reality ... wouldn't that be cool!?

But as you know, this is a HUGE 'problem' that involves many thousands of people. and it's not going to 'change' overnight BUT considering the changes we've already seen the D make ... who knows how this is all going to pan out?

Thanks for the thanks, it's always nice to know someone appreciates my mental meanderings ;D

Until those things necessary for survival no longer require human effort to obtain, you will never be totally free from obligation (if you demand long-term survivability).

Someone should put together a roadmap, least steps as possible to obtain all those things for as low a cost as possible (food, water, shelter, clothing, i'm going to take out healthcare)

Actually, I'm pretty sure such guides exist. I should take a stab at that.

I truly believe AI is the answer to corruption in politics. AI will determine where to build infrastructure, how's it doen, and to what specs, and it will analyze raw data to do that.

There will be one that identifies corruption, nothing is going to get lost like it does with humans.

Add in the simplicity of programming parameters, and the minimal cost... it's a tool for the masses to truly control and use the data we've acquired up to now.

We have 100X as many guns as them as a population. Why do you think they want gun control?

There is without doubt an element of "The man who would be king" style Governing our elites control us with, but John Lennon's rather naive (or deliberately misleading) worldview of no property, religion or borders would be a dystopic nightmare.

I try my hardest to remain politically neutral, but honestly I can't understand the leftist trope of no borders as it is precisely this line of thinking an elite international cliche want to push in order to make their globalist ambitions work.

Whilst I agree nationalism is pretty petty, respecting regional differences, preserving cultural and folk customs and preventing multiculturalism through 'no-borders', (all the while tolerating and respecting other groups) is a better course of action than inadvertently supporting the top 0.1% of the world and their attempts to breed a global monoculture that has no roots and no cares beyond meaningless materialism.

I've always felt that if you have nothing to kill or die for, you have nothing to live for either.

I've always felt that if you have nothing to kill or die for, you have nothing to live for either.

Seriously? That's sad. Live for love, dude.

You can't have one without the other.

If you werent prepared to kill or die to protect your kid there would be something wrong with you.

Live for love

What a load of honey flavored horseshit. You don't know what love. To love like a mother or father loves their child is to know on an instinctual level the willingness to kill or die for that which you hold the most dear.

That is love.

[For what it's worth, I remember how LSD made me feel about the world once too. Don't think you've stumbled upon some grand revelation. In 2018, you're only blowing smoke up your own ass.]

Must be more #fakenews inbound today! Sad!

This guy gets it.

I agree in principle, but in practice it's hard not to form factions or to feel like your factions are being attacked. We live in a world that only naturally supports between half a billion and a billion people, yet there are 7 billion of us. That means that the vast majority of us rely on others for our survival and for distribution of resources.

It's very easy to see a disruption of those resources as a threat to ourselves.

This should also be in something like /r/LifeProTips or a life reddit like that

+1

This right here, I see these tactics used in the USA, UK, Europe, North Africa and Middle East. Now South Africa is doing it. They start with the lowering of education standards to make the masses more manageable. Then they manipulate them and the minority using the media to keep them angry and fearful. Its far deeper than a single comment could ever describe and the solution to it all is potentially unsolvable.

just kill them all, start new. not even god tries to fix people he just hits the restart button

And how can you be sure you're killing the right ones?

It's much more complicated than that yo...

You dont need to be sure. people die everyday B

Except random deaths don't forward anyone's plan except maybe those that profit off of human fear.

Just kill off the ones responsible for the way the world is. Set up a monarchy the way it was meant to be and then make a new set of laws punishable by death until people get in line then we can make it less drastic once people learn how to act right

Just kill off the ones responsible for the way the world is.

Ok, do you have a list?

Look I understand the thrust of your idealism, I used to think very similar myself.

The real problem is that the true troublemakers rarely make any public appearance, most people don't know their names, and they are insanely insulated by vast wealth and resources.

Now while you may just happily start popping off world leaders that don't act according to your ethical code, you're not really addressing the root of it, the people who goad those world leaders into fomenting chaos and fear.

yeah and when you knock off the heads of the dragon the others will eventually appear. They cant rule from the shadows without puppets

As long as there are ruthless people willing to take money to do their bidding, they will never run out of heads.

Not if you only have 1 person in charge. Everyone so afraid of a one world government but its the best way to rule and have total control.

Or if u really wanted to but probably very dangerous. Just go to where they live. Go inside the hole in the North pole or in Antarctica. Go through the tunnels. See the real beings in charge and blow their heads off.

Ok, now you're just trolling...

Wow you are so edgy. Op trying to tell people to cooperate and help lift each other up, And you are here just saying fuck it, kill them all.

Yes, because op isnt jesus. And if u have seen from the way the world is, jesus failed. The world sucks he died for nothing. humans are disgusting creatures that only know one thing and thats selfishness.

yes many are good people but many are bad as well.

alot easier to just say fuck it, purge the world and make sure it doesnt happen again

TIL - only jesus is allowed to be a good guy.

Eh thats just cuz where christians live they are more likely to fall for the evils their governments put into their minds. Europe - america stuff like that.

Start with yourself then?

The irony in his comments is literally painful to read.

Irony? not really. Just someone who has a brain and realizes the world wont change. Start new. out with the old in with the new. In 80 years no one would remember

I think he/she was saying that its ironic that they are telling you to kill yourself for saying we should kill people.

Personally I think we should have a clean slate, all those who identify as politicians and all royal families, dictatorships, all those in government and power need to wiped clean and we start again.

No someone has to be the ruler. I wish putin would just hurry up and be the new world leader. Like they said he would.

Jesus was born to two parents that didn't want to get stoned for having sex outside marriage.

That's it

Humans are animals. We aren't some special creature. We just managed to evolve the most.

If you think it's bad now you should have tried living anywhere pre 1900 things were a lot tougher then and your edginess would get you ran trough

My edginess would of gotten me the head of anything in power.

I would have absolute power. Call it a dictator idc its what works.

I respect your trolling sir, you play the retarded Christian better than most. Bravo sir

Yeah you're right. God is a piece of shit.

no sir, god actually spoke to me and told me there is a war coming. God isnt all what people crack him up to be. he is really just the guy in charge of this planet. Now the source or creator of all this now that guy gal or being or entity is beyond my comprehension. i just know that its in everything and everywhere.

You got proof of this?

How can I, it was a experience of the mind. Not something you can just take pictures of. The virgin said when the time comes. Everyone will experience a vision of all the bad shit they did and what it caused and that will be ur final warning of the grace of the beings willing to help humanity out of our own mess.

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.

But even if you were telling the truth, it just goes to show what a piece of shit God is. You'd think that he'd want everyone to be saved and left some proof. Instead he's a love hungry man baby who wants everyone to just love him without any reason to do so. Children get cancer, become orphans, die and woman are raped everyday, ISIS beheads more and more people and the world is being contaminated by money hungry corporations who could give a shit about the environment and he decides to whisper a "secret" message to you without any proof.

What a gigantic piece of shit God is. I doubt he exists but if he's real, tell him to come see me so I could stick my middle finger up his pussy bitch ass.

Hey it isnt the most liked way of doing things but its the most effective

Effective at spreading misery?

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof

A lot of mathematics works that way, see the millennium problems.

By your remarks, you must be a theologian. Tell me, what books have you read?

Tell me, what books have you read?

Is this like a dick measuring contest?

Oh no I'm sure you would win that too

No way man I have a micropenis.

Media is controlled by what people want to read, not what they have to read.

Bullshit, the owners of the media companies are very much connected and contributors to political parties and government.

These perspectives are not mutually exclusive though, keep that in mind. Not everything that's wrong in this world is caused by conscious effort; nor is everything caused by 'human nature' or the systems that it manifests, either.

I can only give my opinion on my experiences of this logan person, from the handlebars thing to this.

They really are, i think a handful or companies on all the networks

6 to be precise.

This whole thread is cancer.

"hurr durr the media is the good guy"

"hurr durr if you see a poor person, give them all your shit and your house"

Username checks out, that advice will definitely not get me laid.

You're not wrong but it's not that black and white.

Traditional media companies need 1) an active audience that consumes content, 2) advertisers, 3) access to the state, and 4) some sort of credibility.

All of these factors drive content.

You don't need any credibility to write nonsense. You can straight up say you're a fake news website, link to it from Facebook and people won't bat an eye just assuming it's real. I know because I follow a lot of Facebook groups that intentionally spread fake news in order to make money on website clicks and laugh at the shit people say in the comments (older people eat that shit up).

Shill or sheep?????

You really think a heavy investigation into why John McCain's boot switched feet after an alleged Achilles tear wouldn't get clicks?

How about a deep dive into the Awan Brothers?

Or all the ongoing Hollywood predators who HAVEN'T gotten much attention?

The news is massaged and managed.

True. People would LOVE to know the real stuff going on. It is sooo juicy. I have basically stopped watching TV and Movies just because this reality really is crazier than fiction.

I think it would be bad because we lack the infrastructure to handle it. Somebody would eventually seize the opportunity to rise to power and elect themselves and this melting pot of heavy-breathing knuckle-draggers and out-of-touch manipulated soccer moms would tear itself apart

Now South Africa is doing it. They start with the lowering of education standards to make the masses more manageable.

It's also that White South Africans have higher IQ's and black South Africans have lower IQs.

I wish people like you were my real life friends. It can get lonely seeing the world we do, but fortunately I’ve grown to enjoy my solitude profoundly. When I first started questioning my own identity and realized it wasn’t just flimsy but was actually an illusion (the ‘me’ is just a memory that consciousness mistakenly identifies as because that seems to be the ‘fallen’ psychological process each human endured before awakening to their true nature, aka heaven), I thought I was losing my mind. My family was concerned with the thoughts I was having and sharing with them with such energetic gusto. They told me I needed to see a psychiatrist and that my newfound peace didn’t make sense. Something just had to be wrong with me! Why was I saying that everything in existence is existence, thus all beings are the same being’ness? Why would I say such a thing? Madness! Haha...

Realizing the internal human conspiracy (that our entire reality is the manifestation of the pursuit of illusion by illusion, thus this is a world that literally feels fake and far from wholesome, compassionate, loving, and honest) is that drove me to question the world. If I didn’t exist as something separate from conscioussness, and it took me discovering that on my own, and what I discovered was the peace and inner fulfillment we all spend lifetimes chasing, I just knew something was up. Someone had to be in control of our society’s storyline. Someone had to be controlling our education system, because our science should have tapped into the studying and advancement of consciousness by now, and it should be public knowledge. Someone had to be aware of how our species is being so deeply and hopelessly programmed by these tech devices, marked with the Forbidden Fruit (apple logo), before we were handed these things.

It’s a fallen world. Nice to meet another wholesome reddit user!

I love you. You get it. Others don't, because propaganda works. The people in control have spent a lot of time and resources dividing us, knowing it solidifies their power. Here's an excerpt from wiki on one of their gurus, Edward Bernays.

"Edward Bernays, a nephew of Sigmund Freud, is also sometimes referred to as the father of PR and the profession's first theorist for his work in the 1920s.[56] He took the approach that audiences had to be carefully understood and persuaded to see things from the client's perspective.[50][57] He wrote the first textbook on PR and taught the first college course at New York University in 1923.[11] Bernays also first introduced the practice of using front groups in order to protect tobacco interests.[50][57] In the 1930s he started the first vocational course in PR.[58] Bernays was influenced by Freud's theories about the subconscious.[51] He authored several books, including Crystallizing Public Opinion (1923), Propaganda (1928), and The Engineering of Consent (1947).[11][59] He saw PR as an "applied social science" that uses insights from psychology, sociology, and other disciplines to scientifically manage and manipulate the thinking and behavior of an irrational and "herdlike" public.[56][60] "

It is why they bought up all the media. This is explained well in this doc by Loose Change producer Dylan Avery.

Yep. The day that the white pride folks & the BLM folks (& all variations on this theme) realize that they are both becoming equally poor & powerless, is the day a real revolution could begin.

Black folks been figured this out

Workers of the world, stand united against our masters! Seize the means of production and free ourselves from wage slavery

Amen!!!!!

Restating the tenets of western (neo-) liberalism is not an analysis, it's just a summary of the problem.

How cute

Sounds like socialism to me. Id rather be dead, and soon will be.

We are not all the same. Quit it with this bullshit.

For real. Some people want the world to be that simple

(https://i.imgur.com/4rX6Pzr.jpg)[(－‸ლ)]

sorry, I couldnt resist. I whole-heartedly agree with this post. Just had to take advantage of the opportunity.

If there are aliens, are we the same essence as they are?

Are our bodies our own property? Do we deserve personal space? Where does that end?

Is the concept of a family a part of this conspiracy theory? Why are certain traits inheritable and how does that play into the thoughts of a "pool of individuations"? Is a human different from a rock? Is a human more superior than a rock?

Is strife within the animal kingdom exempt from this conspiracy theory? Are we not a part of the animal kingdom?

How is having a border or property to defend actually an offensive?

We in essence have similarities, not complete sameness. Our traits do belong to a single set of all possible traits. If that's how you're thinking to deduce that we are the same in some essence, then you are thinking mathematically with no rigor. It's cheap poetry and shitty magic.

Your ideology is anti-diversity because it is anti-divergence and it supports violent forces which are already exploiting this sentiment to capture the entire human race; what I view as the most powerful substance known- humanity itself.

Essentially, you are preaching spiritual communism which leads to economic communism downstream. You would see my conscious stance to oppose your spiritual envelopement as brain washing. I think you should take a look at how your cry for peace is just another call to war- that is if you truly aren't malevolent.

Evil can disguise itself as good. Never forget that. Also, don't always quantize reality into black and white. We were certainly behaving these ways with property and borders before we were conscious enough to speak.

Thank you for this!

You might like the law of one!

Summary

https://www.lawofone.info/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63o9cu57QDg&list=PLB6A57398C5BF4F25

Yea, bruh! It's just like how there's only twelve notes on the guitar. Every song is literally the same.

Why can't we all just dance together?

It's The Fed dude. r/bitcoin

I hear too often "I'm moving away to [new state] because it's not full of [liberals/conservatives].

STOP moving away from people you disagree with.

That's (((their))) plan. To DIVIDE US.

We are approaching 10bb human beings on the planet and no longer need human beings to operate corporations or stand armies. These forces have been colliding for decades, thoughts and prayers don't fix either issue. We've been groomed to prepare for a new world that revolves around these factors for a few generations, and we're currently "in the thick of it". The last generations of patriarchal capitalism are going to be really messy and get a lot worse before they get better.

Working together toward which side's ideology?

No one's side. That's the point. We as humans all are essentially the same. We all have common desires. We work toward those shared goals. It can only be achieved by letting go of hate and fear though.

But how? Everybody has completely different ideas of how to achieve that. That is how ideologies are formed. Like I, for instance think that stating that property, religion, and borders are the root of humanity's problems is complete, utter bullshit.

I try my hardest to remain politically neutral, but I don't fix either issue.

Why not pick the side that most reflects what you believe and work for a better world from there? Remaining neutral seems like the pussy way out. Stand up for your beliefs

This is just a childish, novice level conspiracy theory. Yeah sure we can “stop every problem in the world with the power of love.” I mean come on this just sounds like the plot to a terrible children’s movie.

inhales yeah man, we just gotta work together and hold hands by the campfire every night maaan.

It is inherently divisive because it is that /r/LifeProTips or a life-time reddit like that?

Property, Religion, Borders, all those tools are being used to give you a reason to hate.

Put down the Communist Manifesto already.

How is that communistic in any way? It's true. OP is pretty much saying that we need to be vigilant and notice how the elites spread promote division.

property is a tool being used to give you a reason to hate

Its right there. This is openly communist.

If he said that we must get rid of property right then yeah I would agree with you, but he didnt say that.

Its also Christian, Buddhist, pretty much every religion speaks of losing our obsessions over superficial objects in order to gain enlightenment. Do you think you'll need your iPhone 8 and your Camaro in Heaven? Of course not. So why would you need them on Earth? Maybe for work and communicating with people afar. But those are superficial reasons, created by our system. All we really need is sustenance and community to be happy.

Property creates a fear of losing said property. Read The Pearl.

Religion can cause us to be manipulated ie Islamic fundamentalists.

Borders are imaginary lines that we use to create fear-uh oh group X is crossing the imaginary line. Its like when your dog barks at someone walking on the sidewalk. Its a primitive mindset.

Borders are not imaginary, they're natural. Humans are territorial primates, we like our borders, to have our own space.

Borders are good

I'm pro borders but natural isn't the right word. Borders protect smaller segments of society from external forces that exist in other regions. If Oklahoma and Texas were forced to cohabitate under the same legal precedent, Oklahoma would get the short end of the stick.

To poke where it might sting, if Colorado was suddenly under Utah's control, cannabis would no longer be legal in CO and would have no say. This is why Sessions' cannabis policy is so infuriating: It is an obvious infringement of federal and state borders. One could say DC is threatening CO from next door, in a hyperbolic sense.

My conspiracy is bigger and more powerful than your conspiracy.

Huh, a worthlessly saccharine platitude about ignoring human nature is the top post on the /r/conspiracy sub. Surely if we just stop having strong beliefs and fighting for them the world will be a better place! Certainly no one in the world would take advantage of that attitude!

Besides this stunningly naive notion being upvoted so highly, I'd just like to point out that this is by far one of the weakest examples of a "conspiracy" you could come up with. A divide and conquer post where the conspirators are... EVERYONE! Seriously, there's not even a "they" in the OP, everyone individually is just supposed to stop hating each other. And here we thought submission statements wouldn't be necessary for text posts.

YES, BE GENEROUS WITH WHAT YOU CAN GIVE. DON'T BE GREEDY AND IF YOU CANNOT GIVE WHAT IS NECESSARY, DON'T, COPY, OTHERS. Simply be yourself and you will succeed, positively.

Fuck having borders and shit like that, we're all equal guys

Just sounds like a brainwashed commie or a Jewish shill.

property is a tool used to give you a reason to hate

K

Damn, is this another antisemitic sub? I thought this was like for like X-Files type shit? Crazy how much Stormfront is leaking these days. Though it makes sense considering the user base. Like if you're a lolicon-jerking punk city perv like Andrew Anglin, I can't imagine you'd have much of an offline social life. Sad really. Anyway, guess I'm out.

Peace and Iove.

Most of the time anti-semitism is just a response to their anti Goyimism and justified.

Get help bud.

Holy shit indeed. Reported it, we'll see what happens.

Property, Religion, Borders

Sure thing, commie. If only we rid ourselves of these shackles we could have a Marxist utopia where nobody hates!

The real conspiracy is an idea you haven't come to yet.

It's too late. Millennials and other idiots have been brainwashed with nonsense that the msm keeps backing up. That andblack people have been brainwashed to believe that's white stole all of our technology and riches from them (we were kangs). Only way out of this mess is war I'm afraid because the msm and academia are not backing down, they are doubling down

It's too late. Millennials and other idiots have been brainwashed with nonsense that the msm keeps backing up. That andblack people have been brainwashed to believe that's white stole all of our technology and riches from them (we were kangs). Only way out of this mess is war I'm afraid because the msm and academia are not backing down, they are doubling down

Group therapy can be a great treatment option

Where are you from? Serious question. Just the state. You don't need to get into specifics

Do you never wonder why things are paired off into extremes, democrats/republicans, coke/pepsi, mcdonalds/burger king..... it's all to give the illusion of choice.

Please explain how McDonald's and Burger King are extremes

Extreme: Noun: Logic: the subject or predicate in a proposition, or the major or minor term in a syllogism.

You are using Extreme as an adjective.

So how does that apply to McDonald's and Burger King?

The same way it applies to democrats/republicans; perspective.

You put one thing at the end of the line, and something else logical at the other end. In this case the most relevant extreme to compare Mcdonalds to is Burger King.

For your sake, Mcdonalds uses a flat top and Burger King uses flames..... that's how they are different.

Also need to come together as a community and realize we are pretty brain washed already and it will take a miracle to come back from it.

You're so close

Borders? No. What an asinine thing to say. We have borders because some fucking people are hell bent on destroying us and our freedoms and way of life. We have borders because otherwise what's stopping everyone coming and destroying those social safety nets for the poor? We have borders to stop disease. Just look at California right fucking now.

As an aside, I really liked this sub until recently. Whoever the mods are, the need to go.

Property, religion and borders are used to hate? These are the foundations of culture, not basis of hate.

Op is brainwashed or we’re probably in his psyop.

Yeah, this reeks of misdirection

No... only ignorance. The OP naively thinks that perspnal experience can be over ridden by philpsophy within the mass public. Where this might be true for the individual (within their own safe zone) this never works when two cultures fundamentally conflict.

Seriously, property? Man oh man, the shills arent even trying to be subtle anymore

Go back to video games kid, the adults are talking.

Is it a conspiracy if it's overt?

Divide and conquer is the oldest way for the elites to maintain power. Any party or King or conqueror did this.

It's to keep us from pointing our finger at the real enemy. Them. The elite. All sides. All parties. I'd say there are exceptions out there Tulsi Gabbard/Ron Paul/Kucinich types, but most of these a-holes are in it for the $$$ and power and they don't care how many people they kill.

Tulsi and Ron are two sides of the same coin but I think Ron’s libertarianism will accomplish things Better.

Dude I feel you. I do my best I try not to judge others and help people

I think you're failing to see that you're being hypocritical. Having borders and having fear (anger/hatred) are not the same thing.

The real conspiracy is to enslave us. To take away our freedoms. I, as an individual, and I believe all beings as individuals, have the right to draw a line in the sand and say "this is where I live, this is my home." Doing that not out of fear, but of love, knowing the only way to 'help' the people of this world is to make them stronger. To help them stand up and bear the burden of responsibility, not to divert that responsibility to the state, to a ruler. In order to live symbolically, together in harmony, we must have rules, borders, understandings. We have intrinsic morals, good will always beat evil. We know this.

It is THEY who are lying to you. You must not let them control your mind. You must not let them control you. YOU know what is right and wrong.

We spend the majority of our existences doing labor for someone else who will reap a greater percentage of the benefits than us. We have enough food to feed everyone in the world yet so many people are starving.

We live in a system that controls us. Some call it the Rat Race.

Yes. The problem is selfishness. The solution is love. Kindness.

"Reap a greater percentage of benefits". This comment is useless. If I am to build houses for the poor out of charity and the kindness in my heart, OBVIOUSLY my labour will be benefited by the family that lives in that home and not me. How can you be so naive. You're saying the world is selfish but you too are selfish.

To help them stand up and bear the burden of responsibility, not to divert that responsibility to the state, to a ruler.

I see where you're going with this and I get it. Personal responsibility needs to be central to helping the unfortunate. But what to do with those who are incapable of looking after themselves? I'm not talking about lazy able bodied people. I'm talking about those who are mentally or physically incapable of looking after themselves.

What are you even talking about? We already do that, hospitals, long term care homes or personal care homes, mental health clinics and awareness, group meeting, etc. I have been taking care of my bed ridden dementia patient grandfather for the last year.

It goes back to responsibility. It's the biggest problem of my generation and it really isn't even our fault. The powers that be actually want us to stay infantile because we're easier to control. They want us to be dependant to be weak, to be scared. It's pathetic.

Your original comment sounded like safety nets were a bad thing and to remove them altogether. To create a social darwinistic society where those who are unable to fend for themselves should just be allowed to die on the streets. Glad to hear that's not what you're suggesting.

No, absolutely not. Sorry for the confusion. Listen to some of what Dr Jordan Peterson has to say about personal responsibility on Youtube.

I mean more along the lines of strengthening the individual and helping them bear the biggest burden they can. Taking action, and being useful in the face of fear. Becoming a fully developed human being capable of so much more than you've been lead to believe by those who want to keep sedated.

Just to clarify, the OP was saying the conspiracy is to divide us, make us angry, full of hate, evil. I'm saying they're the only ones who will ever be evil, but they're trying to weaken us, lie to us, take away our own potential, take away our wants or needs to even try to reach that potential, or perhaps even know that it's there to begin with. We need more people leading by example (responsibility) and less demanding rights, the only way to do that is through conversations, waking up.

"I think that truth is the highest value, although it has to be embedded in love. What I mean by that is that truth should serve the highest good imaginable. For me, that is what is best for each individual, in the manner that is simultaneously best for the family, and the state, and nature itself. But you can only want that good if you love Being -Jordan Peterson

This story always strikes me as an example of how hatred and violence aren't the natural mindset for human beings and the masses are manipulated by their governments in to self-destructive actions instead of peace.

This movie scene is probably relevant:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blhADUuFITo

There is no objective so what will people work towards to?
We live in capitalism, there is no real objective besides survive or if you're the lucky ones, get wealthier.

We are, in essence, all the same

If you can't accept HBD you can't be helped. You are antiscience and naive.

This reminds me of something Will Rogers said almost 100 years ago. I can't find the exact quote so I must paraphrase. It was at the Democratic National Convention that followed the particularly self-destructive 1924 convention. Something like, "We're never going to beat the Republicans if we keep acting like Democrats." The bottom 99% will never have the power of a majority as long as they act like the bottom 99%.

The real conspiracy is Mystery Babylon and this post reeks of it.

you can never reconcile the newer thedonalders with the genuine oldschool conspiracy theorists because thedonalders aren't conspiracy theorists. they are conspiracy tourists, piggybacking on the community for extreme partisan purposes.

👏

Question: was it at all an anti-Semitic sub before T_D'ers followed up? I've seen two comments now that are really chilling.

Astute.

Individual men are not equal. Groups of men are not equal. Men and women are not equal. You are simply parroting their anti-civilizational rhetoric.

^{^}

People like this don’t understand simple things like responsibility and accountability. They’ll always look at the world with inept frustration because they believe if we could all “just get along man” the bottom 20% of people would find meaningful ways to contribute and not be net detractors to everything around them.

The reason you have property is because if all things are held in common nobody will feel an obligation to maintain and preserve anything. The world would be like a giant Commie squat house like that DIY space in Oakland that burned down killing 36 people.

The world would be like a giant Commie squat house like that DIY space in Oakland that burned down killing 36 people.

Not with the safety squads

But, really, this is the dumbest thread ever posted on here.

You're afraid. Afraid of everyone being equal. You're afraid you'd be no better than anyone else. Don't be. It's that fear that lets them manipulate you.

It's not fear of everyone being equal. But it's obvious that humans aren't all equal. Talent, health, responsibility, intelligence and virtue are not equally distributed among humanity. Private property enables individuals to take ownership and be responsible for their land and possessions. I certainly do not want my financially irresponsible uncle to have power over my bank account because "equality."

Given that the powers that be tirelessly work to strip man of his wealth and property, I'd wager that transforming everything to community property is a very real conspiracy.

Having tastes and culture is a conspiracy

This goes against natural selection

Sounds like socialist whore shit. If you honestly believe property is a method of division you're a shill.

Let go of your fear and your hate. Open your mind. It's okay.

Let go of your assumption that anyone who doesn't align with you is hateful or afraid.

I’ve always thought the true conspiracy is division. If we’re kept apart and constantly told it’s the other guys fault we will never unite. We put ourselves on teams and these teams then rule us. We forgive and make excuses for our team but condemn the other. We have more in common than not start with those things.

Seriously? Property and religion give you tools to hate? Religion, sure, but property?

Yes. Hopefully the majority of the people of this world understand sooner than later and we turn back this hate machine we have going on.

Nice sentiment, but I find it in no way coincidental that this type of post is most successful when Trump has been acting the most stupid, or when there's new information on his campaign's collusion with Russia.

This is probably the best post I've ever seen. I mean, for a conspiracy theory it conveys an extremely positive message! Kudos to the author of this post. May your message spread as far as the underground can take it! God speed. All gods, old and new.

If you blame someone lower on the socio-economic ladder for all your troubles, you are being used by someone higher up the ladder.

We all walk this flat earth together, hand in hand across the infinite plane.

throughout my "studies" into all this shit for about two years now, all over, I am beginning to see that we all share a common enemy- the hyper-elite, ultra-rich. THEY are the ones degrading education, fucking rural america, putting out propaganda, inciting and angering, demoralizing, addicting, defrauding, enslaving into debt, and so on. So, yes... i totally agree.

If you honestly think getting rid of borders is gonna help anything then you’re just part of the uneducated problem. You might be able to convince about 2k of the subscribers here to suspend their disbelief and exist in your utopia momentarily but try actually mixing two or more vastly differing cultures together and see if they all can exist in the harmonious reality you’ve created in your sugar plum brain.

Let go of your fear and your hate.

Appeal to people's empathetic emotions without providing any actual plan of action...

Property, Religion, Borders, all those tools are being used to give you a reason to hate.

Religion eh?

I would retort in that it is not a conspiracy, really. It's just good tactics. The best tactics are those that can progress without the enemy knowing what is actually happening, until it is too late.

War is profit, make everything a war.

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

Hate to burst your bubble but property is natural to all creatures, religion is part of culture, and borders are used to separate people who might cause problems when together.

You sound like a conspiring globalist to me.

Let go of your hate and fear.

Let go of your evil agenda.

If you truly feel superior over another being, then give that superiority a good use and help the other being achieve a similar state. For every service you do for another being is also a service for yourself, but in a positive way.

Those that feel superior to others typically don't act that way. Those that feel equal to others often do. But, I agree with your sentiment.

What the heck is an individuation?

Bread and circuses

This is a really dumb worldview

A lot of people are not open for learning new things. They take it as an attack on their character and intellect...

But who is supposed to be the bigger person in the situation and make things work?

Aka Marxism.

Spot on. Thank you for posting this

says we are being divided by hate for each other proceeds to disparage almost every conservative on the planet No property? No borders? Wtf are you, John Lennon? Communism kills you fuckin dope. If anything, socialism and crony capitalism is the conspiracy to get us to give more power to the government. There's a reason all the major media corporations have a liberal bias, and the one supposedly conservative one supports the GOP establishment that isn't actually conservative.

This is a thinly veiled attempt to incorporate socialism into the conspiracy realm. Fuck right off.

Idiotic comment is idiotic.

So conspiracy realm should only be for right-wing semi-libertarians? Gotcha.

Property, Religion, Borders, all those tools are being used to give you a reason to hate.

If you disagree with this you are a RIGHT WING LIBERTARIAN!!!!!!

I'm only following your logic. I think it's pointless to have politically partial in the conspiracy realm.

Funny how you only have nice things to say about Obama when he was the most divisive president in the history of the United States.

this vaguely reminds me of a quote something along the lines of "replace hate with suffering, and you will see what you are suffering from." If done successfully you can start really looking at the core of an issue. is it really unfair or biased towards you or are you just pissed because some schlubb is profiting off an idea you thought of first but did not execute in time...

Also, a lot of people utilize this mentality to justify voting for additional taxes to “help the poor”. When in reality it’s the State that pulls at your heart strings to coercively dig into your wallet. You’d be better off handing the money directly to your poor neighbor.

503(c) charities are pretty good about doing this as well... There is no requirement for all donations to be used towards the actual charity... Some are better than others, but you have to watch the "administrative costs" which give the heads 7 figure incomes, which in my opinion is hardly "non-profit"...

Ah get fucked.

Just kidding OP. Nice post.

I guess whenever someone needs karma they make one of these posts on r/conspiracy. See this exact same post every few days.

Love conquers all but hate is in our dna. No matter how many peaceful, loving individuals there are, there will always be that small hateful percentage that ruins it for everyone else.

Fascism 101

https://youtu.be/23X14HS4gLk

> Hey, guys, can’t we all just get along and agree on Property, Religion, and Borders already?

Oh ok, then. Let’s just get rid of property, religion, and borders. They’re obviously a problem.

This is textbook communist propaganda wrapped in a “kumbaya” and I’m going to call it what it is without “hatred.”

Oh ok, let’s just get rid of property

OP wasn't inferring that anyone get rid of private property.

religion,

Then in the next breath you'll whine about the evils of Islam while conveniently sweeping under the rug almost every major religion has caused.

borders.

If Mexico were full of white people the US wouldn't care as much about illegals. Tribalism has never solved anything for humanity.

I am for open borders but to say that everyone against illegal immigration is racist is ridiculous. There is a logic that is easy to see as to why a country wouldnt want a ton of people who come in and get the benefits without contributing, or possibly sending money out of the country. You have to see that is not racism.

to say that everyone against illegal immigration is racist is ridiculous.

Trying to find where I wrote that. Yup, can't find it.

It was insinuated when you assumed racism based on someones opinion on immigration policy.

divide and conquer. Balkanization. ITS A BITCH

Excellent points. Many of today's problems go away if we learn to work together.

if this makes the front page, watch it get deleted...

Ehhh. I'm sorry but I think this is naive. Humanity as a whole is absolutely never going to get along. The real conspiracy is the fact that 'they' know this and they use it to their own advantage.

The best way to destroy a community is to diversify it. The best way to isolate and control people is to atomize them by destroying the shared identity of their people.

I'll stand with my people, united for my people's interests.

Exactly.

I would like to point to Ghostbusters II. Whereas The pink slime is our cracked system. If we the people band together, we can defeat Vigo the Carpathian TPTB.

Shoo Shoo smelly Psyop

Very Niice! Much Love to All💜

The question remains, how do you spread this ideology? You would think it's common sense.

We would need some kind of catastrophic event to catapult us into the new world systemic.

Good luck getting people in this sub to work together. Even if you make a comment or post with all intentions of growing and learning from it, someone will lambast the shit out of you and attempt to make you feel like a mental midget for having an idea.

As time goes on, i honestly dislike the majority of people on this sub more and more.

Just because were on the internet doesnt mean we have to talk to each other like shit.

They give in to fear in stead of curiosity.

Take away my religion? That will become a war in it of itself. Hukm is for Allah alone. There will be no peace until the governance of the world is how He desired.

Do not allow yourself to be a crab in a bucket.

When you see somebody 'succeeding' more than you (making more money, enjoying themselves more, making you jealous, etc.): do not try to bring them down to your level; instead, ise it as inspiration (or a reaource) to elevate yourself to them.

If we all just pull eachother down while trying to get out, nobody gets out of the bucket. Let's all help eachother get out, or at least let those who can, do so (then, they might even help pull you up and out from the other side).

Very zen and refreshing to hear a little sanity interjected into the chaos.

I don't like posts like this. Vauge and noncommittal. Name the villians or, realize that you don't know and don't post. If your just talking about thier strategy, that's fine, but I would think you'd know who implements it. Without naming it, makes me think you don't know, which costs anything else your saying credibility. How would you go into such detail at strategic and tactical methods of an enemy if you don't know who they are?

I understand but they are really preying on the Stupid people. The smart people understand to work together cause the payouts in the long run are worth it.

AKA George Soros. He wants the country to fall apart.

People stop fighting amongst themselves and damn near the whole mic goes down the toilet...unless if course an alien invasion is imminent.

The Mexicans are ruining our country! The Arabs want to kill us! Republicans are racists! You have white privilege! You are a Nazi!

All these divisive statements made by hateful idiots need to stop!

Perfectly put

Exactly

This is so true.

I often feel burdened the majority of people don't seem to realize the individual and therefore collective power we possess, if we only focused our attention on issues that actually matter.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJKjxZicbAI](I leave this here)

nice try communist.

They try but they always fail in the end.

Simple, long-term mkultra promoting the common narrative often in gross opposition with truth and reality. If they could just hit us over the head and that would be it, fine, but they can't they have to manufacture consent (Walter Lippmann).

Great post. I feel like I need to have this up at work.

100% agree on all front - Religion, ethnicity, etc. are being used as causes to resent and hate others and I strongly think that this is mainly distributed by the media. Watching/reading the news is becoming more and more the addition of an extra layer of "yeah you really should not like people of group ABC" to add on top of what they're already trying to brainwash you into. Positivity really is the way to go. I did not believe in it until it somehow clicked in me. I'd never go back. I tell my wife all the time "Mind over matter" and taps her (gently) three times on her forehead as a reminder of it. It works :)

Division is the fact.

The Conspiracy is what division is used for: Keeping the rich, rich and keeping the poor hopeful they will get rich.

I'm going to have to disagree. The real conspiracy isn't preventing people from being good to each other. The real conspiracy is anything that dehumanizes a person often enough that they don't have the chance to develop any identity, even a good one.

Ontologically, you are addressing one of the sub-issues to the fight against ubiquitous free high-quality education. I know it seems that in a roundabout way if people loved one another education would improve, but we have to be honest that there is one area to address here that helps others more, and has a more clear plan.

We need people to develop identities through education that help them choose, for themselves, to learn about how the world works so that they try to take care of it and their mirrored progress to it. The lack of a global push for an intellectual identity is the only real conspiracy, and you don't have to say anyone is in charge of it, even if people with nice lives benefit when there's less competition from less successful people and a lot of tragedy.

Quite true. Dehumanization of oneself and others is important to them. There's a reason prozac and such are thrown at people who stand out(side) in the system.

i love you all. Just putting that out there.

We are all the same, and all deserve a chance

Trump acts like he's president only of the states that supported him. What can we do when we ARE the opposition by default?

The election was the greatest, most effective D&C in a very long time, having ramifications for years to come.

the only thing keeping us in chains are the borders, beurocracy, and "bull shit". world peace and the end of hunger is in our grasp, yet we enslave ourselves for a few meagre sea shells with which to trade. some kids can spend my years salary in an individual purchase, while i toil and break myself only to be dropped by my insurance company. our values are worthless, and capitalism is the only thing to blame.

You cant stay in "nirvana"

We've all had our own closest glimpse, peeled back as many layers as you could and felt ~connected~ to everything

But you can't shed your identity any more than the cells in your body could choose to stop competing with each other for food and oxygen, even if they "knew" they were all connected and just a small part of something bigger

OpenBordersForIsrael

Let's start with open borders for Israel.

I don't like most people.

Great thing about capitalism is that in order to take for yourself, you must provide something of value to another. But I do agree -- we are falling for our demons. Boycott social media. Help a stranger.

This kinda reminds me of, as a kid, how I interpreted the 80's.

Sadly, the want to help others is quickly disappearing.

Don't care.

I'm White. I want my future descendants to be White and I want everyone in their lives to be White.

Thank you for this fellow human being. It's always nice to know there's other out there who feel the same.

communism will win :)

Property and borders are the real tyrants

Pretty sure it's the trillionaire elite families and their blackmailed lackeys who are responsible, not borders/fences and owning some chickens and a goat.

We desperately need a borderless one world government with absolute power so that we can hunt down braindead idiots like you who's philosophical worldview consists entirely of "like just, putting out positive vibes mannnn" and have you shot in the genitals before you pollute our species with your genetic offspring. Sign me up Illuminati.

Word. Don't get caught up in the politics. The past years there have been repeated attempts of division on race, gender, and ideals. As my boy Immortal Technique said, "The media is the 4th branch of the government". They know which buttons to push to get people to fight against each other.

When times are tough, don't feel as if you're alone in the struggle. Know that there are many people out there who are suffering in the same ways you are. Stay focused and prevail.

Religions grow up over time, they aren't "given" to us by wealthy men as a means to control our lives.

Hey OP, I just want you to know there's more evidence for the shit you're repeating ("No borders! We're all the same!") being put in your brain as a result of the conspiracy than there is evidence of what you say.

Humans are different. Humans are tribal. Property, religion, and borders are good.

If we're talking about conspiracies, it actually goes both ways: resentment between people who have shared interests, as well as positive messaging, cooperation and trust intended for the benefit spinmasters and disinformants.

Don't forget how lots of times, upvotes and downvotes on Reddit serve no purpose other than to erode confidence in one person or another, because paid-for agenda messaging is trickier if there are still people who know what they're talking about around.

The Te Tao Ching should be mandatory reading for everyone- if you haven't read it I highly recommend it (it's the second most translated book ever, only behind the Bible)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacon%27s_Rebellion

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacon%27s_Rebellion

^{HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 135513}

I post this comment on pro left and pro right subreddits, FB post, ect. "Two wings on the same bird." And i always get down voted and caught shade from everybody. They especially dont like it when i tell them that they're mad because its true and they further prove my point. They can play that game "Divide and conquer" all they want they cant drag me down into their shit with them

Yeah I wonder why....

Socialism is as big, a divider and proponent of hate as religion. It is a religion without a god.

I've always felt that if you have nothing to kill or die for, you have nothing to live for either.

Seriously? That's sad. Live for love, dude.

You get it, my friend.

we’re all on the same team.

Except that we're not.

why is it so wrong to not hate someone who is clearly dumbing down society with their silly point of views on religion or politics?

how about people just become educated this way they dont just give god all the credit for everything they do or not do in their lives.

Sugar....the other white gold besides Cocain, but just as addictive!

no sir, god actually spoke to me and told me there is a war coming. God isnt all what people crack him up to be. he is really just the guy in charge of this planet. Now the source or creator of all this now that guy gal or being or entity is beyond my comprehension. i just know that its in everything and everywhere.

It’s the sodium content in soda that dehydrates you, the sugar is certainly not healthy but to my knowledge sugar doesn’t dehydrate you

Saying 'k' does not bolster your belief that Germany, the Netherlands or Japan are pieces of paper.

Ok, now you're just trolling...

Most of the time anti-semitism is just a response to their anti Goyimism and justified.

So how does that apply to McDonald's and Burger King?

In the US, people have trouble making that distinction. Bernie Sanders might as well be Satan himself to right wing voters here.

When in reality, we are all slaves to the system now. Think you are free? Do me a favor, quit your job, and do whatever you want, whenever you want. Once you run out of money, you will have to continue working again, to benefit the system.. which benefits the people who created the system.

This is only half true.

Yes, if you just do whatever you want whenever you want with zero regard for long term survivability, then yeah, you will end up in a destitute situation.

That doesn't make us slaves to the system though for two reasons.

1) You can conceivably choose to live outside the system (hunter-gatherer/nomad lifestyle; off-the-grid housing and commune lifestyles)

2) Regardless of whether you live in our outside the system, you're not a slave to the system, but a slave to scarcity. Resources are scarce and labor isn't free. Food, water, shelter, clothing, healthcare all require laborers and resources.

At this point, our collective and individual survival requires hard work. Until we solve the problem of scarcity, you will never be totally free from obligation (if you demand long-term survivability).

It is my understanding Marx also wore clothes, so you better strip off right now, hypocrite

No sarcasm

We spend the majority of our existences doing labor for someone else who will reap a greater percentage of the benefits than us. We have enough food to feed everyone in the world yet so many people are starving.

We live in a system that controls us. Some call it the Rat Race.

But how? Everybody has completely different ideas of how to achieve that. That is how ideologies are formed. Like I, for instance think that stating that property, religion, and borders are the root of humanity's problems is complete, utter bullshit.

did you read about how the OSS trained and funded Mao's army, and capitalist oligarch David Rockefeller's pretty consistent praise of Maoism?

I'm talking means of production and democracy at all levels socialism.

Because not all humans are the same and productive people who produce more are held back by an authoritarian government and their cronies in it.

Tulsi and Ron are two sides of the same coin but I think Ron’s libertarianism will accomplish things Better.

We would need some kind of catastrophic event to catapult us into the new world systemic.

Holy shit indeed. Reported it, we'll see what happens.

To help them stand up and bear the burden of responsibility, not to divert that responsibility to the state, to a ruler.

I see where you're going with this and I get it. Personal responsibility needs to be central to helping the unfortunate. But what to do with those who are incapable of looking after themselves? I'm not talking about lazy able bodied people. I'm talking about those who are mentally or physically incapable of looking after themselves.

I truly believe AI is the answer to corruption in politics. AI will determine where to build infrastructure, how's it doen, and to what specs, and it will analyze raw data to do that.

There will be one that identifies corruption, nothing is going to get lost like it does with humans.

Add in the simplicity of programming parameters, and the minimal cost... it's a tool for the masses to truly control and use the data we've acquired up to now.

I'm impressed you read it ... it was a stream of thought I wrote it as I think it.

And it's not the easiest topic to condense but I surprised myself with how well I did! Not to mention I wrote that around 4am after a very long day!

Anyway I'm glad you found it a worthwhile read and I sincerely hope my 'guesses' are not too far from reality ... wouldn't that be cool!?

But as you know, this is a HUGE 'problem' that involves many thousands of people. and it's not going to 'change' overnight BUT considering the changes we've already seen the D make ... who knows how this is all going to pan out?

Thanks for the thanks, it's always nice to know someone appreciates my mental meanderings ;D

We have 100X as many guns as them as a population. Why do you think they want gun control?

Do you really want the dumbest, most ideologically entrenched idiots in your community speaking for you?

The cultural and systemic differences are definitive a border.

He's not saying they are literally pieces of paper, just that the borders certainly are.

He is saying they are abstractions which is objectively false.

If you are to say a nation is "a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.", then one could argue Europe is a nation based on ethnicity, or Western Europe at least, or the English-speaking world is a nation, Asia could be a nation based on culture and ethnicity, Africa, Middle-east, South-america.

No, you can't. Western European Nations are not the same culturally or linguistically, nor are Asian nations, nor are Middle Eastern Nations, nor African nor South American.

He is saying nations are arbitrary, and can be changed, adapted, unified, etc.

Nations are not arbitrary. That's like saying Hindus are arbitrary, or French people are arbitrary. This group dynamic is the reason why geographical bounds, which are part of nations, form.

The attitudes of peoples within a nation can change. That does not change the nation itself i.e. the definition of a nation is static. A nation by definition has certain attributes. To change the attributes of what constitutes a nation is to change the dictionary, and at that point we are no longer talking about a nation.

A nation, by definition is, unified in the sense of comradery. The United States toady is a country, but does not meet the criteria to be a nation.