Are you a dissident?

originally posted by: livinglight108
A dissident does what's right regardless of what might happen to them for doing so.

A dissident doesn't support pedophilic child trafficking murderers to the best of their capacity.

A dissident is actively engaged in fighting evil through any and in all of the ways humanly possible...

A "patriot" is not someone who talks about change, a patriot is someone who is a fearless lover of truth/freedom willing to do whatever it takes to ensure freedom is preserved.

How many actual dissidents do we have in this country today?

behind every blade of grass,

i just wonder where the poor illegal asylum seekers will go if the usa finds itself in a civil war?

biden is giving all the big weapons to ukraine so that takes a bunch off the table.

might get our ass kicked but they'll know they were in a fight.

20 yrs against goat herders and then ran.

i don't know what tomorrow brings.

originally posted by: sarahvital

originally posted by: livinglight108
A dissident does what's right regardless of what might happen to them for doing so.

A dissident doesn't support pedophilic child trafficking murderers to the best of their capacity.

A dissident is actively engaged in fighting evil through any and in all of the ways humanly possible...

A "patriot" is not someone who talks about change, a patriot is someone who is a fearless lover of truth/freedom willing to do whatever it takes to ensure freedom is preserved.

How many actual dissidents do we have in this country today?

behind every blade of grass,

i just wonder where the poor illegal asylum seekers will go if the usa finds itself in a civil war?

biden is giving all the big weapons to ukraine so that takes a bunch off the table.

might get our ass kicked but they'll know they were in a fight.

20 yrs against goat herders and then ran.

i don't know what tomorrow brings.

Is it correct to say that the world's largest ''army'' happens to be the US people?

Indeed, we're unorganized. Many untrained. Many are not prepared for combat, especially physically.

Yet nonetheless 150,000,000 is a lot of people....

Dissenters dissent.

I find it interesting that just yesterday wikipedia edited their entry on the word "dissent."

In all the categories of the definition (save legal and philosophical) dissent is represented as something which could lead to violence.

Not that it matters what "wiki" thinks, we know how that's managed... but it was just interesting to note the timing.

There is no rule or law extant that says everyone has to agree on everything. There is however, a law or rule about 'forcing' people to 'agree.'

I would chime in about 'politically' changing the system, except the idea that the parties of our nation are somehow 'separate' from one another causes me too much laughter to take it seriously. Too many clubs, councils, and cabals...

I do agree that dissent itself is not violent, but the popular media doesn't sell 'non-violence' at their store... only bloody conflict, fear, suffering, and human outrage...

originally posted by: Maxmars
Dissenters dissent.

I find it interesting that just yesterday wikipedia edited their entry on the word dissent.

In all the categories of the definition (save legal and philosophical) dissent is represented as something which could lead to violence.

Not that it matters what "wiki" thinks, we know how that's managed... but it was just interesting to note the timing.

There is no rule or law extant that says everyone has to agree on everything. There is however, a law or rule about 'forcing' people to 'agree.'

I would chime in about 'politically' changing the system, except the idea that the parties of our nation are somehow 'separate' from one another causes me too much laughter to take it seriously. Too many clubs, councils, and cabals...

I do agree that dissent itself is not violent, but the popular media doesn't sell 'non-violence' at their store... only bloody conflict, fear, suffering, and human outrage...

Food for thought.

Force and violence mean two very different things.

In self-defense, am I using violence, or force to respond to a threat?

In the defense of a societies freedom against predators, is their killing an act of violence, or force?

Sames goes for kill vs murder. Murder is 100% a violation, a wrong-doing. Killing in self-defense can be a 100% right. There is nothing wrong with killing in self-defense.

Anyway, I digress. It bothers me as these distinctions are actually quite important and it's unfortunate that we're so severely lacking in appropriate education surrounding things that actually matter.

a reply to: CIAGypsy

I like the part in the vid where he talks of conscience. He says if you don't listen or follow your conscience, you are a traitor to yourself. Or something of that nature.

Thanks for sharing.

a reply to: CIAGypsy

only belligerents have rights

Silence gives consent', is the rule of business life. To stand by, in silence, and see another sell your property, binds you. Silence gives rise to fraud - or - silence gives rise to agreement. What better way to acquiesce than to not object?
Acquiescence is acceptance!

originally posted by: CIAGypsy
a reply to: putnam6

awww, where's my bashful face emoji? Lol....

I've heard ad nauseum the retort "TPTB want us to resort to violence so they can implement martial law and remove the rest of our freedoms."

Clearly people who think this have not studied history. History is littered with examples of how these choices proceed. It's a scare tactic to get you to back down. To keep you docile. To keep you on the fence.

Did you watch the video? Civil disobedience doesn't necessarily mean violence. It means rejecting the lie. It means rejecting unjust orders. It means refusing to OBEY. It means refusing to accept the gaslighting as reality or truth...both in word AND in deed.

The enemy here is not government. Government is simply a tool. A construct that allows the powerful to control the powerless. These crimes, the corruption, the illegality of it all, extends far beyond our border. This is a fight for the entirety of humanity. The very essence of freedom and human rights EVERYWHERE.

ETA - some people are afraid of conflict. They just want things to "be the way they used to be..." It's easier to simply accept the lie the machine is feeding you. But just as the people under every REGIME discovered everywhere in the entire history of mankind, eventually your conscience will force you off the fence.

Respectfully I was discussing the thoughts that we must have violent retribution every time the government has a jackboot mentality, I'm 58 years old CG I know the difference between violent mobs and civil disobedience. Sure civil disobedience and boycotts, strikes, and other forms of non-compliance are less satisfying for MOB mentalities and our base instincts and it takes longer to tone down the jackboots. But a country with 330 million people doesn't need vIolent reform every 2 years. It's not necessary to rattle our foundations to the core, but we do need to make sure those at the foundation are listening. If they are as connected as you mentioned in another thread, they are indeed listening.

Perfectly agree with boycotts, strikes, and other forms of civil disobedience when needed and necessary. Hell huge swathes of the population did boycott it against the COVID vaccine and mask mandates, did they not?

It kind of worked, COVID vaccines and restrictions and tracking certainly weren't implemented to the degree TPTB wanted them to be implemented. Civil Disobedience who knew...

Sure it isn't to MLK and Gandhi levels of pure organized CD but hey it's 2020 what to do want, our lives are full of "it isn't as it used to be" moments, you evolve or devolve nothing remains static.

Does our government do things to keep us docile sure it does, it's one of the functions of a proper government A stable society can grow and learn and evolve instead of devolving into riots, looting, and general thuggery. Not saying there aren't moments and situations where more aggressive means aren't needed. We weren't there during COVID and the elections and we aren't even close now, nor should we be. I know this isn't a popular opinion here on ATS.

If you believe America still has international enemies and I do, violence and overt disruption are exactly what China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and other lesser foes want. Always has been and if they are as connected to our social media, mass media, etc,. Hell, they are probably stirring the pot themselves as much as they possibly can with one hand. While the other hand buys and influences our politicians, and tries to infiltrate social media and control the narrative.

I'd like to add what our best recourse actually may be, public laughter and ridicule. All it will take is continuous public ridicule and derision. TPTB are so vain they can't stand that approach. FWIW they use that same derision and ridicule on their opposition, and it's why it works so well being used against them

originally posted by: Katatonik
a reply to: CIAGypsy

I prefer to think of myself as resilient

Exactly,

You can be resilient in your core beliefs but be adaptable and flexible to changes in the external world.

I believe that's one of the messages in the leadership secrets of Attila the Hun.

I Am a Deplorable and A Dissident.


a reply to: CIAGypsy

I've been accused of being many, many things. I might as well be a dissident too I supposed.

To quote watchitburn,"I've been feeling very insurrectiony lately."

quite by accident, not by intention, i have become a 'dissident'... it all began by refusing COVID 'vaccines/boosters' and supporting those who refuse to willingly become covidian blood-brothers...

NGOs are this ages' Gravity Wells, well, at least the likes of WEF, NATO, bio-weapon labs, et al

? might ukraines' zelinskyy be the dreaded 'Little Horn' of end-times eschatology ?

I think the words that you aught to be using that covers it all is "fifth column". Look the words up and tell me I'm wrong.

originally posted by: nugget1
a reply to: CIAGypsy

one must inevitably ask "at what point does defence of human rights and freedom from tyranny JUSTIFY violence?"

I'm of the belief the gov. already has a plan for that; they wouldn't be squeezing the citizens so hard if they didn't.

We're in the fast lane now.....

Well, considering that we can't face down our own government because they have F-15s... Straight from The Big Guy's mouth.

a reply to: livinglight108

Think of it in terms of battlefield strategy. If you want to win the battle, you need to identify the strategic chokepoints on the field in front of you where you can gain high ground or advantage over your enemy. Points where applied pressure will be most effective in weaking their resistance and ultimately herding them toward surrender. This Art of War is what is being applied to humanity everywhere as we speak. Supply chain collapse. Currency collapse. Energy collapse. Critical infrastructure collapse. Economy collapse. It's all a controlled detonation but these are just the physical pressures being applied. Then there are the psychological warfare tactics. It's no different than Big Brother convincing people that TWO PLUS TWO EQUALS FIVE. In this case, it's teaching that biology is meaningless. It's teaching people to devalue human life. A fetus is just a clump of nonviable cells. It's mass psychosis It's purposely removing critical life lessons such as critical thinking, the value of persistence, grit, or that life only has winners and no losers unless it is politically expedient to create a class of victims. It's all being done to destabilize society whom is then easier to control.

a reply to: Maxmars

I generally agree with everything you said.

For me the hardest lift is getting people to refuse to accept the mental construct that the enemy wants to box you in with.... Refuse to accept their propaganda. They want you to think your dissent (i.e. - refusal to accept what they want you to think, do, etc...by simply saying NO) is meaningless or that dissent can only be violent. I don't think initial dissent needs to be violent. Let me give you an example. Look at all the attempts to create gun laws that would allow the state to come confiscate your weapons. How many Sheriff's have simply said "No. I won't comply with this unjust law." ???? That's an example of what I mean. This type of refusal becomes incredibly difficult to repeat at scale only because of the mental construct of "the state is an authority over me and I must obey what they say or I will go to jail." There is some truth to that...but there is also a reality where certain inalienable human rights exist which say "I have the right to defend myself and my family." It ultimately comes down to the moral and individual decision of each person what construct they accept and live by. Now eventually, this type of refusal to obey will escalate into something bigger because those who want to control will realize they must actually USE force to get compliance. That's why I asked at what point is violence justified for self defense? If we recognize this right as an individual, why would it not be relevant for a society?

a reply to: loveguy

Silence is consent.

Inaction is also consent.

a reply to: St Udio

I have a lot to say about eschatology.... If you want to see something truly eye opening, look up a very obscure documentary on Amazon Prime called "The Coming Convergence." It was filmed in 2017 but you would have thought it was filmed last week.

originally posted by: CIAGypsy
a reply to: livinglight108

Think of it in terms of battlefield strategy. If you want to win the battle, you need to identify the strategic chokepoints on the field in front of you where you can gain high ground or advantage over your enemy. Points where applied pressure will be most effective in weaking their resistance and ultimately herding them toward surrender. This Art of War is what is being applied to humanity everywhere as we speak. Supply chain collapse. Currency collapse. Energy collapse. Critical infrastructure collapse. Economy collapse. It's all a controlled detonation but these are just the physical pressures being applied. Then there are the psychological warfare tactics. It's no different than Big Brother convincing people that TWO PLUS TWO EQUALS FIVE. In this case, it's teaching that biology is meaningless. It's teaching people to devalue human life. A fetus is just a clump of nonviable cells. It's mass psychosis It's purposely removing critical life lessons such as critical thinking, the value of persistence, grit, or that life only has winners and no losers unless it is politically expedient to create a class of victims. It's all being done to destabilize society whom is then easier to control.

Thanks for the response and thread.

1. AI / Demons / Non-physical negative entities
2. Dark occultists / secret societies
3. Intelligence communities
4. Militaries
5. Politicians
6. Law-makers / congress
7. Medias
8. Police

Something like this although #1 can obviously be argued against though most researchers tend to agree coupled with some ancient knowledge we have available (sumerian tablets, nag hammadi, vedas, etc).

It's a ''game'' of giving away responsibility. Police follow orders as do politicians as do members of intel communities. It's passed upward.

I'm sharing this in response to what you said as I agree and want to point out not a enough of us understand the enemy here. How many people have spent even 10 hours researching secret societies? Or 20 hours researching satanic spheres globally?

originally posted by: CIAGypsy
a reply to: Maxmars

I generally agree with everything you said.

For me the hardest lift is getting people to refuse to accept the mental construct that the enemy wants to box you in with.... Refuse to accept their propaganda. They want you to think your dissent (i.e. - refusal to accept what they want you to think, do, etc...by simply saying NO) is meaningless or that dissent can only be violent. I don't think initial dissent needs to be violent. Let me give you an example. Look at all the attempts to create gun laws that would allow the state to come confiscate your weapons. How many Sheriff's have simply said "No. I won't comply with this unjust law." ???? That's an example of what I mean. This type of refusal becomes incredibly difficult to repeat at scale only because of the mental construct of "the state is an authority over me and I must obey what they say or I will go to jail." There is some truth to that...but there is also a reality where certain inalienable human rights exist which say "I have the right to defend myself and my family." It ultimately comes down to the moral and individual decision of each person what construct they accept and live by. Now eventually, this type of refusal to obey will escalate into something bigger because those who want to control will realize they must actually USE force to get compliance. That's why I asked at what point is violence justified for self defense? If we recognize this right as an individual, why would it not be relevant for a society?

Unfortunately for us, most people (including me) have been subjected to a conditioning we never asked for. The process can never have been said to be "benign' but may not have been intended as a directed malignancy. Simple mind bending was the initial object of the ideologs who created the effect. Their 'experiments were not complicated then... they have become more so now. There is a certain human capacity to accept a disharmonious reality, our tendency is to use that strength to facilitate survival in an untrusted environment. That capacity is being exploited continuously now.

All that is to say, we don't like turning that off. People - especially paranoid people - find almost any attempt to evoke trust as a form of 'violence' against their various ego structures. That's not to say that there are any absolutes... humans are not absolute in any manner. Organizations led by people who are of similar ilk react according to their leadership ... a fact lost on many 'big thinkers.'

What we end up with are organizations whose collective behavior registers as rigidly adherent to otherwise extreme purposeful force, without a meaningfully applied vector.

Hence, 'gun kill people' refracts into 'no more guns.' A meaningless perspective considering guns don't rise up and kill anymore than knives do, or big sticks.

I do not think it's' dissent to refuse - as some peace officers are - to strip citizens of their firearms, I think it is dissentful to pretend any authority has been given that privilege. I believe even the Supreme Court would find no fault in that statement.

Some in power believe that they are entitled to declare their utterances 'law.' Of course, they are not. Not here.

But by equal measure of my reason to the opposite - no one has a right to commit violence with the purpose of "saying" anything. The only 'true' point of violence is constrained by the subject of it. This is what makes "ideological-motivated attacks" barbaric. In a greatly extended view... it is what makes war a barbaric exercise.