The High Fivers Club

The high fivers club is a group of people that all have the same view on every subject with little or no dissent. Every now and then they will throw in a vauge disagreement to keep up appearences.

IMO This is a group with an agenda that goes forth in an attempt to garner support for subjects that are givin to them not by way of individual thought but mandated from a higher power further up the food chain.

I believe their goal is simple control through persisant thought manipulation. They can be spotted simply by agreement on all the larger subjects and their character attacks on differing opinions. They will use any argument in debate to defame and discredit the personality while putting things like unproven conspiracies in the realm of lunacy.

They are very similar in many ways to politicians that vote down the line of one party. To me i just can not phathom how truth could be found in just one side of a debate. In a world of duality no single answer is ever cut and dry unless the facts get skewed. I believe that the current model of herding is set up to fail the founding principles of the usa.

I am not just speaking of ats but the whole of the country that ats in many ways is a reflection of. My goal is just simply to perhaps get some to once again see both sides of the views before deciding. IMO The future is at stake here and we are in the final stages of the nwo.

The future is in our hands and the truth in this reality has been made hard to believe. There is great delusion in life today so that you will believe the lie. There is a simple way to defeat this. Simply state your opinion and reject that which stands out to you as half truth or programmng. This has to be done at every turn. Harness the sword of truth that resides in your heart. If everyone is true to there own mind then the battle will be won. Are you stronger than programming? Speak as if it is your last chance.




Be the hero. Only you can save us all.

a reply to: deadeyedick

It's a known tactic by groups pushing agendas on social media and the like. The whole game is to elicit judgement.

The sword of truth? Great metaphor.

All you have to do is reserve judgement & remain open to new data for as long as possible. Once you get good, you can reserve judgement at all times. Then you clearly see all the "forces" trying to manipulate you.

Listen to what I'm saying but get other input and always reserve judgment.... said no shill --ever.

I agree with everything you say. High Five!!

There are a few on here as well though. You'll usually find them skulking the 9/11 forum, so much so I hardly ever post anything there anymore.

It is also important to note that although we view them as enemies often that may not be the case. Blackmailing and other tactis like money and jail could get many to play ball beyond their will to do so. Of coarse we all have choices but inside everyone of us a battle of good and evil persist and we can if looking closely read between the lines and find that voice being held hostage if we read between the lines. Do not view them as enemies but humans forced into a situation. Then you will find that the battle is not with them directly but what they are often forced to spew.

a reply to: deadeyedick

THANK YOU

Thank you

thank YOU!!!!


0% sarcasm, 100% sincerity here....

What was the phrase I read in another thread?
Kangaroo Court?

I'll play devil's advocate here.

So what makes the group that is not the one you labelled "High Five" group any different from the opposing view who high fives? How are you discerning which side is the "High Five" group? Is it simply that they oppose what YOU think? If that is the case then wouldn't that make you part of your own "High Five" group?

Reason I ask is because this is a bit of a silly argument...one side opposes what another thinks/posts/says....that is the way it always is and has been. If everyone agreed on everything then it would just be one big "High Five" group right?

So...who is right? The one that brings up the topic in the first place or the one that opposes the view of the OP?

With your argument I could call you part of a "High Five" group.

And there are certain conspiracies that can be labelled as lunacy simply because logic permits. Your assumption is that everyone has the same ability to cognitively process what they are talking about, when in fact not everyone does.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe


And there are certain conspiracies that can be labelled as lunacy simply because logic permits. Your assumption is that everyone has the same ability to cognitively process what they are talking about, when in fact not everyone does.

That's for sure....

When common sense is replaced by an ideology or theology [usually both]; it's impossible to have a reasonable disagreement.

Preconceived notions, can and will trump logic and evidence every time.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Vasa Croe


And there are certain conspiracies that can be labelled as lunacy simply because logic permits. Your assumption is that everyone has the same ability to cognitively process what they are talking about, when in fact not everyone does.

That's for sure....

When common sense is replaced by an ideology or theology [usually both]; it's impossible to have a reasonable disagreement.

Preconceived notions, can and will trump logic and evidence every time.

I think greed is the biggest trump card to truth & equality.

Vasa made a good point in the post before yours, "the ability to cognitively process" information varies greatly person to person, mainly due to long term greed & long term conditioning.

We wouldn't need high fivers or even the individuals (such as myself) that refuse to high five about anything, because every option is inherently backwards & broken, spawned by a like system of greed & disparity.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

I am glad you posed the question and the answer is simple.

For the majority of us no one agrees with us on all our views but there exist some that like i said they all are in agreement on most subjects.

It can be spotted easily by reverse engineering so to speak. What would it look like if a hive mind was present? You would have a list of certain topics that would be the goal and all would be in agreement with. Then you would have individual paths that all led to those topics or goals. Many posters will fall under the catagory with agreeing with some of the major views but not all and when you have multiple people in agreement then that should raise some flags.

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Now, to be honest, I cannot address this without bringing my own baggage from ATS into the picture. But, I think I've got something of an answer to your question...and I'll try to keep it short in the wordcount...


I have personally encountered vast opposition / shut down on this board. It is almost always "we've already debunked this", and then the virtual "talk to the hand".

Now, some may have come to a conclusion, decided on an answer in their own head, and closed the books. It is apparent that many here even immediately discount a source simply for the source itself. Let's take Sorcha Faal for instance. Is she a wingnut? Sure. Should it be taken with a huge swigg off of the salt container? Absolutely. But it's almost always a "we've decided" approach and then immediately followed with "and you're wrong". What if there is even the smallest kernel of truth SOMEWHERE in that pile of feces that Mrs. Faal generally producse?


This, I believe, is the kind of "High Five" club approach as brought up by the OP.


What do you think, what's your take/opinion on this?

a reply to: nullafides

I would say that there are a few that I can discount completely based on their history. Faal being one of them. Sure there are truths sprinkled in with the story, but those truths are already out there in the real story about them. The real story is typically a lot less glamorous than the spin Faal puts on it.

Greer would be another one, as would Bashar, etc.....

a reply to: nullafides

I don't think that's exactly the high five club OP was referring to, but in my opinion, it is a far more dangerous one.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Fair enough, and I think we see where each other is coming from.

In a nutshell, you've immediately discounted a source where I've decided to simply keep my eye open on a "just in case" level. And I do not write this sentence in a negative light. Rather, a confirmation of what I've read that we've openly communicated to one another.

I'm cool with that.

But it's the shut down, the "you're an idiot for listening to X", the utter pack mentality of "we've decided". It comes across as though a great majority here are only willing to entertain a thought, or hold a discussion, if it is well within the tightly regimented framework of what is accepted as "possible" through the means of discounting sources.

Well, if "we've decided", why even have this forum of ATS available? What *is* the point to it?

a reply to: Eunuchorn

What do you see the high five club as being then?

And how are you seeing what I proposed as being more dangerous? Not that I disagree, I'm just looking to better understand where you are coming from...

I think that even more important than trying to identify the problem or players is the need for everyone to speak up.

Say it from the heart.

Do not be ashamed that you may not measure up to others but contribute.

If you are a lurker then sign up and join in.

It does not matter what side your views are but that you choose to express them.

Just be humble and be heard!

I have experienced this in the past when I used to post regularly. There were some topics that could be brought up that were immediately followed by a slew of the same names and faces that would attempt to discredit everything said and they were almost ignorant of each other or any flaws that they might have had in their arguments. If one would have a logical fallacy present in their appeals, the others would agree and follow suit regardless, sometime all going down with the ship.

I hope its understood what I mean by all that. Some of them were banned ages ago but I still see some from time to time. I guess these folks are sometimes called "disinfo agents" but the term got flung around so loosely that anyone who disagreed with a point became one in the mind of the person facing scrutiny.

But yet, there are these cliques that exist and support each other to certain ends. I don't think there is any denying that. Whether it is intention or it is just the product of a self creating forum hive mind, I do not know. I don't think any of us could ever hope to know the truth unless someone slips from with the circles, if there even is a defined circle to begin with.

a reply to: TheNewRevolution

I think most are still here and often will sacrifice a second account to defame others.