Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Citizens of the World, Unite!

Posted 1 year ago on May 23, 2013, 3:19 p.m. EST by CamilleLouvet (19) from New Haven, CT
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

We must efface, eradicate, and destroy the remnants of Nationalism which only results in war, poverty, and social-darwainism! It is time to unite behind the slogan of citizens of the world for two major reasons:

1.) This is a world wide struggle which can only be won if we unite. 2.) Taking care of the world and the environment is a root of our cause.

We must abandon our allegiance to this flag which has abandoned us long ago! This flag, which used to be a symbol of freedom and liberty is now the homeland of tyranny and oppression. We need a new symbol, a new flag to rally behind. To return to a virtuous, moral, and responsible society now is the time to unite, fellow citizens of the world!

48 Comments

48 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by 4progress (49) 1 year ago

I agree with paragraph 1 and two

Everyone should unite worldwide as ONE humankind

[-] 1 points by highlander21 (-46) 1 year ago

time to unite.......under what banner and who?

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Actually history has humanity using one social contract before all others. The Magna Carta was used as a model for the contracts of 53 different nations.

The US constitution is consistent in all ways but was inspired by the a Iroquois confederacy.

[-] 1 points by CamilleLouvet (19) from New Haven, CT 1 year ago

Time will only determine.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

ofcourse, there will be a large push for nationalism of memorial day

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Memorial Day is Fascist, It is state-worship at its absolute.

at least call it what it is.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

most people don't pay that much attention to war

they'd rather not have it

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

It's because war isn't profitable...

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

or fun and friendly

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

War is fun to someone, if it wasn't then nobody would participate.

If war is so bad, then why is it so common?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

It's not so common

only weapons companies would have us believe that

[-] 1 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

Actually war is quite common. I doubt there’s been many times in human history where a war wasn’t going on somewhere in the world. Probably less so in the last 50 years, but still some type of war of varying scales. Face it, war seems to be the curse upon mankind..

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

the world's a big place

meh don't believe in curses

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

It happens everyday. That sounds pretty common to me. Do know how many people were killed in syria today?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

I can't believe we gave them weapons

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Anyone with a gun in Syria is a bad guy. It is pathetic that the US government is willing to allow war and murder to continue just to satisfy thier own interests.

[-] 0 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

I can’t confirm this, but I recently heard that more Americans are killed in Mexico every year than Iraq and Afghanistan. I’m not sure that means anything other than stay away from the drug cartels.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

ya anything is possible without looking it up

too bad its so easy to do that

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6638) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Nah, not even close. In 2010, 111 Americans were killed in Mexico. The numbers for Iraq and Afghanistan:

http://www.unknownnews.org/casualties.html

[-] 0 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

I stand corrected. But I did read somewhere the numbers of americans lilled in Mexico was higher. I'll see if I can find where I read it.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6638) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Well, I saw your comment yesterday and as the day went on my curiosity started getting the better of me. By today, I couldn't resist. My curious nature demanded me to find out. It wasn't an attempt to just prove you wrong or anything. I was genuinely curious because it could have been possible. The one site mentioned most of the deaths were close to the border, which is a no-brainer, I think. No doubt mostly drug deals gone wrong.

Or right, depending on which way the gun was pointing, heheheh.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

We were talking about Syria though. and not just americans but ALL human beings.

Death counts dont segregate between american and non-american.

[-] 0 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

Seems appropriate to have a day to remember all the hundreds of thousands fallen soldiers who fought and died for this country. How cynical to twist the meaning of memorial day.

[-] 1 points by CamilleLouvet (19) from New Haven, CT 1 year ago

Welcome to the post-modern age, everything is cynical. Everything has lost its meaning and value. A time where people do a lot of talking, yet say or mean little. Nationalism must face its final blow.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Violence should never, ever be celebrated. Memorial day celebrates war, violence and murder and those who carried out there evil acts.

War is ALWAYS wrong. Violence is ALWAYS wrong. Murder is ALWAYS wrong.

Every Memorial Day I reminded about how little people care that 2 million human beings were murdered in the Korean war. They only seem to care about the ones who had the good fortune of being born in america.

[-] 1 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

So you don't believe these soldiers, sailors and marines who died fighting for what they believed is right should be honored? These men and women weren't war mongers. They were mostly young men who believed in what they were doing.

Whether you agree with them or not, it's poor taste to malign men were willing to give all for what they believed. Shame on you.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I don't care if someone else honours murder, war and violence, I just do not want to be included.

War is in poor taste. Shame on you for praising the warmakers.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Why must I agree with you to further MY cause?

You should unite with ME, not the other way around.

Things are best done when I dont have to wait for everyone else to catch up.

[-] 1 points by CamilleLouvet (19) from New Haven, CT 1 year ago

Oh? And just what have YOU done which makes you so prestigious? This isn't MY cause or YOUR cause, but a common cause.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I didnt say This is MY cause or YOUR cause. I said that MY cause is MINE and YOUR cause is YOURS.

We may be using the forum to further our causes, but I doubt that we want the same outcome.

"common causes" and "greater goods" are code for: I want to rule your life and be able to tell you what to do so that it benifits me.

Instead of a "common cause", your goal should be a JUST cause.

[-] -2 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

The flag did not abandon us. After the civil war the nation was never made constitutionaL

The US Constitution re-expresses the principles of the Magna Carta, which was used as a model for the social contracts of 53 nations around the world.

We need to understand tyranny and oppression, what creates it. You are properly objecting to BAD BEHAVIOR which does not justify dispensing with the social contract that has our nations ideals standing for good behavior.

We can be citizens of the world, but we need to unify and control our government and MAKE it constitutional.

To do this,. it is best to consider ourselves world citizens. From that position we can see exactly what the US government is doing wrong in the world, and properly correct it.**

There is every chance that a constitutional government would be MUCH more effective at this (duh) than anything we might try from our current position.

[-] 0 points by CamilleLouvet (19) from New Haven, CT 1 year ago

It is difficult to see that we have not been abandoned with the poverty rate now around 15% while nearly 1% control 40% of the wealth. A constitution we must keep and cherish, yet within the constitution itself calls for its complete modification if needed to fit present day situations.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Wealth and it's aquisition/distribution is an irrelevent topic.

The problem with poverty is that it is involuntary, not that it exists in the first place.

You must seperate involuntary poverty and voluntary poverty.

[-] 2 points by CamilleLouvet (19) from New Haven, CT 1 year ago

Wealth is an extremely relevant topic because it leads to inequality. What constitutes a majority is the number of people who have power, thus; a sliver of people in this nation control most of the wealth. So, they are the "majority" in this country. Because of their wealth, they have the power to create the legislation and to hold influence in policy making.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Wealth is the cause of inequality. So why do so many people covet wealth with such fanticism?

The system is flawed. Representative democracy allows the few to rule over the one and the many. It is antiquated and probally should be abolished.

Wealth inequality is a result of people want more of it. The poor want to be rich and the rich want to be richer. It just never ends.

[-] -1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

We have lost free speech which is the tool of unity which keeps justice alive serving the living.

The problem is enforcement.

Those entrusted with the job are mind controlled from childhood with somnambulism, a very deep form of hypnosis, and our society cannot hear that, because it IS a mix of church and state.

We've been set up for 2,000 years to be afraid of knowledge we need to remain free, and become sustainable.

If anything was abandoned, it was OUR ABILITY TO KEEP THE TRUTH OF THE PAST. We have abandoned Oral Histories, and now we do not know the past.

[-] 1 points by CamilleLouvet (19) from New Haven, CT 1 year ago

I agree with you. However, we have been afraid of knowledge, yes, but up until the Enlightenment. That was the era to question per determined knowledge, and ultimately to question authority itself. We have lost the urge to question because we are too much in love with materialism. Just think how many millions will panic when they finally accept the fact that their happiness is artificial! We have abandoned the truth of the past, yes I agree. However, we as citizens of the world have been abandoned as well. This is essential to realize in any upcoming struggle.

[-] -1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Was it abandonment that inspired the Magna Carta? We are in a similar situation, taxed and defrauded to get money for crusade.

The big difference is that in 1215, the revolutionaries knew their opposition was as heretical as they were. But intent on enslavement.

Our constitution is derived in many ways from the Magna Carta.

Your point about materialism is correct, but the inverted point is the love and friendship that we know less and less of as media provides us with experiences.

[-] 0 points by CamilleLouvet (19) from New Haven, CT 1 year ago

Real progress will be achieved if we are able to get the media on our side. Even if that means creating a new outlet. We, us citizens, united in a common cause should publish. This movement should have its own newspaper to distribute.

[-] -1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

We have a chicken and egg situation. People like you and I need to make agreement base in the primacy of the constitution. Then see that expand in media because it is so universal. The constitution has that kind of universality.

The reason this is the best strategy is because eventually those who are real Americans amongst law enforcement and the judiciary can have something acceptable to align with.

[-] 1 points by CamilleLouvet (19) from New Haven, CT 1 year ago

Well, there can be thesis's and anti-thesis's which result in the synthesis (namely, the agreement). The issue with this is that the synthesis sprouts yet more thesis's and anti-thesis's. All in the hope to strike more at the truth (virtue, morality in society). Yet, how is this possible with ideological differences. It is easy for revolutionaries or reactionaries with certain common views to ally (you and I, for instance). Yet, who knows when that final synthesis is achieved which will be the closest to the truth the present regime will comply. It is time to replace experience with the new. Chosen not on a demagoguery platform anymore, but on a ideological one, closest to the will of the citizens. Albeit, not ideological with political values (republican, democrat, etc.) but on virtuous ones.

[-] 0 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Focus on prime principle creates democratic power, with that, each nation can support a uniformly adequate basis for sustainable global society.

The different people's of the planet do not need a world government, the need a world in agreement about conduct that assures our survival.

My point is that the US constitution has the prime principles. If we focus on those here and MAKE our government obey the constitution.

Our flag has not abandoned us. Infiltrations of our government have sought to obscure the principles of the flag while media mislead and distracted us. When we recover those principles in agreement, we will restore constitutional government and the world will join us conceptually from their own nations. Then they can work to integrate those principles into their government.

[-] 0 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Normally yes, the Constitution is an exception because it presents "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". The anti-thesis is death which ceases the effort to define the opposite of liberty.

Natural law is basically biology and phylogenetic DNA, controlling behaviors can be invoked by symbol, language etc. It is possible that such can be very positive IF natural law is actually invoked then understood.

The anti-thesis of survival and evolution has few followers. Seems that such a structure of principle supporting life is at the core of the inherent stability of republics. Which are not flexible enough to accomodate evolution, so we are in a good position as a large group of people.

Having the Constitution as our social contract is incredibly powerful, IF we can understand how the natural law aspect awakens instincts where unity becomes automatic when deeper than a certain level.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" isnt from the constitution......

Ignorance is very scary thing.

I heard a dude on the radio the other day using the Federalist Papers to defend his pro-2nd amendment agenda. WOW!!!!!

[-] 0 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

No its not from the Constitution, but the Constitution is intended to carry it. I assume it is. That was the intent. We have a chain of social contracts which originate with the Magna Carta and the best of the early contracts must be integrated into our thinking of the newer.

The elite want to eliminate elements/principles of accountability so will try and influence each newer with less rather than more of what we need. Under the Magna Carta, there was much greater accountability for awhile, until history was altered to remove the fact that it was a peace treaty and the king/barons were loosers.

The recorded history on the exchanges between factions working to mold the constitution in service to their interests is no where near complete.

[-] -2 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Assumption are nothing but opinion.

I assume you are one of those guy Fawkes/v for vendetta nuts who think that anarchy can coexist with government and that violence is okay if it's george w that you being violent against. Again that is just an assumption.

[-] -2 points by grace89 (-42) 1 year ago

you own a radio?