the art of Division

You do know that this is the current method of rule do you not? Divide, make the sides fight each other, pouring out passions on one another that should go elsewhere, rule the ruin left in its wake...

How strange it is to watch people armchair (meant as a verb) the casual judgment about people's lives afar (meaning countries foreign to the USA) and how these countries are divided and brought to ruin through this, only to eagerly engage in it themselves in the USA. Satan (Soros??) please stand up and take a bow. Well played, well played....

a reply to: Apollumi

Bread and circuses keeping everyone distracted, and propaganda and secret agendas making various "groups" turn on each other.

Yes, Soros (and many others) are doing a great job. We're f*cked

a reply to: FamCore

We cant point and wag the finger at one party, this division and lack professionalism is displayed by both sides.
Many members here relish in trumps bait alternative fact triggering the 'left', not realizing if the president falters, the country falters... and it trickles down to us all and it will manifest in ways never seen before, as all of this is unprecedented.

originally posted by: Apollumi
You do know that this is the current method of rule do you not? Divide, make the sides fight each other, pouring out passions on one another that should go elsewhere, rule the ruin left in its wake...

How strange it is to watch people armchair (meant as a verb) the casual judgment about people's lives afar (meaning countries foreign to the USA) and how these countries are divided and brought to ruin through this, only to eagerly engage in it themselves in the USA. Satan (Soros??) please stand up and take a bow. Well played, well played....

It's not just Soros, you should know that by now, and you should also acknowledge that Soros has imput as of now in the US's new government, along with other perceived Satans. In any case divide and conquer is not exactly a new concept, and works particularly well in a two party arena. Just blame it on anybody if you want, but inside or outside the US.

That's what happens when liberals force-feed multicultural diversity down everyone's throats.

a reply to: Apollumi

I agree and even bringing up Soros is taking a stance on one side and playing the game. We are all biased in our own way and taken advantage of easily.

Both sides share equally in the guilt, but even conversations where that is recognized devolve into a sporting event quickly. We watch our so called leaders on both sides as examples and fall for it over and over again. Our children grow up watching adults behave like children and schoolyard bullies when it comes to politics and it carries it on from generation to generation. They even learn that some lies are OK in a ends justifies the means world that all politicians seem to live in.

We need people in charge who can compromise and work for positive change together, but why should they? Divide to control has always worked and I'm sure goes back to the first tribes medicine man / witch doctor ( or whatever), telling people we must kill those people on the other side of the valley or they will eat all the food. It's in our DNA I'm sure and we just can't seem to evolve past it.

a reply to: smurfy

I'm sure there are other billionaires involved (aside from just Soros). I would also bet that they are all globalists. Right now, the Trump admin does not jibe with the globalist agenda. So yeah, for the moment it does appear to be coming from one side.

Could be subject to change, but right now it looks pretty clear to me.

a reply to: Apollumi

Has been that way for centuries. Personally, I am surprised humanity is just now catching on to it. This tactic isn't anything new from the political elite.

originally posted by: Wookiep
a reply to: smurfy

I'm sure there are other billionaires involved (aside from just Soros). I would also bet that they are all globalists. Right now, the Trump admin does not jibe with the globalist agenda. So yeah, for the moment it does appear to be coming from one side.

Could be subject to change, but right now it looks pretty clear to me.

I think you are correct when you say you bet they are all globalists, and that there are others besides Soros who are acting to continue this divide. But I disagree when You suggest that Trump does not jibe with the globalist agenda.

This is because I the globalist agenda is driven by one specific class of people. International capitalists . Trump is an international capitalist. Global capitalists want one unified world to rule with their world spanning corporations and octopus-like conglomerations.

Soros is easily focused on because he has been labeled a socialist by the right. Yet anyone from the left can see clearly that sure, he funds liberal politics, but not as a socialist, as just one more international capitalist.

a reply to: odzeandennz

Many members here relish in trumps bait alternative fact triggering the 'left', not realizing if the president falters, the country falters... and it trickles down to us all and it will manifest in ways never seen before

That was eloquent. It's worth making a thread about (maybe there is one and I've missed it, but it sounds like a message many would benefit from hearing)

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire

originally posted by: Wookiep
a reply to: smurfy

I'm sure there are other billionaires involved (aside from just Soros). I would also bet that they are all globalists. Right now, the Trump admin does not jibe with the globalist agenda. So yeah, for the moment it does appear to be coming from one side.

Could be subject to change, but right now it looks pretty clear to me.

I think you are correct when you say you bet they are all globalists, and that there are others besides Soros who are acting to continue this divide. But I disagree when You suggest that Trump does not jibe with the globalist agenda.

This is because I the globalist agenda is driven by one specific class of people. International capitalists . Trump is an international capitalist. Global capitalists want one unified world to rule with their world spanning corporations and octopus-like conglomerations.

Soros is easily focused on because he has been labeled a socialist by the right. Yet anyone from the left can see clearly that sure, he funds liberal politics, but not as a socialist, as just one more international capitalist.

Ok. What are the names of these capitalistic globalists? Got any dirt or is that just speculation? Have any corporate CEO's been caught funding protesters or the right wing media? (pro globalism) *ETA* He got me on Fox, I agree with that one.

I'm not saying I doubt the possibility, but there's plenty of documented dirt on Soros.

And yes, I do know all about lobbyists, and lobbyism should be banned. That can be fixed at the local level however.

a reply to: Wookiep

Names? They abound. How is it that you know there is plenty of documented dirt on Soros yet do not know any of the other names that are not so easily branded socialist? My be is that you only listen or pay attention to right wing propaganda. And you want some names of funders of right wing media? Two off the top. Rupert Murdoch who is the founder of Fox and the New York Post and then there are the owners of the Washington Times and UPI.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Wookiep

Names? They abound. How is it that you know there is plenty of documented dirt on Soros yet do not know any of the other names that are not so easily branded socialist? My be is that you only listen or pay attention to right wing propaganda. And you want some names of funders of right wing media? Two off the top. Rupert Murdoch who is the founder of Fox and the New York Post and then there are the owners of the Washington Times and UPI.

Relax, I simply asked a question. Yes, Murdoch is a tool, and Fox news has been caught time and time again pushing globalism as well. Had they not finally got somewhat on board with Trump the ship would have sank after the election. They chose to save face, Fox is a joke.

I'm just not seeing how capitalism could possibly play into an elite game of globalism, unless you are talking about corporate lobbyism, which we DO know exists. It's localized to corrupted U.S. senators etc, ran by former law makers. But The U.S. joined the globalist economy and have been a part of it for quite some time now. NAFTA was next level globalist economic bs, and Trump does not support it.

You can get mad all you want when asked for names to come to the table, but if you want to have a discussion leave the emotions out of it, because let's be fair, your bias mostly in favor of the Soros side is pretty obvious.

I will say one thing. What to look out for is the Federal Reserve. If ANY president (Trump included) attempts to blow the doors open on the FED, we WILL see severe media push back, and at that point, you will know which side to ally with.

Sen. Rand Paul is still pushing the Audit the Fed bill, just as his father did. We can only hope the fed will eventually be exposed, and I don't care which president decides to have the cajones to do it. Much respect for whomever that may be.

a reply to: Wookiep

My 'bias' in favor of the Soros side is not 'in favor of the 'Soros side' rather it is against a side that is only willing to accept him as an example of elite power players. As far as naming other names, to me that is an exercise in tit for tat. Anyone can toss em up, and anyone can knock em down and then start again tomorrow.

You suggest that lobbyism is localized to corrupted US congressmen. I find no reason to think it limited to such a degree. If we can see it here, under our constitution and laws with the best system of checks and balances in the world, it only makes sense, to me at least, that this is a global problem.

As far as Tump not supporting nafta, well neither did I. I was firmly opposed to both NAFTA and WTO, But I Think that Trump being against it is simple. It likely did not benefit his own economic power, plus it was clearly an issue that his constituency was against. Two birds with one stone.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

You suggest that lobbyism is localized to corrupted US congressmen. I find no reason to think it limited to such a degree. If we can see it here, under our constitution and laws with the best system of checks and balances in the world, it only makes sense, to me at least, that this is a global problem.

Well, I suppose it would take some digging to find any merit in that theory. So far the narrative has been the socialized globalist one. Do you think these brainwashed Soros protesters want capitalism? Some of them are now openly supporting communism. Imagine that, if America had a whole massive segment of society supporting communism. That's where I see this going.

All I know is that I'm for free markets, and a non-centralized global banking system (FED) backed by a gold standard. (some actual physical standard) without printed money. Socialism is completely opposite, it eliminates quality of services/products while removing competition vital to a thriving economy. That is however, what the Soros folks push day in, day out. It is the current narrative from the (known) global elite.

A free market capitalistic society, in a democratically elected republic in no conceivable way, would support socialistic globalism, never-mind global communism. Just sharing my thoughts on it. You are of course entitled to your own view of it.

a reply to: Wookiep

If it worked like that, I would not argue against it. The twentieth century has demonstrated for us many of the strengths of capitalism. It's only economic rival, for most of that was Marxism and that proved to be a much weaker economic template. Capitalism won.

Yet in that winning, it was tarnished, tarnished actually with tariffs and taxes and such from the start. The vision of capitalism you hold would be wonderful, maybe more wonderful than a socialists wonderful, maybe not. Socialism really is an economy based on worker owned production. Simple. What we have ever seen of 'socialism' what is labeled Socialism by way to many people is not socialism. Russia was not socialist nor China. Both were totalitarian states that at best played only lip service to that 'untarnished socialism"...

So real socialists can dream of that worker owned and operated economy while pho socialists suggest that all they really want is to suck off the hind end of the capitalist system. So yeah, for me at least, socialism is not gonna happen. But neither is capitalism if left to the people who are running it now.

To me, the idea of going back to the gold standard is just a unrealistic as a socialist workers world. The reason we got off the gold standard was because there wasn't enough gold to back up the explosive development of wealth that the system itself allowed, so it was bye bye gold and off into the wild blue yonder where economists wrote there own rules to keep the wealth machine running. The only way going back to a gold standard work is if those who own most of that gold decide to do it and only when they own it all. And when they own it all, the only economy will be a feudal economy with each of the 'lord's passing out their own little golden chips to the serfs in their employ.

Another point, even though I don't see it happening is contrary to your idea that a socialist run economy would not inspire competition and innovation. In a real socialist economy, the workers would own the means of production, what ever that product was. They would be inspired to work for better ways to improve their condition in the market place. They would organize themselves in a manner that would utilize the strengths of all the owners, the workers, to produce a product that would keep their company going. They would explore new possibilities of products and efficiency. Why? Because it is their company, not a company owned by some one else.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

So you're a globalist with a socialistic view in which you think is the new world utopia. Welcome to the NWO. Please take the global pamphlet for better living on your way out.

I appreciate the time and effort it took for you to write that response, but it's socialistic Utopian George Soros funded nonsense. It's THAT very ideology that leads us to where we are right now. A false sense of unity, stirring division, selling "diversity" and "unity" as something good, while being completely controlled by a one world government, a one-way ticket to "unity". Only ONE opinion matters, anything else is futile.

I get you may think I'm joking, but just wait till your utopia becomes real.

Thanks for the discussion.

originally posted by: Wookiep
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

So you're a globalist with a socialistic view in which you think is the new world utopia. Welcome to the NWO. Please take the global pamphlet for better living on your way out.

I appreciate the time and effort it took for you to write that response, but it's socialistic Utopian George Soros funded nonsense. It's THAT very ideology that leads us to where we are right now. A false sense of unity, stirring division, selling "diversity" and "unity" as something good, while being completely controlled by a one world government, a one-way ticket to "unity". Only ONE opinion matters, anything else is futile.

I get you may think I'm joking, but just wait till your utopia becomes real.

Thanks for the discussion.

Well yes, I thought we were having a conversation, but apparently not.

So you're a globalist with a socialistic view in which you think is the new world utopia. Welcome to the NWO. Please take the global pamphlet for better living on your way out.

How did you get that from what I wrote?. How? Did I not say that socialism, real socialism, is a failed economic theory? Yes I did. So what sense does it make for me to be a socialist if I believe it to be a failed system that will never deliver the promises it makes. None. Absolutely none.

Yet somehow you came up with that and more. The point of the OP was the Art of Division. You have demonstrated it perfectly. You have taken what I was saying, read it through the glasses sold to you by one side of that decisive power.

originally posted by: Wookiep

I'm sure there are other billionaires involved (aside from just Soros). I would also bet that they are all globalists. Right now, the Trump admin does not jibe with the globalist agenda. So yeah, for the moment it does appear to be coming from one side.
Could be subject to change, but right now it looks pretty clear to me.

You miss the point, Trump has Soros men in his government, and Goldman Sachs, as well as being a partner with these people himself.