The bipolarization of the country helps keep everyone separated. Each side panders to specific groups in order to keep those groups separated. The left panders to minorities, women, disabled, unemployed and the working class, the right panders to whites, religious, rich, business owners, and the military. Both sets of people can be manipulated using these two "teams" via biased MSM(Fox News vs MSNBC) to bring about the synthesis of the two ideals in order to bring about radical change without people catching on. It's the Hegelian Dialectic. Thesis => antithesis => synthesis.
Radical change? Open tracking and surveillance of civilians. bank bailouts. The collegiate system being overrun with hardcore globalists. Radical environmentalism. "gay" rights, "minority" rights in general which is more of a collectivist divide and conquer tactic. Approval of torture by the masses.
Starting from the bottom: torture being approved of by the masses is nothing new in America. Claiming gay rights is some divide and conquer tactic is to be arguing that we should deprive citizens of rights in some attempt to form solidarity. This makes no sense and is hypocritical in light of your arguments that our rights are being eroded. Environmentalism is much less radical than it once was. Being a globalist =/= beign aprt of some NWO conspiracy. Surveillance is the only radical thing I'll give you. While we've always kept tabs on our citizens since the strike breaking days, today we're a hell of alot better at it.
"Gay" rights, as in it's an issue that is pushed to the mainstream that really wasn't an issue until it was brought forward into the mainstream. A lot of these "minority group" rights are just something pushed into mainstream by these foundations.
yes I would say they are. marriage is for the purposes of reproduction. They are probably better off not going into the military also. Our troops are nothing more than imperial soldiers.
1) No, you don't have to be married to have kids. Kids are better off in families but it it neither true that you need to be married or that married couples should procreate.
2) I think most (read: all) soldiers have little interest in some global empire
You don't seem to understand that there are no special rights for anyone in the marriage issue, it's giving every person the right to marry someone of the same sex.
Most of the people I talk to on both "sides" seem to hate both the candidates but are just going to suck it up and vote for there party's man. A lot of time people have the same beliefs as there parents and you can find 3 or 4 generation Democrat's and Republican's so I guess for them all they see it as is just backing there home team. All they see and think about issues and national affairs even just politics in general like it's a game, every issue is just another opportunity to score points and make the other side look bad when they don't even realize its all effecting them.
I agree with you but I going to voting for Gary Johnson despite that fact he's not even on my states ballot. A lot less of a waste then voting for Obamny even if it does nothing.
This is not true. Understand that two teams could be part of a greater whole that the individual members on either team don't actually know about. There are tiers and "need to know" basis information that many, many members of the team are completely ignorant of because the information itself is pretty nefarious and the main, main members at the very top of the conspiracy realize that not everyone can be trusted with that information. Therefore, many members outwardly - and, at times, honestly - opposing each other aren't actually aware that there is really only one team. If they did, they might not be as cooperative in the antagonism that those at the very, very top want them to have toward one another in order to fool the public into thinking that there are two sides and not actually just one - as is the real case.
First of all, I love the fact that this submission is literally just a single sentence - the title. Way to contribute to the conversation, InfiniteSource!
The first thing any conspiracists needs to ask himself when confronted with something that seems anomalous is "Is there a non-conspiracy explanation for this?". In much the same way that religious fundamentalists (and, really, any fundamentalist) self-implode is because they're unable to even entertain the thought that there is a non-supernatural explanation.
Let's go back to the 1960s. Civil rights movement. Up until this time, the Republicans were mostly liberal (in the government spending and subsidy sense) and the Democrats were mostly conservative. Not entirely, of course, but it's an over-simplification that keeps this post from being an essay on American political history. Anyhoo, the civil rights movement starts up and all of a sudden the question of racism is far more important than any other political consideration. When (Democrat) Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he supposedly said "We have lost the South for a generation". Southern Democrats (so-called Dixiecrats) so opposed integration, that they jumped ship - they became Republicans. Likewise, some Republicans were so disgusted by their party's open-arm welcome of racists, that they jumped ship and became Democrats.
Because of all this, you had conservatives jumping into bed with liberals and liberals jumping into bed with conservatives. You can't have that happening without each group changing each other. In other words, each party grew to be more and more similar. By combining this with politicians who are afraid of "offending" their core constituency (remember: Lyndon B. Johnson's acceptance of the Civil Rights Acts is one of the main reasons that over the next 24 years only 4 of them were under a Democrat president), it's obvious that both parties start being little more than slight variations of each other.
Why, then, is there so much partisan bias between each party if they're more or less the same? It's human nature - when things are almost identical, you spend more time and energy worrying about it and justifying your choices. For instance, let's imagine that somebody came up to you and said "Would you like me to give you $1 million or beat you to death with a tire iron?". The two choices couldn't be more different, yet it would be ridiculous for you to spend more than a second's thought making your decision. Now, what if he had said "Would you like $10 or would you like me to punch you in the face once and give you $100?". Now, the choice is between two things that are much more similar in worth and you'll probably think about it for longer. Theoretically, we could create a situation where the two choices are more or less the same (a little bit less money on one side, a little bit more money and pain on the other) until you get a situation where they are more or less identical, but it takes you a long time to decide which choice to make.
In other words, it's possible to create a theory that explains everything that we see without invoking conspiracy.
Radical change? Open tracking and surveillance of civilians. bank bailouts. The collegiate system being overrun with hardcore globalists. Radical environmentalism. "gay" rights, "minority" rights in general which is more of a collectivist divide and conquer tactic. Approval of torture by the masses.
27 comments
13 jakenichols 2012-11-03
The bipolarization of the country helps keep everyone separated. Each side panders to specific groups in order to keep those groups separated. The left panders to minorities, women, disabled, unemployed and the working class, the right panders to whites, religious, rich, business owners, and the military. Both sets of people can be manipulated using these two "teams" via biased MSM(Fox News vs MSNBC) to bring about the synthesis of the two ideals in order to bring about radical change without people catching on. It's the Hegelian Dialectic. Thesis => antithesis => synthesis.
-5 flopus 2012-11-03
replace radical change with stability and you're right. What radical changes have you seen?
3 Slipgrid 2012-11-03
The militarization of our police
The debasement of our currency
Implementation of Agenda 21 - "sustainability"
Rise of police state
Torture going on with approval of American's
US Citizen willing to forfeit their rights
etc, etc
-8 flopus 2012-11-03
1) Militarizationj is going quite far. The NYPD can't hit shit
2) Don't want to hear about the FED
3) Forgot which subreddit I was in
4) We're actually quite a bit free-er to speak our minds than at any other time
5) Because torture is clearly something new, The Philippines never happened eh?
6) Our rights are far from under attack
4 jakenichols 2012-11-03
you're a moron fyi.
2 jakenichols 2012-11-03
Radical change? Open tracking and surveillance of civilians. bank bailouts. The collegiate system being overrun with hardcore globalists. Radical environmentalism. "gay" rights, "minority" rights in general which is more of a collectivist divide and conquer tactic. Approval of torture by the masses.
1 flopus 2012-11-03
Starting from the bottom: torture being approved of by the masses is nothing new in America. Claiming gay rights is some divide and conquer tactic is to be arguing that we should deprive citizens of rights in some attempt to form solidarity. This makes no sense and is hypocritical in light of your arguments that our rights are being eroded. Environmentalism is much less radical than it once was. Being a globalist =/= beign aprt of some NWO conspiracy. Surveillance is the only radical thing I'll give you. While we've always kept tabs on our citizens since the strike breaking days, today we're a hell of alot better at it.
2 jakenichols 2012-11-03
"Gay" rights, as in it's an issue that is pushed to the mainstream that really wasn't an issue until it was brought forward into the mainstream. A lot of these "minority group" rights are just something pushed into mainstream by these foundations.
1 flopus 2012-11-03
because they're citizens the same as you and I. I see no reason they should not be extended the same rights we enjoy
1 jakenichols 2012-11-03
That's the thing, dude, they had the rights already. They now want "privledges".
2 flopus 2012-11-03
The ability to marry and a shot at serving their country are not privileges
1 jakenichols 2012-11-03
yes I would say they are. marriage is for the purposes of reproduction. They are probably better off not going into the military also. Our troops are nothing more than imperial soldiers.
1 flopus 2012-11-03
1) No, you don't have to be married to have kids. Kids are better off in families but it it neither true that you need to be married or that married couples should procreate.
2) I think most (read: all) soldiers have little interest in some global empire
1 jakenichols 2012-11-03
soldiers have little interest yes, but the people who control them have a large interest. namely the UN.
0 flopus 2012-11-03
The U.N. doesn't command many soldiers...
I think you are confused
1 MidattensSvampfest 2012-11-03
We had 'the rights' already? Which ones were those?
1 jakenichols 2012-11-03
the right to life and to be "free."
1 MidattensSvampfest 2012-11-03
You don't seem to understand that there are no special rights for anyone in the marriage issue, it's giving every person the right to marry someone of the same sex.
9 edditorRay 2012-11-03
The illusion of choice and the inability/refusal to think that it is all just a show.
2 opn420 2012-11-03
Most of the people I talk to on both "sides" seem to hate both the candidates but are just going to suck it up and vote for there party's man. A lot of time people have the same beliefs as there parents and you can find 3 or 4 generation Democrat's and Republican's so I guess for them all they see it as is just backing there home team. All they see and think about issues and national affairs even just politics in general like it's a game, every issue is just another opportunity to score points and make the other side look bad when they don't even realize its all effecting them.
2 SnideJaden 2012-11-03
cant waist my vote on 3rd party, might as well make sure and vote the one who can help me (not the country) the most. That's what I figure anyways.
2 [deleted] 2012-11-03
[deleted]
6 opn420 2012-11-03
I agree with you but I going to voting for Gary Johnson despite that fact he's not even on my states ballot. A lot less of a waste then voting for Obamny even if it does nothing.
6 board4life 2012-11-03
"If voting made any difference, they wouldn't let us do it"- Mark Twain.
2 evenmoretiredoflibs 2012-11-03
If this were true no one would need to steal elections
2 no1113 2012-11-03
This is not true. Understand that two teams could be part of a greater whole that the individual members on either team don't actually know about. There are tiers and "need to know" basis information that many, many members of the team are completely ignorant of because the information itself is pretty nefarious and the main, main members at the very top of the conspiracy realize that not everyone can be trusted with that information. Therefore, many members outwardly - and, at times, honestly - opposing each other aren't actually aware that there is really only one team. If they did, they might not be as cooperative in the antagonism that those at the very, very top want them to have toward one another in order to fool the public into thinking that there are two sides and not actually just one - as is the real case.
1 [deleted] 2012-11-03
First of all, I love the fact that this submission is literally just a single sentence - the title. Way to contribute to the conversation, InfiniteSource!
The first thing any conspiracists needs to ask himself when confronted with something that seems anomalous is "Is there a non-conspiracy explanation for this?". In much the same way that religious fundamentalists (and, really, any fundamentalist) self-implode is because they're unable to even entertain the thought that there is a non-supernatural explanation.
Let's go back to the 1960s. Civil rights movement. Up until this time, the Republicans were mostly liberal (in the government spending and subsidy sense) and the Democrats were mostly conservative. Not entirely, of course, but it's an over-simplification that keeps this post from being an essay on American political history. Anyhoo, the civil rights movement starts up and all of a sudden the question of racism is far more important than any other political consideration. When (Democrat) Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he supposedly said "We have lost the South for a generation". Southern Democrats (so-called Dixiecrats) so opposed integration, that they jumped ship - they became Republicans. Likewise, some Republicans were so disgusted by their party's open-arm welcome of racists, that they jumped ship and became Democrats.
Because of all this, you had conservatives jumping into bed with liberals and liberals jumping into bed with conservatives. You can't have that happening without each group changing each other. In other words, each party grew to be more and more similar. By combining this with politicians who are afraid of "offending" their core constituency (remember: Lyndon B. Johnson's acceptance of the Civil Rights Acts is one of the main reasons that over the next 24 years only 4 of them were under a Democrat president), it's obvious that both parties start being little more than slight variations of each other.
Why, then, is there so much partisan bias between each party if they're more or less the same? It's human nature - when things are almost identical, you spend more time and energy worrying about it and justifying your choices. For instance, let's imagine that somebody came up to you and said "Would you like me to give you $1 million or beat you to death with a tire iron?". The two choices couldn't be more different, yet it would be ridiculous for you to spend more than a second's thought making your decision. Now, what if he had said "Would you like $10 or would you like me to punch you in the face once and give you $100?". Now, the choice is between two things that are much more similar in worth and you'll probably think about it for longer. Theoretically, we could create a situation where the two choices are more or less the same (a little bit less money on one side, a little bit more money and pain on the other) until you get a situation where they are more or less identical, but it takes you a long time to decide which choice to make.
In other words, it's possible to create a theory that explains everything that we see without invoking conspiracy.
0 Jay27 2012-11-03
I notice you're not telling us who these owners are...
-5 flopus 2012-11-03
replace radical change with stability and you're right. What radical changes have you seen?
3 Slipgrid 2012-11-03
The militarization of our police
The debasement of our currency
Implementation of Agenda 21 - "sustainability"
Rise of police state
Torture going on with approval of American's
US Citizen willing to forfeit their rights
etc, etc
2 jakenichols 2012-11-03
Radical change? Open tracking and surveillance of civilians. bank bailouts. The collegiate system being overrun with hardcore globalists. Radical environmentalism. "gay" rights, "minority" rights in general which is more of a collectivist divide and conquer tactic. Approval of torture by the masses.