Whether you're for Trump or against, one thing is certain - there is a trust crisis going on, and it is creating further division. Divide and conquer is one of the most effective methods of controlling the masses.
55 2017-02-18 by russian321
I do think it's a good thing that Trump is speaking out against MSM, except for the fact that he praises FOX since they haven't really been so critical of him. However it's obvious that recently more and more people are starting to not know who to believe, and if it's people who are just barely realizing this without proper guidance they can be very easily controlled.
I'll be honest and say that I don't trust Trump, but neither do I trust Clinton. However, both parties and sides are saying either: 1. Liberals/Clinton = evil, corrupt, pedophiles, wall street, lies, etc., Or 2. The same but for Conservatives/Trump.
Steve Bannon (the tea party) has been publicly speaking out against the establishment for a long time now, they aren't new, and the people who put all their trust in those ideologies are good people with good intentions. However, you need to look at where the money is and realize that Steve Bannon himself has very close ties to Goldman Sachs.
When Obama became President, the left kind of turned a blind eye to all the corruption and nasty shit that happened under his administration and loved Obama from the beginning till the end. He was the left's hope of taking down the establishment. During his time, this gave Steve Bannon all the ammo he needed to rally up his followers and get behind someone who would appear to be anti establishment, but on the right side =Trump. Before he was trying to get people behind Sarah Palin, but she fucked it up.
So now we have two Presidents who people on their respective sides view as anti establishment, and people have complete distrust for anything on the other sides.
What they fail to realize is that they need not trust their own parties. And this is why there is a trust crisis. It's not that more people are trusting less and less the establishment (even when they think they are) but rather that they are trusting more and more the establishment by putting in all this trust in leaders who pretend to be anti establishment.
If you want to know who controls you, first find out who you can't criticize. This goes for both sides, not just for stupid libtards and not just for dumb Trumpets, or whatever we call each other.
Now it's time to unite, and not trust ANY authority. Trust no one.
Trust no one.
Fuck the education system.
Fuck the feds.
Fuck the globalists and the greedy capitalists who control the press and manufacture consent.
Fuck the people who tell us to fight each other.
Fuck the establishment (which will continue until we all unite against those who really control us).
And no, Trump will not save us. Wake up.
9 comments
n/a Easiest-E 2017-02-18
What if the plan all along had been to make Pence president? I could totally see the Donald not actually wanting to do the job. Maybe he's doing so much crazy shit right away to purposely get impeached. Give the assist for Pence as it were.
n/a DoYouBooBooDoYou 2017-02-18
His ego is too big to allow himself to go down in history as that guy.
n/a twofaceHill_16 2017-02-18
Brilliant insight /s
n/a Noanswer_merelyapath 2017-02-18
I think there's a bigger issue. This notion of "divide and conquer" isn't really real. It's a facade for two sides of the same coin.
Hear me out. From a government's perspective, feeding the masses both the pro- and against groups propaganda would be the best way to control them. Simply to suppress one group will create natural resistance in the other.
Instead, why not just manipulate both sides into being inert? Content? Unmotivated to act on their revolutionary agenda?
I believe governments have been doing this for a millenia, if not longer. It's just the "efficient" way to do it.
Let me give you a real life anecdote. In a debate class you have pro-life and pro-choice groups. We have the moderator, the teacher, act in two different ways.
The first, he/she directs both groups with specific targeted, open-ended questions that steer the conversation towards pro-life (assuming we are some conservative school who wants to push that agenda) but leave the pro-choice with a chance to rebuttal. By framing the question in slight favor of the pro-lifers the school has already succeeded in implanting the minds of the students that the answer, based on the biased premise, should be pro-life.
In the second example, the teacher directs both groups with a specific question that is modeled to directly support pro-life with no chance of rebuttal. Something along the stupid, unproven lines of, "A fetus can feel pain at x weeks." How is the pro-choice group supposed to respond to that? Even if they rebuttal with evidence disproving the claim, the pro-choicers have no chance against the uneducated mass. There's a problem here though. Nowadays, the general public is MUCH more educated than before. Simply pulling that shit without fear of repurcussions doesn't work anymore for the school (model for government).
To work around this, they prey on our ability to debate issues by using the biased, but arguable questions. A great example in recent news was the democratic debate between Clinton & Sanders. How many of the questions were either bs or tilted in favor of Clinton's agenda?
Anyway, I'm interested in hearing your opinion on the matter.
n/a russian321 2017-02-18
I agree that the debates between Sanders and Clinton were utter BS, and I always finished watching each one disappointed that they never really debated any issues I thought were going to be debated. Seems like that's how it is with most political debates in general.
It also seems like we are labelling the alt-right and SJWs as being on the "fringes" of the spectrum, but I think this is done on purpose so that we don't talk about topics that are actually on the fringes.
We're given a small window near the center (lately it's been going more to the right even among democrats) of the spectrum and within that limit and fight each other.
n/a Noanswer_merelyapath 2017-02-18
Your analogy to the window is interesting.
For politicians, it is in their best interest to walk the tightrope without upsetting both ends. However, we are seeing the constant mass that acts as a dichotomy. If you are not liberal, you are anti-gay. If you are not conservative, you are a lesbian/gay person. This extends to non-sensitive issues as well and further goes to support my argument that the government is merely just playing the mass like puppets in the same theatre. We have the same setting, the same story, and the same cast. What's so different?
It is the mass controlled by the ones in power who are forced to side with the label of "liberal" or "conservative." There are no real labels that exist except for those rooted in hard objective facts. Male. Female. Height. Weight. Ethnic heritage, etc.
n/a Noanswer_merelyapath 2017-02-18
2nd reply as I was in a bit of a rush to the first. I couldn't express myself or my ideas clearly.
Your analogy to the window is interesting because I believe it only applies for politicians who do not have a strong following on a particular issue. Trump is able to incite hate speech which is extremely conservative due to the similar racist views shared by many other Americans. Most politicians keep to within +/- 2 standard deviations of the liberal/conservative bell curve as they are most interested in getting re-elected.
The mass on the other hand has anonymity and power through free, mostly unrestricted speech. The mass is able to swing and yell (not debate at this point) profanities at the other end of the spectrum without consequence. What better way to create a dichotomy than to incite hatred for one another? The government is beautifully manipulating the mass to make enemies of its neighbors. Many of us can no longer have educated arguments on sensitive topics because the issue has been tackled at such helpless angles.
"Trump will kill all the Muslims!" -conservative mass. What would the liberal mass reply? "You fucking racist bigots!" This entices a cycle of division that goes only south as reason is forgone for protection of ego.
n/a russian321 2017-02-18
I now see what you're saying with politicians wanting to get reelected.
You're right that the government is manipulating us. I think they saw what the potential of the internet could have with regards to anonymity and also with online grassroots type of organizing from the very beginning of the internet, and made sure that there was some type of way to keep the online masses tricked into thinking we were actually making a difference (the internet does actually help make a difference sometimes but the government is always smarter than us and has its own tricks up it's sleeves, such as astro-turfing).
I've seen so much disinformation coming from all sides, and it can be so frustrating.
This sub is the one of the only places where I can find some people who understand this, but it's also been getting sickening to see that the big think-tanks are cleverly finding ways to infiltrate within and undermine us. This sub is turning into the very thing those who are in power want to see, and some days I feel better off just reading the mainstream subreddits.
I'm also a bit of a pessimistic and think that there is just no way to take the power back to the people. Even if there was a revolution of some sort, and we were to live in some utopia where everyone was happy, it would only be for a short while until the next dictator took over.
n/a DntSaNoJstSaUDntKno 2017-02-18
You might find this interesting if you've never seen it before.
http://occupywallstreet.net/story/stratfor’s-strategies-radicals-v-realists