This is from the inimitable Robert Wilkinson of Aquarius Papers, via Rossa:
There are two things that struck me about it and Robert picked up on one of them in an earlier post:
“Take a look, America. Take a look, world. If they can do it, what’s our excuse?”
The reason we are divided [not an excuse but a reason] is that there is a three pronged divide and one of those prongs is actively trying to create division between the other two:
1. People who are essentially apolitical, who care about good causes and oversimplify what is going on, who are taken in by the narrative of the second group.
2. An oligarchical group at the top and in key posts in society who create the division and is deliberately exacerbating it. They’re dedicated to reducing humanity to penury and ill health, among other things. Examples are the false reports of food scarcity and water, the manufacturing of crises which really don’t exist, the insertion of “isms” like feminism to further divide and rule – these people are dedicated, in their own interests, to keeping the cauldron bubbling.
3. The rest of humanity who do see what is going on but are vilified and marginalized by the second group, unwittingly abetted by the first. As long as 2 are doing their darndest, then 1 and 3 will stay divided, labelling and being vindictive towards each other, calling each other loons.
This blog has been devoted, since its inception, to the eradication of the second group.
An example of this is the vid by Bill Whittle on political correctness. Things are so crazy today that half the people will refuse to look at it and Bill Whittle doesn’t help any by his own anger, understandable though it is.
What cannot be refuted is the bit from 0:24 to 1:54, dealing with Mr. Gladney and from 1:57 to 3:32 dealing with a lie from a major news network to the American people. Not a lie according to someone else but an actual lie you can see with your own eyes – look at what the presenter said about the man with the gun and then watch the camera pull back and you can see for yourself.
That lie was knowingly supported by that girl presenter. That is plain wrong. And that is why, “If they can do it, what’s our excuse?” has an answer but not one the person who asked it is going to like.
Let’s leave off American politics for now and look at the field of human relations itself.
There are two friends, to continue the theme of the post. While they’re friends, there are sensitivities – one doesn’t like the way the other does things, the other doesn’t like the way the first eats noisily – there are always minor irritations and that’s about it – the pros outweigh the cons in friendships.
Into this comes a third party and this third party finds N1 on his own. He explores, through conversation, what N1′s main concerns are, how he sees things and this third party identifies himself with those concerns. He agrees that N2 has some terrible habits. From then on, whenever N1 is on his own, the 3rd party wormtongues him about N2.
And of course, exactly the same is going on with N2 and the third party. And as people usually don’t immediately articulate their differences, they fester. William Blake:
I was angry with my friend;
I told my wrath, my wrath did end.
I was angry with my foe:
I told it not, my wrath did grow.
And I waterd it in fears,
Night & morning with my tears:
And I sunned it with smiles,
And with soft deceitful wiles.
And it grew both day and night.
Till it bore an apple bright.
And my foe beheld it shine,
And he knew that it was mine.
And into my garden stole,
When the night had veild the pole;
In the morning glad I see;
My foe outstretchd beneath the tree.
It’s never changed. Svali said this in 2000:
These are NOT nice people and they use and manipulate others viciously. They cut their eye teeth on status, power, and money … [they] believe strongly in balancing opposing forces, in the pull between opposites. They see history as a complex chess game, and they will fund one side, then another, while ultimately out of the chaos and division, they are laughing because they are ultimately beyond political parties.
The ultimate goal is depopulation [via sustainability and Agenda 21 for a start] and the reduction of people to an infantile state where they can no longer think for themselves and show initiative – they must seek advice on how to react, along with lots of other nasties such as the sexualization of children and drone-on-drone wars. War is a major motif – eternal war keeping the MIC in profit.
Now this blogpost has succeeded in offending both groups 1 and 3 above – group 1 in the initial response and group 3 now in talk of mindcontrol and drone wars. And that is the nature of divide and rule – by stating what is, irrespective of political narratives, this will inevitably cut across someone’s narrative in some place and therefore the whole will be rejected.
The writer then ends up with no one at all listening and group N2 has its victory. Very, very simple technique, time-tested.
The other thing the elephant and doggie vid brought up was that the dog had already received a spinal injury sometime before finally being killed, supposedly by coyotes. Yet we know the elephant carried the dog to another place [blood on the trunk] after the event.
There are anomalies in this story – I’m quite sure inadvertent anomalies but something is not quite right in it. Why did the elephant not defend the dog in that attack? Did the dog roam a long way from the elephant? If so, how did the elephant find her later?
This is another human divide. Many people would take what they saw at face value – a homily on friendship. I tend to be suspicious when I smell anomalies. Does that make me a nasty piece of work or just experienced? If I have a friend from a different species – loving, kind, at one with the world and trusting, how does that mesh with someone loving, kind, angry with group N2 and largely untrusting?