Why we are divided

This is from the inimitable Robert Wilkinson of Aquarius Papers, via Rossa:

The story

The tragedy

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?

6 Responses to “Why we are divided”

  1. james wilson January 28, 2013 at 18:26 Permalink

    When a person ask why we can’t “all get along” what he really means is why is it that people don’t all agree with him, and what can be done about it. It never occurs to him that people get along best when they are either a) actually alike or b) under no obligation to be alike when they are not alike. This second state is intolerable to Utopians because it involves rules of conduct evolved over centuries, but in which his intellectual vanity has no stake, or worse, is completely contradicted.

  2. James Higham January 28, 2013 at 18:34 Permalink

    JD – now that’s exactly what I mean. You make a statement, “The Gladney story is also a lie,” on the basis of that report in the liberal press.

    Maybe you have special information that that news source did not have but on the strength of the report and the raw footage, Gladney did not lie at all.

    Firstly, the leftwing newspaper is the one you chose for the report. How do I know it is leftwing? Go to a rightwinger of course, like O’Reilly and if he’s apoplectic, then you can pretty sure of it:

    Bill O’Reilly ripped the left-wing “corrupt and dumb” St. Louis Post-Dispatch for a
    recent editorial in the paper that attacked FOX News

    In exactly the same way, Fox is also skewed – the other way. Go to a leftwing site like Huffington Post and they get apoplectic about Fox. Therefore, it’s a fair assumption they’re rightwing GOP.

    What I’m pointing out here is that this is not unbiased reporting and so any one taking it as gospel is getting a slanted result.

    As for the footage – at 2:52 in the clip, who gets handcuffed? The Obama supporter. The police took in the situation and charged the ones they concluded had been violent.


    Now, with the charges dropped – not meaning innocence in the least as you know very well that things in highly charged cases all depend who is in charge and who pours in the money – who does the newspaper rely on for veracity?

    Molens – the very one charged. And he’s asked about his innocence and he tells the paper he’s innocent and they then state that as fact. Er pardon – that is journalism? LOL.

    Now let’s get the real news story:

    Despite there being video evidence of Kenneth Gladney being beaten viciously by SEIU goons, and the fact that they admitted to beating him up in open court, a jury took only 40 minutes to declare them Not Guilty.

    I am beyond disgusted by this. If the political affiliations were reversed, there would be riots in the street and the national media would be setting up camp there.

    Gateway Pundit has the whole story:


    … including an interview with Kenneth Gladney, who said afterwards: “I couldn’t beat them; I didn’t have the resources they had. They had all the money in the world and the backing… I’m just an average man.”

    JD – you said that “they lied”.

    Look very carefully at the way the report was woven by the SLD. Who was quoted as saying Gladney had lied? Molens! The defendqnt. This is what that paper took as truth.

    And who is Molens? A member of Obama’s support team.

    But you don’t need any report from either side because the beating was on camera. And those two Obama supporters were let off. They allege to the newspaper they were assaulted. Why then did the police not cuff and charge Gladney? Because everyone there saw what had really happened.


    As for the other one – the black guy with the firearm – you heard the reporter and then saw the real footage. Now was that dishonesty or dishonesty?

    And that’s what the whole point of the post was – skewed reports and stacked juries. How did Al Capone get off for so long?

    Going back to Bill Whittle’s original contention – he said that justice is for those following the Narrative. For all others, the ordinary folk, it is denied. Looks very much like it here.

    If you stand against the Narrative, you will not be treated fairly. Happens in art, happens in politics.


    James W – either a) actually alike or b) under no obligation to be alike when they are not alike. That’s the issue – under no obligation.

  3. Twilight January 28, 2013 at 21:55 Permalink

    James, I agree more or less with your 3 categories, but your statement:

    “This blog has been devoted, since its inception, to the eradication of the second group”

    is a optimistic to say the least – how do you propose such an eradication should start?

  4. James Higham January 28, 2013 at 22:10 Permalink

    By starting a blog, Twilight. :)

    Acorns? And overweening confidence? Or just doing it for the hell of it.

  5. Twilight January 28, 2013 at 22:35 Permalink

    Dang! – Here was I thinking I ought to start polishing up my Madame Defarge role, getting out the old knitting needles. ;-)

Leave a Reply

Please copy the string rWA8yL to the field below: