They're intentionally provoking outrage, this is not an accident that this is happening in every western country simultaneously. They want the revolutions in every country so the the WEF can put in a new government. "Arab Spring" but in the west.

submitted by magnora7 from self.whatever

People say things like "Canada has gone too far" and don't realize it's intentional. It's not an accident or a series of mistakes, or bad moves because Trudeau is trying to cling to power. No. They know they are making things unstable, it's the only thing that makes sense. They want you mad. They are following WEF orders. They want people to revolt. They want the old system to be demolished as thoroughly as possible.

Then it's that much easier to install a new government, run even more deeply by the WEF and co. This is the same tactic the CIA used in the "Arab Spring". Generate mass protests by making the government do a lot of extremely unpopular things, amplify that through the media, and then use the angry revolution momentum of the public to reshape the government in a way that works better for those trying to run the world, while selling it to the weary public through the media (including internet) as a solution to their woes.

This whole "Western Revolution" scenario that seems to be coming about is not organic, it seems. It's far too uniform across so many western nations. Too many very dumb things are being all done simultaneously. I think it is clear they are intentionally upsetting and provoking the populations of every western country with the purpose of causing a "revolution" that they themselves would end up controlling the outcome of. This is a well-known tactic that has been used by the CIA in countries across the world for decades now.

It's like a snake shedding its skin. They've outgrown this paradigm and want to shift to a more cohesive semi-global governance paradigm, but first they have to destabilize every government and also make the people deeply distrust and hate their own national governments (the entire government, not just the figureheads) thus leading to instability. Then the WEF and friends can install the new version of semi-global governance simultaneously in every western nation to fix the "problem".

If there are revolutions coming up, be very careful about who you support and why. Realize there will be many false movement leaders, and many of them will be very well-funded and appear very slick and well-advertised. The moment a new popular movement arises immediately after a revolution is perhaps the most important moment for humanity to make smart choices, but it's also the moment where we'll be the most emotional. So if it is to come, be prepared.

all 29 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]magnora7[S] 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 children)

They just keep introducing new divide-and-conquer wedges. BLM was one. Jan 6 is another. Trucker rally is another. Vaccines are another. Vaccine mandates are another. They've pitted compassion against order. They keep flipping the script to make everyone look like a hypocrite. It makes people hate and resent each other. This is all intentional.

Instead of locking us each in our own cage, they instead just create mental cages for each of us, by reinforcing our hatred and distrust of others. This makes things like governmental takeovers easy to accomplish because there is no unity or consensus among the population. The perfect divide and conquer turns every person against every other person, even turns a person against themselves. No one can save a nation when they can't even save themselves.

All these feelings of helplessness and despair and isolation are caused by a very bad economy, combined with a media that is constantly reshaping the culture with a speed and severity that history has never seen. The internet has become a potent tool for propaganda as most people regard content from the internet as "organic" even though it's extremely easy for one bad actor to appear as 100 internet users and form a false consensus.

People really need to be aware of these tricks so we don't fall for them. Or else we are going to be stuck in this cycle of fake revolutions and controlled destruction for hundreds of more years to come. Once you know how a magic trick works, it doesn't fool you anymore. Humanity needs to become very well-informed on how this magic trick works, so we stop falling for it. There is no other way forward, in the long term.

[–]monkeymagic 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

it’s a trick that has worked for thousands of years almost without fail. we really are at the mercy of a very stupid majority. there’s no real way to fix that. you can’t educate people to things they are simply unwilling to even consider, much less accept.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A theory of mine: The "religious right" that was active during the 1980s period and slowly lost force until completely disappearing by the late 2010s, those who wanted to ban D&D stuff, Harry Potter books, etc. were targeted and set up intentionally to make them look like hypocrites.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

I think it is clear they are intentionally upsetting and provoking the populations of every western country with the purpose of causing a "revolution" that they themselves would end up controlling the outcome of.

This is a very interesting theory. I tend to see arguments like this on Saidit, but not elsewhere, and it helps to see this alternative (from my perspective) point of view. But there is much more evidence of a different group of heavily funded global developments:

We've seen evidence of powerful influencers like Steve Bannon and others helping to invest millions in anti-democracy initiatives in several countries that create sufficient chaos to help fascist/authoritarian political groups develop and thereby help the 1% glean so much more from the 99%. The motivation for this is that it builds wealth for the 1% at the expense of the 99%. Countries that have these well-financed political groups include CA (Maverick & trucker initiatives; 10 million+ in 4 weeks), US (obviously), UK (Brexit swindle), IT (Bannon's fascists &c), AU (also Bannon &c), FR, DE, GR, TR, IN, PK, SA, IL, RU, BY, NG, MM, LB, BG, CN, HK, PH, etc, etc. This is a few of the countries that have developed well-funded, controlling fascist groups in the past 10 and 20 years. It's a disturbing development that shows global political investments in these fascist/authoritarian movements, money laundering, tax evasion, massive misinformation campaigns, restrictions of information (eg. the origin of COVID & lack of simple mandates early on), violent revolts developed among the 99% by the 1%, populist politics that put Trump and others in power, etc. etc.

[–]StillLessons 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Socks:

Your response is a perfect example of precisely the dynamic M7 is talking about. Your voice on saidit is the most pure and consistent model I've seen to date for the worst of the bad actors humanity is up against.

M7's point is that the game being played is exactly intended to create instability and mutual hatred. The point is not to calm the waters, negotiate, and find common ground, because the common ground found through such a process is not the common ground that is advantageous to the "power class", whom your posts consistently represent.

In all your writing on this site (and I've been here a good long time now), you create exactly that hatred and instability. It's a hobby of many of us on here to get wound up by what you write. I'm no exception to this. This hatred we feel for what you say is precisely the dynamic M7 is describing.

To respond to your comment here specifically, your first paragraph is meaningless, just introduction. It's your second paragraph that betrays you for the millionth time for what you are. You are the impetus of division. M7's post and first comment are quite subtle and impressive in that they carefully escape the trap of picking a side. He does not say this is a "Democrat" or "Republican" problem. He says the impetus to hate each other is itself the strategy. As long as we can be convinced to be picking a side and fighting each other, then the true power at the top - which cares only about itself and has no label - can implement their plans not needing to worry that we are paying attention to them.

In your second paragraph, you - not surprisingly, this is your pattern - work to undo this subtlety. What was a general warning about avoiding division and divisive rhetoric you turn immediately into precisely the divisive rhetoric he is warning against. You take a general warning and pin it to a single side. No longer is the problem "divisive rhetoric"; it's "Bannon's divisive rhetoric". In other words, you re-introduce precisely the division that M7's comments were carefully designed to avoid. You want the world to think "anti-Bannon good; Bannon bad," and we're off to the races again fighting against each other rather than looking to find ways to solve the underlying social friction.

Put one last way, M7's comment leads to the conclusion that we should be working to talk to each other (most especially with those with whom we most disagree) so as to find common ground. Your comment leads to the conclusion that the "Bannon wing" must be excluded from the conversation. His comments lead toward inclusivity; yours leads to exclusivity. Those who don't agree with you are evil and unacceptable.

If you aren't willing to talk to those with whom you disagree, then there will never be a solution. The foundation of your account here on saidit has been since day one "information" versus "disinformation". To set up the paradigm this way is to structurally ensure permanent division, because you will never be willing to talk to those you disagree with.

Your philosophy - the polar opposite of inclusivity, while pretending to use the language suggesting that you are the inclusive one - is the best long-term example I have seen over the past couple of years of precisely the force of division that M7 is writing against.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Your response is a perfect example of precisely the dynamic M7 is talking about. Your voice on saidit is the most pure and consistent model I've seen to date for the worst of the bad actors humanity is up against.

Seems unnecessary to start with an ad hominem. I also don't know much about you, or you about me.

M7's point is that the game being played is exactly intended to create instability and mutual hatred.

It's not a 'game' and the point here about instability and division is the same point I make about the right-wing propaganda and abuses.

The point is not to calm the waters, negotiate, and find common ground, because the common ground found through such a process is not the common ground that is advantageous to the "power class", whom your posts consistently represent.

This is the same arguement I've made about the 1%. Merely follow the money. No - my posts are always against the so-called "power class". You can read my post history if you are unconvinced. It's strange that you have this opposite view of what I'v written here, as if you are following a false narrative propagated by Fox News &c, claiming that anyone who does not support Trump and similar authoritarians are themselves supporting the "power class". See what's wrong here? Right wing propaganda news media want people to believe that their reactions against Trump and the GOP are somehow support for the "power class" (whereas Trump and the GOP are the "power class" you refer to). This is meant to confuse people, so they're support the GOP. When is the last time the GOP did anything for the 99%? You probably can't remember because the GOP (and 2 Democrats) work only for the 1%, at the expense of the 99%.

In all your writing on this site (and I've been here a good long time now), you create exactly that hatred and instability.

Occasional disagreements with an occasional post or comment cannot do this, nor has this happened. You also have no evidence, and cannot locate good examples of this. If someone feels hated or unstable when there is a disagreement with his/her post, that would be unfortunate and perhaps not really about me, but about that other person. I am not saying that is hateful, or I would be banned for doing so. Your claim that I do this is rather worrying, and there is no evidence of it.

It's a hobby of many of us on here to get wound up by what you write.

Hardly anyone responds to anything I write. So there is no hobby. If you look through my comment history and select examples, you'll not see much in the way of responses from more than 3 or 4 people. No one genuinely cares what I have to say here. I also cannot recall the last time I got a response from you. It is thoughtful of you to respond to me now - but I can see in every sentence merely unsupported attacks against me in all of your comments. Thus it seems that you do not want to discuss the post you are responding to. Instead, you merely want to insult me. This is of course very low on the POD. I wonder why you've responded if you were not primarily interested in discussing the topic.

I'm no exception to this. This hatred we feel for what you say is precisely the dynamic M7 is describing.

And again - more hatred from you, as if you've gathered all Saiditors and have asked them collectively if they hate me and have now reported back with your comment. Is this really what Saidit is about? It shouldn't be. If you wish to discuss the topic, do so. Otherwise, you're violating POD guidelines.

To respond to your comment here specifically, your first paragraph is meaningless, just introduction. It's your second paragraph that betrays you for the millionth time for what you are. You are the impetus of division. M7's post and first comment are quite subtle and impressive in that they carefully escape the trap of picking a side. He does not say this is a "Democrat" or "Republican" problem[...]

OK - finally an argument, albeit slim. The argument can and should be made - as I've made it - for the global authoritarian trends, which are fascist and right-wing and GOP in nature. All of that is rather clear. It is not divisive to show where the corruption tends to develop. If you wish, remove Republican and GOP from the discourse, and the argument remains about the spread of authoritarianism, and which political parties -globally- are supporting this trend. And to make a point about a global conspiracy, the issue is not the nuance or the subtlety, but the opposite: to be explicit, clear, and provide evidence. M7 offered his assessment and I offered my assessment. You are merely trying to dismantle my arguments by claiming that I am picking on one political party in only one country &c (which is not really the case). We should be explicit.

In your second paragraph, you - not surprisingly, this is your pattern - work to undo this subtlety. What was a general warning about avoiding division and divisive rhetoric you turn immediately into precisely the divisive rhetoric he is warning against. You take a general warning and pin it to a single side. No longer is the problem "divisive rhetoric"; it's "Bannon's divisive rhetoric". [...]

It is absolutely ridiculous to defend Bannon and others who are developing fascist and far-right movements globally. Their tactics are obviously , absolutely divisive. To say that my reference to that is itself divisive is a defense of their abuses, using a common right-wing tactic of "we're not X, you're X." It doesn't hold up in adult arguments.

Put one last way, M7's comment leads to the conclusion that we should be working to talk to each other (most especially with those with whom we most disagree) so as to find common ground. Your comment leads to the conclusion that the "Bannon wing" must be excluded from the conversation. His comments lead toward inclusivity; yours leads to exclusivity. Those who don't agree with you are evil and unacceptable.

You're now implying that I disagree wiht M7's interest that we include different voices in the conversation, which is definitely not what's happening with my comment. I am certainly not arguing against an open dialog, but instead contributing to it. What you've done here is to try to tell me to shut up and that my comments are divisive. You genuinely don't want me to comment or to be part of this open dialogue that you claim is at issue here. Not onlythis, but you again defend the fascist movements by Bannon and others. OK - let's assume that we should include the fascists in this discussion. If that what you and M7 really want?

If you aren't willing to talk to those with whom you disagree, then there will never be a solution.

Are you fucking kidding me? Do you think anyone on Saidit agrees with me? I am indeed discussing with members of Saidit some of my disagreements. Moreover, this is not important to most Saiditors. So don't make too much of it, and notice that I am indeed here to talk with people I often don't agree with (as this helps me learn about them and develops some interesting conversations, especially at times when users can avoid attacking me in the process)

The foundation of your account here on saidit has been since day one "information" versus "disinformation".

There is no 'foundation' to the account, and my opinions are rather common. I'm a very boring, middle of the road kind of person. If I disagree with disinformation, so what...

To set up the paradigm this way is to structurally ensure permanent division, because you will never be willing to talk to those you disagree with.

See the comment above. You show here your lack of familiarity with my comments, or the verious discussions in the chat menu, which are rather interesting in recent days. You've not seen much of this or the responses to me, and especially the lack of interest anyone woud have in a so-called masterminding of a paradigm of info vs. disinfo, which in any event does not identify me.

Your philosophy - the polar opposite of inclusivity,

Absolute bullshit. Ask any number of lon-gime Saiditors about this and they'll recall that I've been a broken record about the need for greater inclusivity at Saidit. I've mentioned this so often, that I think a week has not passed without my commenting on exactly this - that people of different political, racial, social, class &c backgrounds should be openly welcome at Saidit, which would help the site grow. But of course what happens is that anyone who is not a far-right-wing influencer will get responses like your response to me today. We get tired of it and go away. Its happened to dozens of people while I've been here and they're not coming back. Saidit remains stagnant because of this. I address this topic regularly.

while pretending to use the language suggesting that you are the inclusive one - is the best long-term example I have seen over the past couple of years of precisely the force of division that M7 is writing against.

You've provided no evidence of this division, nor is there any. This is how inclusion works: allow people to disagree, welcome their disagreement, reduce mod abuse, and stop telling them that they are "the polar opposite of inclusivity" when you see that that they disagree with you. It's stinkin' thinkin'.

If you have an argument that there are global groups that are somehow worse than the fascist groups that I mentioned, this might be on topic and thus add to the discussion. Writing an essay ad hominim about what a bad person I am is against the Saidit guidelines.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

https://saidit.net/s/conspiracy/comments/8xv6/the_nexus_a_full_explanation_of_the_true/

^ ^ ^ There will be 50 parts. Stay tuned.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ah love! Could thou and I with fate conspire, to grasp this sorry scheme of things entire, would not we shatter it to bits and then, remould it nearer to the heart’s desire.”

/u/magnora7

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

There was nothing populist about Trump. If you want to support Canada and US Inc. then outright say you support these corporations and provide evidence that within the protests there are GRU/FSB and Mossad agent provocateurs... I already have evidence for this.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Thanks for the Nexus info. I'll have a look.

Trump's approaches were definitely 'populist', for reasons discussed here and elsewhere.

I am obviously not supporting Canada and US Inc.

The money raised (10+ million) for the truckers had been studied at length, and I think there was a post on Saidit about the donors. It's obvious that the very wealthy .01% donated to the GoFundMe campaign, specifically to support the anti-vax right-wing movement.

Regarding Mossad - they are indeed connected with and support the global authoritarian movements, one of which is the Israel government and their genocide and expulsion of Palestinians, as well as their destabilization of the M.E. But you know this. You'll also appreciate that the spyware developed in Israel and their Mossad have been used in a number of countries to spy on their own politicians (there are articles about it) and to help develop authoritarian regimes, some of which I note above.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Or is it neoliberal internationalists who determine who is and isn't populist? I ask because you source the Atlantic, which hosts neoconservative "journalists" that supported the Iraq war and the stealing of entitlements from real Americans for Israeli Balkanization agendas. It's probably why they continually publish for Frum, Goldberg, etc., to write hit pieces against Trump, when they are privately anti-anti-trumpers when it comes to Israel's security.

Huey Long was a populist... not Trump. Trump was and can never be a populist because he won the electoral college, was selected by a for-profit party corporation and was receiving millions from multi-national corporations.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I would agree with you that it's important to look at the neoliberal rhetoric of some of the international news media groups, particularly becaue a number of these neoliberal groups stir up news content that - while paying their bills - also serve to create reactions from right-wing groups that can take advantace of the chaotic discourse by offering their simpler authoritarian solutions. So neoliberals do indeed support the chaotic news cycle that ultimately feeds the authoritarians opporunities to protest for anti-democratic solutions. One of the first presidents who helped with this kind of process was Clinton, whose neoliberal approaches - dodgy deals across the aisle - were highly problematic for his constituency, which are still paying for those problems (private for-profit prisons, killing welfare options, pay to play lobbying, proxy wars & arms sales, etc, etc).

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No definition of populism will fully describe all populists

I stopped reading after this. The author writes just like Frum.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The author is correct. Populism takes different forms, depending on the political interests.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Populism is simply defined as leaders who put ordinary people above for-profit political corporations and foreign agent Zionists. Trump is NOT a populist but Frum and Kristol want him so bad to be one, while provately being anti-anti-Trumpers for Israel, so they can scapegoat actual populism, which fights against high finance. Neologism is so tiresome with these know nothing journalists with no real jobs. They can redefine terms but they aren't fooling me.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Populism is simply defined as leaders who put ordinary people above for-profit political corporations and foreign agent Zionists.

Populism is also manipulated as "a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups." That is exactly the way in which Trump got votes, though of course it was ONLY working for the 1%.

[–]IkeConn 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Thank God for rednecks. They will survive this shit.

[–]jet199Instigatrix 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

I mean England is about to drop all covid restrictions so it's not happening in all Western countries.

[–]magnora7[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That's a good counter-point, but we'll have to see if they actually do it and how long that lasts.

[–]jet199Instigatrix 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It's very interesting within the UK because the Scottish and Welsh governments are all clearly following their orders from higher up which have been totally against all evidence. Those politicians think they look reasonable, because everyone in the social bubbles they are in all agree, but everyone outside of that set can see the contrast with England and their better results with less restrictions.

[–]one1won 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

divide-and-conquer wedges.

Terf Island…. The Gender Ideology BS is as pandemic as the virus narratives.

[–]Shoah_Kahn 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yep. A "spring" would give them perfect pretext to roll in the U. N.... Just as Kissinger augured:

"TODAY, AMERICANS WOULD OUTRAGED IF U. N. TROOPS ENTERED LOS ANGELES, TO RESTORE ORDER. TOMORROW , THEY WILL BE GREATFUL. THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE IF THEY WERE TOLD THAT THERE IS AN OUTSIDE THREAT, FROM BEYOND ― WHETHER REAL, OR PROMELGATED ― THAT THREATENED OUR VERY EXISTENCE. IT IS THEN THAT ALL PEOPLES OF THE WORLD WILL PLEDGE WITH WORLD LEADER TO DELIVER THEM FROM THIS 'EVIL'.

"THE ONE THING EVERY MAN FEARS IS THE UNKNOWN. WHEN PRESENTED WITH THIS SCENARIO, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS WILL BE RELINQUISHED FOR THE GUARANTEE OF THEIR WELL-BEING ― GRANTED TO THEM BY THEIR WORLD GOVERNMENT."

~ Heinz Kissinger, Bilderberg Meeting, Evian, France (May 21, 1992)

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[deleted]

    [–]On-Point 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    It's called the World Economic Forum.

    [–]la_cues(>0u0)> 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Lol interesting theory.

    Would there be a way to infer this? Like the ultra-rich influencing policy to enable the rich to get richer? Like countries making overt policies that sell out natural resources to corporations? Like huge, unvoted, policy to convert billions of tax dollars for a mandated health/food/farm/war measures through private corps and NGOs?

    We'll have to study the records...

    [–]On-Point 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    The first that needs to happen is doxxing all the politicians, police and middle management in Ottawa.

    [–]wristaction 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    The fact that they know and that they count on the people they are provoking not quite understanding is that there is no scenario in which civil war results in anything but a re-constitution of the left-neoliberal state. Even if a People's movement were to completely destroy the US government, the rightwing has no personnel with the knowledge to stand up a new republic or get it recognized by other nations. A post-conflict US would simply remain a Somalia until the UN stands up a new constitution and state body comprised of the same people the People revolted against.

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    I see where you are coming from, but what other conceivable tools to fight do people who are against this new order have?

    [–]magnora7[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    People have to learn the tricks, and then stop falling for the tricks. And help others not fall for the tricks too. They only keep doing these tactics because they work, and they only work because most people are naive to them.

    [–]Bucket67 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Don't forget UFOs will be part of this at some point. The media keeps talking about UFOs for a reason .