Well, Poncho, the paleo-cons are a bad lot across the board so it is no wonder that you feel guilty for associating with them.
The fact of the matter, which you don't want to discuss, is that the UN and Obama are dumping Islamofascists throughout the USA.
Yes, a smaller less intrusive constitutional republic is bad, for authoritarian empire builders who use crisis and the threat of terrorism to consolidate their power and control.
Which as you keep reminding us make up the "majority" today as if that's supposed to be some good and honorable thing.
Neocons
aren't conservative. They're corporatist. What that means is they want to merge government and corporate power and they're doing a bang up job of it while you and your "Baptist Board majority of five sometimes as many as seven" stumble around in denial and believe everything the
corporate sponsored politicians
and the corporate sponsored "think tanks" and the
corporate owned TV talking heads claim to justify more and bigger unlawful, unconstitutional and even criminal acts committed against the American people and those in foreign lands by democrats
and republicans.
I know Obama is bringing Muslims here, I know he's flooding the country with illegals. You know what that's called in geopolitical terms? No. You probably don't. Why? Because you can't see beyond the false left vs right paradigm.
It's called
Balkanization.
Balkanization, or Balkanisation, is a pejorative geopolitical term, originally used to describe the process of fragmentation or division of a region or state into smaller regions or states that are often hostile or non-cooperative with one another.
Smaller regions? How about groups within a society like black vs white? Or black vs cop? Or legal immigration vs illegal immigration? Pro-life vs pro-choice? Republican vs democrat?
Geopolitically speaking . . . what is the point of
balkanization?
Divide and conquer.
A divide and conquer strategy, also known as “divide and rule strategy” is often applied in the arenas of politics and sociology. In this strategy, one power breaks another power into smaller, more manageable pieces, and then takes control of those pieces one by one. It generally takes a very strong power to implement such a strategy. In order to successfully break up another power or government, the conqueror must have access to strong political, military, and economic machines. [1]
Think . . . black vs white. Or black vs cop. Or legal immigration vs illegal immigration. Pro-life vs pro-choice. Republican vs democrat.
Just recently we've witnessed increased racial division and how the government and media helped increase it. And you don't think it's done with an "end game" in mind?
Oh wait I forgot who I was talking to. You probably think the "end game" is to win votes for the democrats. :laugh: Sorry couldn't help it. :laugh:
Leaders who use a divide and conquer strategy may encourage or foster feuds between smaller powers. This kind of political maneuvering requires a great understanding of the people who are being manipulated. In order to foster feuds, for example, one must understand the political and social histories of the parties intended to take part in the feuds. [2]
Or leaders who use a divide and conquer strategy may encourage blacks to protest or even riot. Trayvon Martin? Ferguson? Baltimore? Hello? Is there anybody in there?
End game?
A nationalized miltary style police force. Hello? Hello? The lights are on . . . is anybody home?
The divide and conquer strategy has been widely used throughout history. Both the Roman empire and the British empire played small tribes and groups against one another in order to control their lands and territories. It was used by the Romans when they took Britain, when the British Empire took India, and when the Anglo-Normans took Ireland. A staple political strategy, divide and conquer is still used by many countries today.
[3]
Long story short the so called "western powers" have been using divide and conquer hundreds of years so what makes you think they wouldn't use a divide and conquer strategy on us today?
Because we're so enlightened and know history so well? :laugh:
Sure, ok, what ever the
corporate sponsored "majority" (
corporate sponsored politicians,
corporate sponsored think tanks and the
corporate owned and controlled consolidated media) tells you must be true. They have "consensus" after all.
