It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Divide-and-Conquer: Fighting THEM, not US

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Many of us have recognized and bemoaned the divide-and-conquer games being played by the PTB, pitting us against each other in countless ways. Many of us understand that we are our own worst enemies in that regard, because enough of us allow ourselves to be. And most of us understand that nothing will get better until we do better. So how can we, as individuals and collectively, make that happen? What can we do to change the dynamics? What can we do not just unite the masses, but divide the power brokers at the top of the heap?

What are we willing to do to foster and nurture unity with our social/political opposition? What are we willing to reconsider and re-evaluate in order to find a happy medium? What are we willing to accept as a gesture of good will and good faith by our social/political opposition to work together for the greater good?

For example... protecting our inalienable right to life is a universal concern, hence "All Lives Matter," and rightfully so. But what would it take as a supporter of "Black Lives Matter" or "Bikers Lives Matter" or "Unborn Babies Lives Matter" to join efforts with others promoting life? Would it be enough to simply add "too" to the many specific groups? I.e., "Bikers Lives Matter Too."

Perhaps more effort looking for and sharing solutions by those who have studied the problem in depth, and have developed specific remedial steps to take? For example, again, police brutality issues... We know that the loudest voices with the most extreme positions get the most attention, but the vast majority of us understand the truth is somewhere in the middle. Not all cops are bad... and cops need to be protected from bad guys as much as we the people need to be protected from bad cops. It is not an either/or situation. We have to find a way to do both. And there are folks who have done both. We need to bring just as much attention to bear on those successes as we do to the failures.

Of course we can use our own experiences and knowledge to come up with our own, better options and solutions too. To think outside the box, and to stop letting the PTB dictate a bloated and convoluted combination two crappy solutions -- left and right, liberal and conservative, however you want to label it -- that only serves to empower them and further erodes our freedoms and rights. We have so many great thinkers and doers here on ATS... I know we can do better than what's being shoved down our throats.

It's the Mud Pit, so no holds barred. For now. Just to get the feel of where everyone is coming from -- the good, the bad, and the ugly -- and then we can figure out where we can go with it. I would only ask that along with whatever mudballs you throw, you offer a middle ground that you could find acceptable. I don't expect too much agreement initially, but we gotta start somewhere!




posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea




We have so many great thinkers and doers here on ATS... I know we can do better than what's being shoved down our throats.



It's good to see another thread like this, but from my experience, they quickly devolve into more of the same......

Fighting, snarky comments, ideological grandstanding, and typical mud pit exchanges of finger pointing and placing blame.

I think people in general are hardwired into authoritarian types and those that have the ability to show logic and compassion. Some shades of grey...but not much!!

Perhaps this thread will be different. Let's see who contributes.....
edit on 3-9-2015 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Boadicea

It's good to see another thread like this, but from my experience, they quickly devolve into more of the same......


Sad but true. We gotta keep trying though. Ultimately, we are the problem and therefore we are the solution.


Perhaps this thread will be different. Let's see who contributes.....


I sure hope so and I'm prepared to be on my best behavior, and to do what I can to keep the discussion focused and proactive -- even the disagreements! That would seem to be a big part of what we can do as individuals to make positive and practical change a reality. We'll see what happens!



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

I can't really give a good answer to you, but I have an idea of where to look.

I'd say the most divisive issue in US history was over slavery. A middle ground was sought at one time: essentially let slave owners keep their slaves, but don't let anyone import any more. Nobody was satisfied with that peaceful compromise though. The issue was solved with extreme violence, and looking back most people say that was the right thing to do.

Was the Civil War justified? Would you accept slavery today, as long as we kept it running through a middle ground compromise? Or should we all try to understand what is right, through sincere study and consideration; and educate others on the truth as we bring ourselves to understand it?

I'll admit I'm fairly ignorant of world history. How did the rest of the world deal with slavery? Did it take a brutal civil war to bring its abolition to each nation that practiced it? If not, what separated the US from the other nations that ended it peacefully?



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: Boadicea

I can't really give a good answer to you, but I have an idea of where to look.

I'd say the most divisive issue in US history was over slavery. A middle ground was sought at one time: essentially let slave owners keep their slaves, but don't let anyone import any more. Nobody was satisfied with that peaceful compromise though. The issue was solved with extreme violence, and looking back most people say that was the right thing to do.


Slavery is a very good example of how power and color of law has trampled Constitutional rights and equal application of the law, both pre- and post-war. Slavery could not stand. Period. I believe the founding fathers knew this, but also knew they could not receive full ratification if they expressly forbade slavery, so they neither forbade nor allowed slavery in the Constitution, knowing -- perhaps hoping -- that battle would be fought later. But Constitutional principles were not applied by the leaders of the Civil War either... much less during Reconstruction. Slaves should have received reparations immediately, but were denied any true meaningful reparations. Rather, laws were enacted -- from housing to education -- that kept Black people and other minorities at a complete social and economic disadvantage. Even purported efforts to "help" often only helped a few of the intended recipients just a little... but have helped the few in power even more. We still have yet to apply true Constitutional principles; rather, the issues have been exploited and extorted every way possible for political gain and to hell with those actually hurting because of it.


Was the Civil War justified?


As a last resort, after all other options have failed, maybe... probably.


Would you accept slavery today, as long as we kept it running through a middle ground compromise?


Absolutely not. The law of the land does not allow for any compromise when it comes to enslaving our fellow man.


Or should we all try to understand what is right, through sincere study and consideration; and educate others on the truth as we bring ourselves to understand it?


Definitely... and use natural law and Constitutional princples and powers to make it so.


I'll admit I'm fairly ignorant of world history. How did the rest of the world deal with slavery? Did it take a brutal civil war to bring its abolition to each nation that practiced it? If not, what separated the US from the other nations that ended it peacefully?


Abolitionists were quite active in bringing slavery to an end. I believe that it could have -- and would have -- ended peacefully sooner rather than later except that the PTB exploited the issue for political gain, and the war was thus fought for political power, not freedom.
edit on 3-9-2015 by Boadicea because: formatting



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Yeah but we need to establish something before we can get along.

What race are you?

No seriously because thats the most important thing to everyone.




posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
Yeah but we need to establish something before we can get along.

What race are you?

No seriously because thats the most important thing to everyone.



I don't know if I should laugh or cry because this is sadly true!

I'm determined not to let neither race nor racism derail the thread... wish me luck!



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Maybe we should adopt a National Hug Your Congressman Day. Kill'em with kindness.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
Maybe we should adopt a National Hug Your Congressman Day. Kill'em with kindness.


I'll bet some of that goo from Ghostbusters would do the trick!

If only it were that easy...



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
Maybe we should adopt a National Hug Your Congressman Day. Kill'em with kindness.


I'll bet some of that goo from Ghostbusters would do the trick!

If only it were that easy...


They're a neccesary evil, the whole lot of 'em. Pun intended. It's hard to see it though.

Any real change must happen from the foundation up. Do you really want to build on this crap? Trust me...it'll never pass code.

People need to be deprogrammed first from school, TV, news all the way to addressing cultural taboos....for better or worse. They'll never let that happen unless you hug them. I'm tellin ya. Only way.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

We have to agree to one law. Acceptance not conversion.

And use Democracy to determine the limits set by the Law. Anything less and we just keep fighting until it escalates to war.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 09:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Boadicea

We have to agree to one law.


Yes... founded upon universal principles -- not one set of rules for one circumstance/person and another set of rules for another circumstance/person, with equal application and due process for all... so, for example, Congress can no longer exempt themselves from the laws they impose on the rest of us.


Acceptance not conversion.


Yes... and I would add respect not tolerance.


And use Democracy to determine the limits set by the Law.


Democracy to the greatest extent possible, especially in terms of direct public involvement in decision-making, not just voting for someone to make decisions for us -- we know how miserably that failed us! But democracy can devolve into mob mentality... or two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Slavery was "democratic" at one time. Beating one's wife was "democratic" at one time. Laws, first and foremost, must protect everyone's individual rights -- inalienable and absolute. Individual rights must be respected and provide the foundation and parameters for all laws.


Anything less and we just keep fighting until it escalates to war.


It seems to me that the "fight" is only inevitable when one tries to force their will on others... that is when the fighting never ends, as someone must constantly fight for their own free will and autonomy. Force and peace cannot and will never co-exist. Ultimately, everyone will be fighting someone for something. I would hope that we could find ways that give everyone what they want and need, without forcing anyone to act against their own wants and needs.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Didn't the constitution originally have the 3/5s clause ? Sorry on my phone and bad signal so I can't fact check that now.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 02:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: zardust
a reply to: Boadicea

Didn't the constitution originally have the 3/5s clause ? Sorry on my phone and bad signal so I can't fact check that now.


Yes, but the 3/5s clause did not expressly authorize slavery; it was for purposes of taxation and representation in Congress:


The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise reached between delegates from southern states and those from northern states during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. The debate was over whether, and if so, how, slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population for legislative representation and taxing purposes. The issue was important, as this population number would then be used to determine the number of seats that the state would have in the United States House of Representatives for the next ten years. The effect was to give the southern states a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes than if slaves had been ignored (but fewer than if counts of slaves and free persons had been lumped together), allowing the slaveholder interests to largely dominate the government of the United States until 1865.


Wikipedia



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 04:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Providing a clause in the constitution for slavery is acknowledging and legitimizing slavery. To say that slavery is unconstitutional when they've provided a means to continue its propagation is a bit blind.

I know its hard to admit but our founding fathers are not the spotless men they've been made out to be. It's ok. We need to admit it. Not sugar coat it or try and claim they thought something different. Maybe it was a compromise to get the south to sign. But considering Washington and Jefferson owned slaves...



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 04:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Nice thread and i think you are spot on...there is a need for finding a "middle ground " so to speak......

Your post reminds me of a book by "Edward De Bono" named "i am right,you are wrong",he talks breifly in it about a language he was developing and his "middle" word was "po"...this word was something in between the left and right,or right and wrong....such a simple concept yet lost on so many......



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 05:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: zardust
a reply to: Boadicea

Providing a clause in the constitution for slavery is acknowledging and legitimizing slavery. To say that slavery is unconstitutional when they've provided a means to continue its propagation is a bit blind.

I know its hard to admit but our founding fathers are not the spotless men they've been made out to be. It's ok. We need to admit it. Not sugar coat it or try and claim they thought something different. Maybe it was a compromise to get the south to sign. But considering Washington and Jefferson owned slaves...


For the most part, I agree -- in practice, if not in theory. The 3/5s clause did not expressly authorize or legitimize slavery; but it had the same result. So in practice, yes, but not in theory.

And I'm not trying to sugar coat anything, nor do I claim to know what all the founding fathers were thinking. There were many abolitionists working diligently for an end to slavery -- both domestically and abroad. George Mason, for one, spoke very passionately about the need to ban slavery in the Constitution. The founding fathers were well aware it was an issue, and had no reason to think it would not continue to be. But we do know that slavery was not expressly forbidden by the Constitution, for whatever reasons. It is what it is, and it is a shameful part of our history. At the same time, it is a proud and noble part of our history that we ended slavery, in accordance with the principles of our founding and the Constitution. The war was not necessary to end slavery, nor was ending slavery even the mission of the war. Both the war and the emancipation were for purposes of political power and economic gain with we the people pitted against each other in the absolute worst possible way.

I have no problem admitting our founding fathers had their faults. Of course they did. They were mere mortals too. Likewise, I have no problem admitting that the Civil War leaders -- on both sides -- had their faults as well. As do our leaders today. Life is messy. We have to clean it up.

But how does this pertain to the subject of the OP: You and me finding common ground and working together for the common good? NOT fighting each other. I'm happy to discuss it, I just don't understand the connection... why you feel it is important to solving our issues today.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 05:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Boadicea

Nice thread and i think you are spot on...there is a need for finding a "middle ground " so to speak......

Your post reminds me of a book by "Edward De Bono" named "i am right,you are wrong",he talks breifly in it about a language he was developing and his "middle" word was "po"...this word was something in between the left and right,or right and wrong....such a simple concept yet lost on so many......


"Po"... so simple and yet so profound at the same time. And so very appropriate for the times we are living in. Extremes never serve the needs of the many, just the needs of the few. Po is exactly what we need. Thank you!

I'll have to check out the book now too, so thanks again!



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

I was just responding to the part of your post that said that slavery was unconstitutional.

I actually agree with the op.

My point is we have a great propensity to white wash our own "sins" and those who belong to us. Republicans with Reagan. Democrats with Rosevelt. Christians, statists, atheists, libertarians all do it. The founding fathers tend to fall in there and the constitution is held up as this sacred document.

What this has to do with the OP is that we can't rely on mythologized heroes or documents in moving forward. I like the constitution. I'm not against it. But I just think we need to own what it is and isn't. And it did practically promote slavery and division.

And yes the fact that we did end slavery is worth noting. The point is that we were doing dispicable things as a country that we were able to turn from and change. If we could do it then we can do it now.




posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: zardust
a reply to: Boadicea

I was just responding to the part of your post that said that slavery was unconstitutional.

I actually agree with the op.

My point is we have a great propensity to white wash our own "sins" and those who belong to us. Republicans with Reagan. Democrats with Rosevelt. Christians, statists, atheists, libertarians all do it. The founding fathers tend to fall in there and the constitution is held up as this sacred document.


You're right. We do tend to see things through our own prism.... and maybe more important, listen in our own echo chamber.


What this has to do with the OP is that we can't rely on mythologized heroes or documents in moving forward. I like the constitution. I'm not against it. But I just think we need to own what it is and isn't. And it did practically promote slavery and division.

And yes the fact that we did end slavery is worth noting. The point is that we were doing dispicable things as a country that we were able to turn from and change. If we could do it then we can do it now.



The Constitution is an amazing document as far as it goes, and it's served us well for the most part. But it is what we make of it. Have we served it well? I don't think so. A piece of paper, no matter how profound the wisdom therein, are just words until we put them in practice. Slavery was an example of initial failure, and subsequent correction.

As you said, if we could do it then, we can do it now.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join