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.

 

Soros, NWO, and Bush question

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Serious question for those who know the who's who and what's what with globalization. I have an issue with trying to connect some dots surrounding Soros. He's pro globalization. So was Bush Sr. and Jr. However, Soros did everything he could to fund against the Bushes and Republicans.
So what am I missing? Is it just simply multiple factions pushing NWO with their own agenda of how they want it to go down? If we are going to hang on to the notion that there is an "elite" pulling the strings, then why would Soros be funding only the Democrats and have a 15 million dollar campaign against Bush in 04?

DO YOU HATE GEORGE BUSH, OR WHAT?
No, I think that he has taken the country and the world in a very dangerous direction. And I think that he was elected on a platform of a humble foreign policy, and since Sept. 11 we have been trying to impose our will on the world. I think it's very important that we should reject his policies.


Why does there seem to be competing forces at play? If there is a ruling elite, then all the players are most likely following a guideline. Perhaps something laid out by the council on foreign relations. Soros is a member of the CFR along with Bush and Cheney. Was 9/11 off script?? A rogue Cheney perhaps? Soros lost that campaign and Bush was re-elected. Fast forward to the present with the Soros leaks, the past doesn't make any sense to me. It would appear Soros has his hand in every cookie jar pulling the strings everywhere yet he has no control of the Republican party. But yet the Republican party was responsible during that time laying the groundwork for the patriot act and the removal of freedoms as per nwo theories. This decade's nwo plan, social engineering and removal of borders (Democrats).

So getting back to the question. What's the issue between Soros and Bush back in 04? Either they're both part of the same team or they're not. Either there is a single guideline for the nwo or there isn't. Either there is a ruling elite or there is not. There's some gaps in the logic here. The more i understand, the less I know. It doesn't make sense for Soros to spend so much money against the Republicans when the Republicans seem just as complicit with the nwo agenda. Help me out here.







edit on 15-8-2016 by TheFlyOnTheWall because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Interesting, No? Perhaps this observation of yours might make you question the efficacy of this NWO/Globalist/Illuminati conspiracy that floats around web sites like this. Do people who espouse this agenda have any idea at all what they are talking about?



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 07:07 PM
link   
From a dictionary source...

Globalization is the process in which people, ideas and goods spread throughout the world, spurring more interaction and integration between the world's cultures, governments and economies.

In that context Globalization is a good thing and has nothing to do with a one world government.

Especially in light of the fact that a country can still be a powerful state and independent yet still be part of the global world.

Optimistically, this could mean we all help poor countries, we all have open borders, we all have good treaties that help our own citizens and those in say India. Etc How is that a bad thing?

Or by Globalization do you mean the tearing down of independence and being subservient to a one world government...but...don't we already have that with big banks and oil companies that are multinational and can do whatever they want?



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

The reason for backing one side is:


The technique is as old as politics itself. It is the Hegelian Dialectic of bringing about change in a three-step process: Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis.

The first step (thesis) is to create a problem. The second step (antithesis) is to generate opposition to the problem (fear, panic and hysteria). The third step (synthesis) is to offer the solution to the problem created by step one: A change which would have been impossible to impose upon the people without the proper psychological conditioning achieved in stages one and two.


They always need a conflicting viewpoint.

Even if both "sides" are the same.


The Hegelian Dialectic




posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 07:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler
Interesting, No? Perhaps this observation of yours might make you question the efficacy of this NWO/Globalist/Illuminati conspiracy that floats around web sites like this. Do people who espouse this agenda have any idea at all what they are talking about?


Admittedly, there's a lot of signs supporting what theorists have been saying for decades. The banking cartel have been exposed. I don't think there's any more arguments about that. This open border policy in Europe is another one. Globalization is a real thing. But this little issue between soros and bush is like a hangnail



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall


Everything is not all black and white. Never think life, including politics, is all symmetrical and simple with this group over here and that group over there doing this and doing that.

There are nuances, different factions, and other elements within the grid of politics that we don’t know about therefore an element of uncertainty is often there.

Don’t accept easy answers and neatness all the time.

On one level Soros is a social libertarian and economic Liberal therefore many of his ideas clash with Bush and his adherence to Republican principles he joined with for the sake of acquiring power.

On other levels we just don't know

None of us are ever at the Cuban cigar, brandy and caviar meetings these guys have



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

The reason for backing one side is:


The technique is as old as politics itself. It is the Hegelian Dialectic of bringing about change in a three-step process: Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis.

The first step (thesis) is to create a problem. The second step (antithesis) is to generate opposition to the problem (fear, panic and hysteria). The third step (synthesis) is to offer the solution to the problem created by step one: A change which would have been impossible to impose upon the people without the proper psychological conditioning achieved in stages one and two.


They always need a conflicting viewpoint.

Even if both "sides" are the same.


The Hegelian Dialectic



All the same...precisely.

There used to be many members who would post this here on Political threads, but divide and conquer prevaled...until Trump!

A landslide victory would be the end of 1000 years of trickery.
Like Brexit.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

Open borders is a horrible idea. You want to know what would happen with a one world government with all of its intricate parts in place? Communism. I don't have a very optimistic opinion about it. It would be 1917 all over again. Utopia will never happen unless you've removed all cultural differences. And that's what Soros is trying to do with his human rights groups.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Granite

Why is Trump an exception? I think he's a stooge to be honest. Witting or unwitting. However, Soros is dumping a pile on anti-trump campaigns as well.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Obviously republicans and democrats support policies that further a nwo theory - power and control - but the policies of republicans are far more in line with what the elite want to push and democrats are far more dangerous to the elite/nwo.

Republicans strictly support the most important goal of the elite and that is to ensure America has military bases all over the world and to keep the never ending wars going. A real democrat or a libertarian thats for ending all US invasion and bringing all troops home from abroad is the most dangerous threat to the elite. All republicans are for giving more money for military spending and invaded more country's so they in turn do the bidding of the elite that profits from war. This, along with republicans being against raising taxes for the rich, being in favor of giving them tax breaks, and opposing the regulation of banks and corporations, makes them the candidates of the elite.
edit on 15-8-2016 by DimensionalChange03 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheFlyOnTheWall
a reply to: Granite

Why is Trump an exception? I think he's a stooge to be honest. Witting or unwitting. However, Soros is dumping a pile on anti-trump campaigns as well.


Trump is not a stooge...

The proof is received millions of votes from Americans who are very much aware of the status quo (Clintons, Bushs, Obama's and Soros) all are sweeting it out right now...especially Hillary because she knows jail is in her near future.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

Like other posters have mentioned, it's not so black and white, and not every elitist/power broker goes by the same rules or follow an outlined "heirarchy"

"The world is a stage", we are all being played by certain puppet masters (even George Soros). Soros probably obeys many other, even more powerful & powerful characters whose names aren't known to us. Out of sight of the public there is a lot more at play. Soros is just some guy we've heard about. Imagine the characters we don't even hear about, who tell Soros and his kin what to do. THAT is an even scarier thought



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: FamCore

That may be. But to make the leap in logic, Soros would have to be behind Bush and his comment I posted above is completely untrue. If Trump isn't a placed stooge, then A)Soros doesn't have control of the Republicans which means the Republicans are not part of the nwo. So then it must be B) Trump is a planted stooge and Soros is behind the Republicans and Trump or C) The republicans want their own version of the nwo or D) there is no nwo.

There's got to be some logical formula to understand this



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

It's a Kabuki theater charade.

Divide, conquer, keep em guessing, distract, disinform, manipulate, deceive, . . . etc. etc. etc.

I've long suspected that Bush Jr was a reluctant stooge . . . and that his alcoholism may have had as much to do with hating what he was born into as it did RAD.

IIRC, I ran into something a month or 3 ago that made his wife sound like more of a vigorous and staunch globalist true believer than he. I was shocked.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

I think that there are possibilities, options that are not evident, yet.

I am somewhat mystified at the globalist role that they have cast Trump into.

I don't buy that he's anti-globalist but it would be nice if he even pretended to be for a good while.

As FDR said . . . IF IT HAPPENS IN POLITICS, IT WAS PLANNED THAT WAY. That has to include Trump.

Therefore what, I don't know.

Unless he's designed to insure the impaired brain is re-installed.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 10:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheFlyOnTheWall
a reply to: amazing

Open borders is a horrible idea. You want to know what would happen with a one world government with all of its intricate parts in place? Communism. I don't have a very optimistic opinion about it. It would be 1917 all over again. Utopia will never happen unless you've removed all cultural differences. And that's what Soros is trying to do with his human rights groups.


I disagree. I feel like I should be able to travel to any country I want, with the least amount of hassle. Live in any country I want. There's a word for that....oh yeah. Freedom.

I never said anything about Communism or one world government.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

What you feel and what you want doesn't mean it's a good idea. I see the globalization ideology has taken it's roots with people well. It's a bad idea with too many reasons to count.




I never said anything about Communism or one world government.


Globalization will create that. Look what happened to the Bolshevik revolution or the French revolution. Each time it was to bring down the aristocrats and both times it turned into a dictatorship as a solution. No difference here I'm afraid.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 12:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheFlyOnTheWall
a reply to: amazing

What you feel and what you want doesn't mean it's a good idea. I see the globalization ideology has taken it's roots with people well. It's a bad idea with too many reasons to count.




I never said anything about Communism or one world government.


Globalization will create that. Look what happened to the Bolshevik revolution or the French revolution. Each time it was to bring down the aristocrats and both times it turned into a dictatorship as a solution. No difference here I'm afraid.


This is exactly why schools no longer teach a truthful version of history. You know what they say about those who don't know about history? They will be doomed to repeat it. Why is it that young people think that government will be a kinder and gentler boot on their throat this time around?




top topics



 
3

log in

join