posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 12:34 PM
Someone mentioned that saying this was anything but the typical “YAY WAR” speech was grasping at straws. After sleeping on it I cannot disagree
more. This speech and speeches like it are dangerous – not only for the “Pro-war” rhetoric. This is a dangerous thing because of what I have
broken down into 5 points.
1) Lumping threats together
2) Religious implications
3) Security in exchange for Freedom
4) A new position in the UN
5) Indoctrinating Children
1) Lumping the KKK, ISIS, Nazis, Right-Wing Extremists, Preachers of Hate, and Peddlers of lies together is dangerous. Each of these issues is so
vastly different from one another. Compare their cause, method, goal, construct, era, influence (socially and politically), income, members, etc…
and you get vastly different groups. They have all been deemed ‘bad’ though and should not be allowed anywhere near our children or universities
(see point 5). This is folly. Especially when you have a broad sweeping definition for a peddler of lies being people who doubt the official 9/11
story or 7/7 story. Think about this – do you think the media will distinguish between the 9/11 theorists who believe Bush was behind it, the NWO
was behind it, the Zionists were behind it, etc? No. They don’t do that already. So Mr. Cameron’s assertion that it was just the doubters that
believe there’s a Jewish cause is a useless qualifier. The 7/7 point had no qualifier just those who think it was staged.
2) Religious implications hits hard. I understand where he’s going with this. Mosques who preach to kill the infidels where you find them because it
is in the Quran then deny any culpability when the people go kill non-Muslims. I get it. But think a moment. The western world has changed much.
Germany is considering legalizing incest. What happens when the Catholic Priest preaches “Cursed be anyone who lies with his sister”? What happens
when the Mormon preaches about their staunch stance on homosexuality? This is a very slippery slope. Will all religious preaching be sanitized and
approved by the state by the Special Representative on extremism? Is that who decides?
3) Mr. Cameron even says he understands ‘some’ may see this as a restriction of free speech but it’s worth not having that speech if it means
we’re safe and we keep these awful bad ideas away from kids and college students. We don’t want them indoctrinated with radical ideas. Well
let’s think a moment about this too. Any and all extreme thought is what he referred to repeatedly. French and American Revolutionaries were
extremist movements. Martin Luther and Martin Luther King Jr. were extreme thinkers. Boethius, Joan of Arc, Mark Twain, Gandhi, Buddha, Jesus, Rosa
Parks, William Wallace, Nicola Tesla, Galileo, Darwin…. – all of them. Many of them had to work inside the constraints of a society that
abolished free speech, and how did history treat them?
4) This new special representative of extremism – if that doesn’t make you feel uneasy and you post on this site there’s no point of me
discussing why it is disturbing to begin with.
5) Brainwashing children is bad – FROM BOTH ENDS. To make programs that help mold the minds of children frightens me. Do you really want those
jack***es in the UN molding the minds of the world? Oh but it’s for their own good right? Right? Governments and ruling agencies never ever use
their carefully trained docile masses for anything but good. Right?
I don’t think these things are grasping at straws. I think these are legitimate concerns. As we watch more and more of our rights erode – we have
a powerful and influential world leader addressing a bunch of other powerful and influential world leaders to take away our free speech, consider any
extreme thought a terrorist act, and to educate the children in a way that’s UN approved.