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.

 

Europe is dead, America next...

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Thanks Jsobecky.



Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

i read the article, and it's basically saying that following the secularism of the constitution is bad, that europe is socialist (which is a word that people really need to learn the true meaning of) in some sort of demonic manner, and that multiculturalism is bad (which i'm going to assume means only good ol' white christian culture is good).


First of all, which constitution and of which country are you referring to? In the US, seperation of church and state, as was intended, applies to the federal government. The biggest reason for this was because there was about a gazillion denominations in each state and they couldnt really agree with each other. There was nothing in the constitution stating that individual states could not endorse a religions, in fact this was left up to the states. Today, many state government bodies pray before each session, at least they do in my state.

As for socialist, the article is not comparing it to communism. In fact the article purposely avoids this and refers to it as "welfarism" which it names as the source of a sapped culture. I still dont completely agree with the terminology in the arcticle and I see no reason why the man who said he would not fight was referred to as a "homosexual" author. However, I do believe there is a rising group of people in europe who has no pride and has no desire to fight to preserve their culture, that is, a freedom loving government and people.

As for multi-culturalism, there is nothing wrong with different racial make ups of a country as long as it doesnt change freedom loving people and government into a theocracy or anything else more suited to the culture of its immigrants. The basic tenants and principles of that government and its people should remain unchanged and the immigrants should begin adapting to the culture of their host country. Not calling for a "state within a state" as we have seen with the mosque in england.







[edit on 11-3-2007 by XphilesPhan]




posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
A common misconception is that the British are free. We are not, we have no constitution. We do not have freedom of speech or the press. Nor do we have the right to bear arms.


Blimey, do I live in the same Britain that you live in? It's not the land of milk and honey, but it's not a despotic hell-hole either. We do have a constitution, it's just not written ('uncodified' is the legal term). We do have the right to bear arms - you can go and apply for a gun licence whenever you like (assuming you're over 18). We do have freedom of speech - you can go out and demonstrate all you like, and you can go stand outside Downing Street and shout "I hate Tony Blair!" at the top of your voice and you won't be shipped off to some Gulgag. Freedom of the press... there is an issue there, and it's mostly not down to the government. It's actually down to greedy media barons such as Rupert Murdoch who own huge chunks of the British press. That is not healthy for the freedom of the media in the UK. Just in the last week, we've seen the stink which is kicked up when the government try to hold back the tides over the cash-for-honours affair. A hugely publicised court case and a huge amount of flak over the entire affair.

As for the original article, the author has an agenda to push. It's that simple, really - just a lot of scaremongering about those evil Muslims wanting to rule the world (read an article from the 1930s and it'd be pretty much the same... just substitute 'Muslim' for 'Jewish'). It's nothing new - read some comments by famous authors such as H. G. Wells, T. S. Elliot, George Bernard Shaw, Gustave Le Bon at the turn of the twentieth century (they basically said that western civilisation was doomed with all these changes coming about). They're so similar to what people are saying now it's pretty scary. Just shows how these arguments repeat themselves again and again, and still people fall for them.

[edit on 11/3/07 by Ste2652]



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Ste2652

Thanks for that other perspective on GB
I'll admit, I sometimes rag on you Brits, but it's all in fun. Every country has it's problems.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout


From the outside looking in, I can't help but think that your government and the powers that control that government, will want to remove certain liberties prescribed by the constitution. Freedom of press and speech of course, but more importantly the right to bear arms. As I am sure every american knows this is about more than being able to own a gun, it is about your individual sovereinty. The right to defend your way of life. You don't actually need to possess an actual gun.



Holy #! someone gets it! THANK YOU! *hugs ya*
.

Your absolutely right that the second admendment guarantees individual sovereignty and a detterent.



We in Britain certainly have no such right - with or without the guns. They could allow us to own guns but it would not give us that fundamental right that all citizens of america have to defend themselves. I hope never to ever handle a gun or have one in my home but what I wouldn't give to have that right.

By becoming like Europe that is really what the people of the US have to fear. The way the world is going (to hell in a hand-cart!!), the US government (or the powers that be?!?) have got to want to take those rights away from you.

The incident at Ruby Ridge effectively removed the idea of frontierism from the US national mind-set. Waco had similar impact. Gradually nibbling away at the concept of being able to defend your way of life.

Cynically I see the Oklahoma bombing as an action of 'Manufacturing Consent'. The identification of religious communes as harbourers of anti-americanism and terrorists. By blowing up the Murrah building, sympathy for the 'pioneer' was lost. They instead became the enemy within. The right to bear arms gets all mixed up in terrorism and the game is on.

I am sure that some members of the US population see no need for the rights I mention. But when it comes to limitation on the socio-economic choices that individuals can make, the US is far better off than we are and much of the reason is tied up in the constitution and the very reasons that the US came to be.


Man, you hit the friggin nail on the head with that.

Pioneerism was/is lost on the vast majority of americans which is a shame, but along with that we have lost an essential american ideal, self sufficiency.

Take katrina as a prime example of what sole reliance on the government generates. Instead of those people in New Orleans grabbing what survival gear they could and try to make it out of the city, they stood in the streets while thousands died waiting for a rescue that would never come.

This is what too much government generates, a slave like mentality.

Katrina was the biggest tragedy in modern history next to 9/11.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Xphiles what do you think will happen the the US once it joins with Canada and Mexico? Is t safe to assume that million of Mexicans will be moving North and possibly Americans moving into Canada.

One thing I admire here in the UK is all the immigrants whop come here and work hard set up busines's etc. yes there are a few benefit dodgers but they are outweighed by the corporate fraud. Can I ask if you have travelled outside of America, what is it that you fear from other race's/cultures.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
First of all, which constitution and of which country are you referring to? In the US, seperation of church and state, as was intended, applies to the federal government. The biggest reason for this was because there was about a gazillion denominations in each state and they couldnt really agree with each other. There was nothing in the constitution stating that individual states could not endorse a religions, in fact this was left up to the states. Today, many state government bodies pray before each session, at least they do in my state.



any law pertaining to the federal government has to pertain to the states, that's what the 6th article of the constitution says.

well, technically it says:



This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


the only way states get to decide on someting is if the constitution says nothing about it. that's the whole point of the 10th amendment

amendment the tenth

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.




As for socialist, the article is not comparing it to communism. In fact the article purposely avoids this and refers to it as "welfarism" which it names as the source of a sapped culture. I still dont completely agree with the terminology in the arcticle and I see no reason why the man who said he would not fight was referred to as a "homosexual" author. However, I do believe there is a rising group of people in europe who has no pride and has no desire to fight to preserve their culture, that is, a freedom loving government and people.


you don't fight to preserve your culture. that's a stupid thing to fight for. you may work to preserve your culture by creating more of it, but FIGHT is the wrong word. if anything, you'd want to take plenty from any new cultures that are introduced.



As for multi-culturalism, there is nothing wrong with different racial make ups of a country as long as it doesnt change freedom loving people and government into a theocracy or anything else more suited to the culture of its immigrants.


well, then there is no problem, few to none of these people actually want a theocracy. if they really wanted a theocracy they would have gone to iran/



The basic tenants and principles of that government and its people should remain unchanged and the immigrants should begin adapting to the culture of their host country.


that's not how great countries work. america became great because of its immigrant populations altering the culture. the africans brought in as slave contributed greatly to the culture. the irish that came in with the potatoe famine added to the culture. the germans that came to america added to the culture (hamburgers and hotdogs, need i say more?). every single large influx of peoples has helped to shape american culture. sure, they do adapt, but they also change it a lot.



Not calling for a "state within a state" as we have seen with the mosque in england.


THE mosque?
most muslims in england don't want a state within a state, it's only the extremists that make up a very small portion

[edit on 3/11/07 by madnessinmysoul]



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 06:42 PM
link   
I'm all for the secularism, but everything else stinks really.

...and thats all I really have to say.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 07:00 PM
link   
I do understand that as a 'democratic' nation the U.S and other European countries are supposed to welcome outsiders, but it's time to put that to a stop. Because these outsiders are bringing extremism with them and that's not acceptable. I don't think religion is the only issue...it's the fact that these muslim extremists embrace a culture that has opposite values of our own. And it's not like you can force your own people to start reproducing to compete with other culture's breeding habits. That would only create more problems than solve. I think we should just endorse a new method of removing religious extremists, we should just kill them and stop catering to them once and for all.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Great thread xphilesfan


The CIA has predicted the breakup (collapse) of the EU in a mere 15 years.


CIA gives grim warning on European prospects

THE CIA has predicted that the European Union will break-up within 15 years unless it radically reforms its ailing welfare systems.

The report by the intelligence agency, which forecasts how the world will look in 2020, warns that Europe could be dragged into economic decline by its ageing population. It also predicts the end of Nato and post-1945 military alliances.

In a devastating indictment of EU economic prospects, the report warns: "The current EU welfare state is unsustainable and the lack of any economic revitalisation could lead to the splintering or, at worst, disintegration of the EU, undermining its ambitions to play a heavyweight international role."

It adds that the EU’s economic growth rate is dragged down by Germany and its restrictive labour laws. Reforms there - and in France and Italy to lesser extents - remain key to whether the EU as a whole can break out of its "slow-growth pattern".

Reflecting growing fears in the US that the pain of any proper reform would be too much to bear, the report adds that the experts it consulted "are dubious that the present political leadership is prepared to make even this partial break, believing a looming budgetary crisis in the next five years would be the more likely trigger for reform".

The EU is also set for a looming demographic crisis because of a drop in birth rates and increased longevity, with devastating economic consequences.

The report says: "Either European countries adapt their workforces, reform their social welfare, education and tax systems, and accommodate growing immigrant populations [chiefly from Muslim countries] or they face a period of protracted economic stasis."

As a result of the increased immigration needed, the report predicts that Europe’s Muslim population is set to increase from around 13% today to between 22% and 37% of the population by 2025, potentially triggering tensions.

The report predicts that America’s relationships with Europe will be "dramatically altered" over the next 15 years, in a move away from post-Second World War institutions. Nato could disappear and be replaced by increased EU action.

"The EU, rather than Nato, will increasingly become the primary institution for Europe, and the role Europeans shape for themselves on the world stage is most likely to be projected through it," the report adds. "Whether the EU will develop an army is an open question."

Defence spending by individual European countries, including the UK, France, and Germany, is likely to fall further behind China and other countries over the next 15 years. Collectively these countries will outspend all others except the US and possibly China.

The expected next technological revolution will involve the convergence of nano, bio, information and materials technology and will further bolster China and India’s prospects, the study predicts. Both countries are investing in basic research in these fields and are well placed to be leaders. But whereas the US will retain its overall lead, the report warns "Europe risks slipping behind Asia in some of these technologies".

For Europe, an increasing preference for natural gas may reinforce regional relationships, such as those with Russia or North Africa, given the inter-dependence of pipeline delivery, the report argues. But this means the EU will have to deal with Russia, which the report also warns "faces a severe demographic crisis resulting from low birth rates, poor medical care and a potentially explosive Aids situation".

Russia also borders an "unstable region" in the Caucasus and Central Asia, "the effects of which - Muslim extremism, terrorism and endemic conflict - are likely to continue spilling over into Russia".

The report also largely en dorses forecasts that by 2020 China’s gross domestic product will exceed that of individual western economic powers except for the US. India’s GDP will have overtaken or be overtaking European economies.

Because of the sheer size of China’s and India’s populations their standard of living need not approach European and western levels to become important economic powers.

The economies of other developing countries, such as Brazil, could surpass all but the largest European countries by 2020.


news.scotsman.com...

This isnt the future I want for america and my kids.

[edit on 073131p://4303pm by semperfoo]



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by laiguana
I do understand that as a 'democratic' nation the U.S and other European countries are supposed to welcome outsiders, but it's time to put that to a stop. Because these outsiders are bringing extremism with them and that's not acceptable.


the united states has a history of extremism (various white supremacist groups, the black panthers, etc)
the UK has quite the skinhead history
etc
the only difference is that it isn't home grown extremism



I don't think religion is the only issue...it's the fact that these muslim extremists embrace a culture that has opposite values of our own. And it's not like you can force your own people to start reproducing to compete with other culture's breeding habits. That would only create more problems than solve. I think we should just endorse a new method of removing religious extremists, we should just kill them and stop catering to them once and for all.


so we'regoing to off the extremists like falwell, robertson, haggard etc as well?



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Muslim extremist beat their wifes and have no remorse for human life. They want a world under islamic law. They do so by spreading their religion by use of the "sword" which is what it says to do to the infidels in the koran if they dont comply to islamic law. These ppl basically have the same mentality that they had 700 years ago when the crusades were still raging. They will force their religion on you. I think it is those sort of extremist that need to be done away with. I dont like pat robertson but atleast he doesnt condone or do any of the things I mentioned above.


But to stay on topic. I think that immigration is good for nations. Especially nations who are going through a demographic crisis. The US will need a strong population to stay strong throughout the 21st century. We have the economy to support a large population unlike other nations. The only problem with europe accepting muslim ppl is the integration of muslim values that are not european values. This causes culture wars. Muslim extremism is another problem. Terrorist in other words. the ones who want to force their culture on others who might be unwilling to accept these values for themselves. Thus starting the stereotyping that will ensue among the general populous on both sides. And all that will give birth to a culture war that wont be pretty.

[edit on 113131p://2203pm by semperfoo]



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Thanks Semperfoo, and I believe the CIA is correct in its assesment of europe. I agree that with the rise of welfarism in the EU and the decreasing numbers of their youth, the european union will probably break apart in a few years.

Another grim prospect is the eventual dissolving of NATO alliances simply for the fact that europe can no longer contribute to them. I wonder if the guise of the rampant anti-americanism in europe is really a facade for an inept europe. Already the british navy, which britain has depended on heavily for centuries, is being cut by almost 50%.

So there are only 2 eventual outcomes of this:

1. The EU will dissolve and take a decade or so to recover.

2. rampant poverty may ignite a 3rd world war as we saw in Germany after WW1.

Whatever happens, I can tell you that it wont be good for america as we will be facing a chinese superpower at about the time of the EU's collapse.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Xphiles what do you think will happen the the US once it joins with Canada and Mexico? Is t safe to assume that million of Mexicans will be moving North and possibly Americans moving into Canada.


Well, Im not going anywhere so they better learn to speak english.



One thing I admire here in the UK is all the immigrants whop come here and work hard set up busines's etc. yes there are a few benefit dodgers but they are outweighed by the corporate fraud. Can I ask if you have travelled outside of America, what is it that you fear from other race's/cultures.


Yes, I have lived in england and visited scotland, and mexico.

I sure as hell dont fear them. My "intolerance" of them stems from the fact that this is MY country and if they want to live here, adapt to MY way of life.

Now that I have answered your question, answer one of mine:

Why are you willing to move or adapt to the immigrants way of life?



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
Whatever happens, I can tell you that it wont be good for america as we will be facing a chinese superpower at about the time of the EU's collapse.


Good points. I think your spot on to a degree about the anti americanism that is running through Europe. I think Europeans are reluctant to give the US credit on anything (the alternative is focusing on the bad which they do a fabulous job at I might add) in large part because they to a degree are jealous and envious that we as single nation can do better then an entire continent can (the EU). And because our politics are different from theirs they dislike them because we are reluctant to follow down their path of 'doom'. If theyre going down they want us riding bitch with them...

Really the end of nato isnt a total shock. I mean really whats the need for it anymore...especially by 2020? The US has the worlds most powerful military known to man. Europe is just freeloading off of Americas military might anyways. I think we should focus on the Americas and possible security pacts with the likes of brazil, Brazil, could surpass all but the largest European countries by 2020. I think we need to start focusing closer to home.


As for china, thats open to speculation. Im not to worried about china. Not yet anyways. They have more problems then the EU currently has. Infact they are forcasted to have rather stagnant growth around 2015. They will either become a democracy by then or suffer from a slow growth not much faster then that of Americas. Just to put something into perspective here real quick...China will be where america was in the 60's by 2010. So I wouldnt be to worried about them just yet.

Why the US Will Still be the Only Superpower in 2030
futurist.typepad.com...

Pretty good read. Very well written.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
Why are you willing to move or adapt to the immigrants way of life?



Er... we don't. Ask and see how many white and black europeans have stopped drinking because its not allowed under muslim law, and they will laugh in your bigoted ill informed face, Xphiles. Ask how many europeans have stopped eating pork based foods so as not to offend muslims, and you'll get laughed at even more. I mean jesus, I know more muslims that drink than I do white people. Go figure.

You claim you lived in England once. I am guessing you either hung around with BNP amigos of yours, or lived in a sealed box during your time here, because you OBVIOUSLY haven't a clue about England, or anywhere else in Europe.

You're scared of the US becoming like Europe? Fine, Bitch to some of your ultranationalist far right American comrades, and install your own Argie-style Junta in Washington. Or are you just fine with the PNAC crew running things?



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 01:58 AM
link   
Religious extremists are those that are forcing people to live under a theocracy by the means of violence. They want to live under religious laws and they commit acts of terrorism and so forth. Though falwell and his types may run their mouths and mimic some extremist behavior, they are not actually going to tell people to strap bombs to their kids. There's quite a difference between trash talkers and the real religious extremists. It's also known as reality check.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ste2652

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
A common misconception is that the British are free. We are not, we have no constitution. We do not have freedom of speech or the press. Nor do we have the right to bear arms.


Blimey, do I live in the same Britain that you live in? It's not the land of milk and honey, but it's not a despotic hell-hole either. We do have a constitution, it's just not written ('uncodified' is the legal term). We do have the right to bear arms - you can go and apply for a gun licence whenever you like (assuming you're over 18). We do have freedom of speech - you can go out and demonstrate all you like, and you can go stand outside Downing Street and shout "I hate Tony Blair!" at the top of your voice and you won't be shipped off to some Gulgag. Freedom of the press... there is an issue there, and it's mostly not down to the government. It's actually down to greedy media barons such as Rupert Murdoch who own huge chunks of the British press. That is not healthy for the freedom of the media in the UK. Just in the last week, we've seen the stink which is kicked up when the government try to hold back the tides over the cash-for-honours affair. A hugely publicised court case and a huge amount of flak over the entire affair.


[edit on 11/3/07 by Ste2652]


I entirely agree it is not all as bad as I made out - I was going to the extreme admittedly. The difference is between the implicit and the explicit. Yes we can apply for a firearms licence but that is by no means the right to bear arms. The two things are entirely seperate. We cannot defend our individual rights and property by use of firearms - remember Tony Martin? We have the right to defend our ruler and our country not our individual way of life. Yes we can shout from the roof-tops that Tony Blair is a numb-nut or whatever but that doesn't mean that a slight change in the law can't remove that right. It is in no way set in stone.

I am not anti-Britain, but yes at a stretch I would say I lean towards anti-establishment. I love Britain and all that it represents but that doesn't mean to say that I am incapable of recognising it's shortcomings and wish to have the choice to live the life I want to. We are hugely restricted by taxation, we operate a policy that requires us to pay for services that we never use.

I am a yorkshire-woman and deeply proud of that fact. The north recieves very little government support or effective government initiatives, and yes it is turning into a hell hole. And it is not just in the North. Walk around any housing estate in the country and you will find people being sucked down the drain, who have little hope for the future. Heroine addiction is rife and it is furthering the decay in some areas. Life ain't sweet. I am lucky, I am well-educated and I have the ability to find ways to improve my life. Others are less fortunate. I care about other people, not just my own lot. Men and women who have to labour hard to get 5.40 an hour, because there are too many workers for too few jobs. Labour is cheap in this country, housing and the cost of living are prohibitive for these people.

So yes I agree it is not a despotic hell-hole - I never said it was, but does that mean I cannot see the reality of everyday life and not see that things can only get worse before they get better?

Incidently though I loved the Guardian sticking it to Lord Levy and Goldsmith and publishing and be damned. Its always good to know that there a few bastions still left.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 08:15 AM
link   
After reading alot of Xphiles posts over the last year or so, you can summarise Xphiles point of view up very simply, and its this;

If you aren't a god fearing, church attending right wing white american, you suck.

Its simple really, but if he actually said it, he'd probably have nothing else to say


JAK

posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 09:11 AM
link   
OK, the topic is: Europe is dead, America next...

Let's stick to that and avoid the mud flinging please.

Thank you,

Jak



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
Yes we can shout from the roof-tops that Tony Blair is a numb-nut or whatever but that doesn't mean that a slight change in the law can't remove that right. It is in no way set in stone.


Which is one of the arguments against an uncodified constitution, and a perfectly valid one. Whilst it's very likely that government MPs would rebel against such a law, it's almost certain to be blocked by the Lords and I'd be extremely surprised if the monarch signed it (let's face it, no one would want to banish the monarchy for refusing to go along with the government on this one), the threat is still there.


Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
I am a yorkshire-woman and deeply proud of that fact. The north recieves very little government support or effective government initiatives, and yes it is turning into a hell hole.


Where abouts in Yorkshire are you from? I also live in Yorkshire (I live near Pontefract, not too far from Leeds) so I imagine there are variances within both the region and the nation. There have been some pretty successful regeneration schemes in my area, though you're right - there's still a lot of work to be done.

Anyway, I'll get back on topic since this is about Europe, not just the UK.

Is Europe dead? No. You're ill-informed and/or you have a political point to get across if you think that. Is it changing? Yes. And I'd be very concerned if it wasn't... civilisation has existed in Europe for thousands of years, and part of the reason for it surviving is its ability to change and adapt.

Of course, everyone is perfectly entitled to his or her views. I just think it's difficult to have a debate with someone when they have such a firmly locked-in set of opinions - basically that Europe is screwed and we're a police state (which, from my point of view, is pretty ill-informed). I've said it once and I'll say it again: You simply can't apply an American solution to a European problem, nor can you apply a European solution to an American problem. I know that's pretty vague (what is a 'European/American problem' or a 'European/American solution'?) but I hope you understand what I mean. Europe is different to the United States, and looking at everything from an American perspective without thinking from the view of the person/group you're scrutinising just makes you sound ignorant. The same works in reverse. And again, I re-iterate I'm not anti-American. I adore the States and its people (if I had to rank my favourite nations, it'd be second... after the UK, of course!
), and I've had some fantastic experiences every single time I've visited.

I guess, in conclusion, what I'm trying to say is that the world would be such a great place if people tried to understand each other and why they do things the way they do. Ignorance and a lack of understanding is probably at the core of the globe's problems today.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join