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.

 

The Real Reason That You are Terrified of Latinos, Africans, Asians and/or Muslims

page: 6
21
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by tiger5
Mexican, Koreans, And British immigrants have the same beef with their next generation - it is something that is technically described as acculturation. You can read about it here.
Their kids all embrace American culture not those of the old country.
en.wikipedia.org...

But more importantly you can do your own social research. Find any immigrant and look at their children, over time they become more and more American. They may have an accent but they are American. Their parents may not even speak English butt their Kids speak American English and are to all intnents and purposes American.

Has anyone been to Hawaii I and seen those of Chinese and Japanese decent? Are they not American? Don’t people think that most immigrants want to be American?

I believe that the detractors of the OP are forming straw men and tearing them down which is not an argument at all. There is an element of racism linked into to many of these debates as skin colour seems to be the issue those European immigrants seem to have a very easy time even the French.



I remember way back when we had many French speaking immigrants. Did we ever have to make phone calls and dial one for English and two for French? No. Do some of our jobs require that we speak English and French? No. The same with when we had many Africans, and Asians and others. Those cultures learned and respected their new Country's language. With most illegals speaking Spanish, they don't care, they demand that we change for them and America is changing and catering to them. That is where there is a big difference between legal and illegal immigrants. Legal immigrants were thankful and respectful of their new homeland. I don't think this has anything to do with ones skin color as our immigrants our welcomed no matter what color or race as long as they are legal, have background checks, learn our language.




posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Night Star
 


Well I have no argument with you whatsoever. I would say the unthinkable and state that settling in a new country and being accepted is a privelidge. I do not support lawbreaking. All that I have worries about is Xenophobes attacking legitimate immigrants and lynchmobs attacking illegals.

BTW illegals + very cheap labour.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by tiger5

Where do you stand with regard to legal immigration? Now that is the question….

Obviously, I support legal immigration. I actually don't see a problem with making legal immigration more streamlined and expanding the quotas. I do, at this time, oppose any such actions by the legislature for one simple reason: the Federal government is not doing its job stopping the illegal ones.

Some time back, a compromise was made between Reagan and the Congress. All illegals here wold be eligible for legal status, and the border was to be secured. The reality was that the illegals here attained legal status and the borders were left open, so the agreement became an incentive for more illegal immigrants to come over, expecting that their turn to be legalized would come. So, as soon as the border is locked down tight, I will be open to revamping the immigration process... not before.


Cultural identities are very flexible but should multi-lingualism be passed I would argue America will not collapse because of it.

"Collapse" is a general term, and probably not very applicable. But there would be major upheaval. Just the cost to society alone to print all legal documents in multiple languages and hire translators is enormous, and we are already taxed far too heavily. Now add in the personal cost for citizens to learn multiple languages (assuming they can; mention has been made of older immigrants who try but cannot learn the language and the same thing would go for older indigenous peoples having to learn a new language) and you have quite a bill for society to shoulder, both through taxation and through personal costs.

There is no need to have a second language to accommodate immigration. We never had to learn another language before, as Night Star points out so well. The ones coming here should learn the language that is already here... period. And since English is the common language of government at the Federal level, it should be legally recognized as the official US language.

That is not to say that states cannot be bi-lingual themselves if they so choose. I understand New Mexico, due to its heavily Spanish constituency, is officially bi-lingual. I have no problem with that; it is their state, and their culture... thus, their decision.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Thank you for missing the point entirely.

I am not saying that Americans do not have the freedom to 'protect' their country from 'foreigners.' I am saying that the desire to keep out those who are different is part and parcel of the fascist rhetoric being sold to the American populace. People who flee their country due to war or pestilence or famine or drought or poverty should be welcomed to America. They should be welcomed because Americans should be the greatest libertarians in the world.

Instead, thousands of Americans are denying the right to life ["I will be killed if I remain in Juarez!" says the migrant. "I don't care, you broke the law" says the legalist]. They are denying the right to liberty ["I want to come to America to be free!" says the migrant. "Fill out the paperwork," says the legalist]. They are denying the right to the pursuit of happiness ["I want to work, to escape the misery that has seized my homeland, to raise my children without fear of starvation!" says the migrant. "Too bad, America is full," says the legalist, sipping his Big Gulp and downing a Double Down sandwich]. The American Fascist consistently places his own claims to property above the migrant's claims to basic natural rights.

But if you want to justify fascism then yes, Americans have every right to murder migrants in order to protect 'their' country. Nevermind that the vast majority of these xenophobes are not significant landowners. Nevermind that they are supporting the wealthy elites and corporations that exploit them daily and constantly seek new ways to deny the average American their basic liberties. What really matters is that Joe Six-Pack feels comfortable that this playground of the elites is not overrun by [insert foreign demographic group here].

If they could do it, the elites would strip native-born citizen of their rights and property overnight. They can't get away with this unless the common people begin to demand it, and luckily for the elites, the commons are all too willing to equate themselves with the whole nation and to advocate the end of liberty, thinking that they are protecting their own interests.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   
And tell me what you think after viewing this video. This may give you some insight.




posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   
As is it clearly states in the video, "We would never get ahead of what's happening in these countries, not in this century. Don't you see, immigration can never be an affective or significant way to deal with the suffering people of the world. They have to be helped where they live.

99.9% of them would never be able to immigrate to a rich country there is no hope for that."



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 


Immigration does not solve the problems of third world countries (povetry, overpopulation, bad education..) in the long run. Not at all. It just threatens to spread them to more developed countries. If you really wanted to help those countries, you would address them directly where the root causes are, and what they need to be solved (POVETRY - charity, helping their economy get up. OVERPOPULATION - responsible procreation, anticonception, planned parenthood, population control measures. BAD EDUCATION - education, fighting against medieval religions, building schools, things you call cultural neocolonialism. Immigration actually causes brain drain, so its directly detrimental to this factor).



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

You are very welcome. I try to help whenever I can.


I am not saying that Americans do not have the freedom to 'protect' their country from 'foreigners.

But if you want to justify fascism then yes, Americans have every right to murder migrants in order to protect 'their' country.

OK, so let me try again. You're saying that we have every right to protect our country from illegal immigration, but that we are promoting 'fascism' when we do so... right?

Wikipedia defines fascism as

Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong. They claim that culture is created by the collective national society and its state, that cultural ideas are what give individuals identity, and thus they reject individualism.


Is that what you see? Is that your mental image of the United States? A group of people, all alike, shutting doors in the face of immigration? I just posted a report a little while back about there being 8.78 million legal immigrants eligible for naturalization. I also spent a couple posts explaining how diverse the cultures are that make up the United States. And you still cling to these mental images that are woefully incorrect?

Germany under Adolf Hitler was fascist. There was no immigration. There was actual extermination of anyone already there legally who did fit the image of the German citizen.

I would hazard to guess that you have never visited the USA based on your lack of any knowledge of it. You should sometime. As I understand it, passports and VISA's are easy to get for tourists. Check out the great plains, the farming culture that prides itself on conservative values and hard work. Check out the cities, like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, where people live packed in like sardines in a can and dream of idyllic progressive ideals. Try the Southeast, where family and history abound. Examine Louisiana, the once-French culture steeped with the ideas they brought. And then check out the West Coast, where people live among splendor and majesty.

And that's just the continent. Alaska and Hawaii are even more unique.

America allows more immigrants to become citizens every year than all the other nations (including Canada) combined. America takes in political asylum seekers and political refugees regularly. America is a nation composed of immigrants... my earliest relative on the paternal side came here in the mid-1700s from England, although he was apparently of Dutch-German descent.

And still you say this:

Instead, thousands of Americans are denying the right to life ["I will be killed if I remain in Juarez!" says the migrant. "I don't care, you broke the law" says the legalist]. They are denying the right to liberty ["I want to come to America to be free!" says the migrant. "Fill out the paperwork," says the legalist]. They are denying the right to the pursuit of happiness ["I want to work, to escape the misery that has seized my homeland, to raise my children without fear of starvation!" says the migrant. "Too bad, America is full," says the legalist, sipping his Big Gulp and downing a Double Down sandwich]. The American Fascist consistently places his own claims to property above the migrant's claims to basic natural rights.


I hope no one ever hands out free dollar bills in your hometown; you would no doubt berate him for not helping others enough.


All I can really say to this is, be the change you want to be. If you don't like our quotas, get Canada to show us 'how to do it. Show us the way. That leadership tactic works far better than whining while doing nothing to help.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 



OK, so let me try again. You're saying that we have every right to protect our country from illegal immigration, but that we are promoting 'fascism' when we do so... right?
Not necessarily. The justification that is usually used [in public discourse and on ATS] is not that immigrants are free to come and Americans are free to try to stop them. The justification is usually that immigrants are somehow bad for America i.e. they will import poverty and crime or they are lawbreakers. The Minutemen, as much as I disagree with them, seem to be more libertarian than most critics of immigration. "Sure, Mexicans can cross the border... but we will stop them ourselves!" Vigilantism is more compatible with liberty than the law is.


Germany under Adolf Hitler

[Godwin's Law in effect]*

I must reiterate something that I said in the OP. I am not trying to pick on America. Others keep bringing the argument back to the example of the USA and so I keep coming back to it. I could make these same arguments about France, with its own Revolutionary history. I could make them about Britain or Canada or Italy, all of which have contributed something to the discourse of human rights. As I said in the OP, my criticism is leveled against the enemies of immigration, the xenophobes of the First World. They are the deniers of liberty, often hiding behind their own liberty, often claiming to be advocates of liberty. They are proponents of privilege; liberty only for those who qualify for it. If you do not fall into this category of xenophobes and anti-libertarians, then you are not the target of my rhetoric.

For the record, I think that it is reasonable to limit immigration if the goal is still to protect the rights and liberties of immigrants. Paperwork and documentation is important for administrative purposes and immigrants are doing themselves a disservice if they do not fill out the right forms. Requiring documentation and requiring immigration control is still an insult to human liberty, but it is preferable to actual xenophobia and hardcore anti-humanism. The states of America, Canada, Britain, France and the rest have much more liberal immigration policies than the fascist elites and their cheerleaders in the TEA party, British National Party, Christian Heritage Party, Vlaams Belang . . .

Referring back to the Tamil refugee thread, linked in the OP, I will add that it is inexcusable for a country that prides itself on respect for human rights to turn back refugees, whether they are fleeing war, persecution, or disasters natural or man-made.

*[irony in effect]



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Instead, thousands of Americans are denying the right to life ["I will be killed if I remain in Juarez!" says the migrant. "I don't care, you broke the law" says the legalist]. They are denying the right to liberty ["I want to come to America to be free!" says the migrant. "Fill out the paperwork," says the legalist]. They are denying the right to the pursuit of happiness ["I want to work, to escape the misery that has seized my homeland, to raise my children without fear of starvation!" says the migrant. "Too bad, America is full," says the legalist, sipping his Big Gulp and downing a Double Down sandwich]. The American Fascist consistently places his own claims to property above the migrant's claims to basic natural rights.


Smedley, Why the diss'n on Americans? You could replace the word America with Canada in your post, do you think your biased perception of how you "think" we would answer the questions above, would be any different from your country? Not that I agree with your comments because I don't. We are not denying their right to life or their pursuit of happiness. That's something they have denied them self's on their own. If you want a better life and happiness, then have the courage to make change at all cost. We did it, we made the sacrifices and endured hardships for a better way of life, why can't they? Maybe because they didn't deal with the corruption of their own country? It's now out of control but their not willing to put in the effort to fix it. So why should Americans assume the burden of supporting illegals not even willing to make changes for the better in their own country? They've had the money and resources with the proximity of the State's being right next door but have chosen not to utilize their oppurtunities, exception being the drug trade. Yeah, I know thats our fault too.
edit on 23-12-2010 by mtnshredder because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by RRokkyy
 


I don't really think it's a problem. America's carrying capacity is increasing all the time, sometimes by inches and sometimes by leaps and bounds. In 100 years, the current population of 310 Americans will be mostly dead; 300 million immigrants will assure that this population is replaced, and the natural birth rate, which is currently below 2 children per woman, will grow the population a little more.

Moreover, I am certain that most immigrant families will shrink over the generations. You are assuming that every generation of immigrants will have the same birth rate as their parents, but this does not seem to be the case. My grandmother came from a family of ten children; her parents were British immigrants at the turn of the last century. She and her siblings had an average of two children each. Their children had an average of two children each, if they had children at all. Anecdotal evidence, I know, but you may know an immigrant family with a similar history. Each generation of the family that is born in the New Country is more familiar with the customs and traditions of the New Country than the old; I have only a vague awareness of the Home Island, gleaned mostly from television. I certainly have no desire to raise a large family, it would get in the way of my decadent Western lifestyle.

Trends in immigration can change over time, as well. If the economy declines, as anti-immigration rhetors claim it will, then there will be less incentive for migrants to come to America. They may travel along the NAFTA transport corridor (coming soon!) into Canada, or they may travel into booming Brazil, or they may travel to Russia or China or India seeking work. Migrant labourers go where the money is, because that's where the private citizens are most prepared to hire on new employees.
edit on 22-12-2010 by SmedleyBurlap because: (no reason given)


Immigrants traveling to India or China? Thats the weirdest idea I have heard on ATS. China with 1.3 billion does not let immigrants in,period. India with 1 billion people is a disaster of overpopulation already and getting worse.
Canadians do not want millions of immigrants. Perhaps their government will force them upon the people.
Will a decline in the American economy stop immigration here? No way. American will for the next 25 years still be a better place to live than the third world. If the economy declines in the US it is likely to decline in the rest of the world too. No help there.

You say the current population of 310 million americans will be dead in 100 years. Well if they have a birthrate of 2 , there will still be 310 million of them 100 years from now. The birthrate would have to be ZERO for them all to have disappeared. Its not ZERO.


The first thing you must understand is that when young people move to a country and have children they dont die off like an older established population.
Imagine an island. 2 people move there, they have four kids ,then their kids have 4 kids, then their kids have four kids,etc, NO ONE IS DYING BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT OLD. When you have an older ESTABLISHED population every 20 years the older generation dies off keeping the population stable with a birthrate of 2. When you have young people breeding they dont begin to die off for 60 years
If they had a birthrate of 2:
2 +2
2+2
2+2
2+2
2+2
thats an increase of 5 times, meaning 20 million would become 100 million. They dont have a birth rate of 2.
With a birth rate of 3 my estimate is an increase of 40 times. Thus 20 million immigrants would become a mere
800 million.
But you would have to add to that the almost 300 million of the original population, plus the increase due to the 45 million Hispanics already here with their higher birth rates,plus those immigrants to come in the next 80 years. Say only 1 million a year, but then you have to add in all their kids and kids kids,
You still get over a billion people.

You claim the birthrate will decline because of anecdotal evidence.
Anecdotally my mother asked an Hispanic American how many kids she had and she said 17. They are Catholics and traditionally have large numbers of kids.

If the population triples, then you will need three times the water,electricity,sanitation, hospitals,schools,houses, ,welfare,and all other services. Where does all the money come from to support all this growth in a declining economy, in a country that is no longer the worlds center of manufacturing?

Endless population growth is a PONZI scheme that benefits realtors,house builders,and politicians, while slowly eroding the quality of life for everyone else.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
They should be welcomed because Americans should be the greatest libertarians in the world.


Libertarians are politically insane. There is no such real thing as libertarianism. There is no place in the world,never has been and never will be that is libertarian. Name such a place. It is an insane theoretical philosophy. Anyone who
debates it becomes insane. It starts off with the insane
notion of absolute freedom and then goes mad with the absurd idea that people are benevolent.
Libertarian debates should be banned from ATS as unhealthy and immoral. Libertarians are pacifists who will
not fight for your rights and have no interest in humanity.
They are the ultimate narcissists interested only in
themselves and their property. Libertarians are soulless bots. Nothing good comes from such creatures. They are
the cause of half the wars and half of human misery
because of their independent detachment.
The pacifist libertarians on Sicily,cut a deal with the Romans, to allow them into the island if they would
spare the Libertarians. The Romans killed everyone including Aristotle. Never trust a Libertarian.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

The Minutemen, as much as I disagree with them, seem to be more libertarian than most critics of immigration. "Sure, Mexicans can cross the border... but we will stop them ourselves!" Vigilantism is more compatible with liberty than the law is.

The law in this case is already that immigrants are not allowed to simply wade across the Rio Grande and take up residence. That's why the immigrants who do so are called 'illegal'. A person cannot be illegal, obviously, but their actions are.

The Minutemen are not vigilantes, either. They do not intercept illegal immigrants. They simply notify the proper law enforcement officials as to where the immigrants are coming in, in an attempt to get the Border Patrol to do their job and uphold the law. A vigilante is someone who takes the law into their own hand, not someone who refers violations to the proper authorities.


For the record, I think that it is reasonable to limit immigration if the goal is still to protect the rights and liberties of immigrants. Paperwork and documentation is important for administrative purposes and immigrants are doing themselves a disservice if they do not fill out the right forms.


Gee, Smedley, you certainly get around... arguing both sides of the issue now, are we?

That is all I am attempting to argue... that it is proper and necessary for the stability of the country for immigration to be controlled. I know of no one in the USA, and remember I live here, that is anti-immigration! Not one person I have talked to has made that statement. I have heard racist statements, sure, from a small number of people, but that is a long cry from being anti-immigration.

It honestly sounds to me like you have been watching the political pandering that goes on here lately, and I have to admit that is understandable to a degree. If one watches the right news 'reporters', America is packed to the brim with idiotic, racist, inbred warmongers. But what you have to understand is that this is not the truth; it is what some angry immoral people want you to believe, because they are in the minority on certain political issues. They think the best way to get their way is to make others think their opponents are some sort of monsters. Unfortunately, your posts indicate they are right at least part of the time.

The motto of ATS is "Deny Ignorance". Ignorance is a lack of information or knowledge, or possibly incorrect information or knowledge. I urge you, sir, to uphold that proud motto and study beyond the rhetoric and soundbites to find out the truth behind these issues that you are attempting to debate. I urge you to deny the half-truths and spun stories and outright lies.

I urge you to Deny Ignorance.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


The Minutemen are an example of civilian vigilance. It is not their job nor their duty to patrol the border, but they do so anyway. A neighbourhood watch association is similarly an example of civilian vigilance. Vigilantes don't need to be rootin' tootin' cowboys serving as judge, jury and/or executioner, they just need to be willing to stand up for themselves and whomever else they care about.

I am well aware that most Americans, and most Canadians, Britons, Italians, Dutch etc. are not racists. I am well aware that most of them have a residual racism, at most, a cultural remnant of attitudes from forty years ago. However, as I examined in this post, linked on the first page of this thread, they do not need to be racist to serve the racist agenda. They can unconsciously demand that the agenda of actual bigots and xenophobes and elitists be carried out because these groups have learned how to sanitize their rhetoric for the politically-correct age. They have learned how to obscure and hide their true intent behind what seem like perfectly reasonable propositions. The TEA party (the particular focus of that post) is full of latent xenophobes, if not overt ones. You need look no farther than this very thread to find evidence. Foreigners are uncivilized? Really?

I think you are also severely underestimating the presence of racism, Islamophobia and other bigotry in Western nations. Islamophobia is currently in vogue and the evidence of it is everywhere. Assimilationists appear to be the most common type of xenophobes these days, willing to tolerate outsiders as long as they abandon those things that make them outsiders. I've heard the reasoning that you gave before; they should conform to me when they come here, just the same as I would conform to them if I went to their country. Of course, this is usually said by nativists with no interest in moving elsewhere. That sort of takes the impact out of it, don't you think?

Now, maybe you are willing to tolerate outsiders keeping those things that make them distinct from yourself, but many people disagree. Their intolerance differs over time, shifting targets from one demographic group to another; today it is Muslims, yesterday it was Hispanics, tomorrow it may be Asians. The younger urban generations are less prone to this intolerance, growing up among people of many backgrounds as they do. The older generations hold onto their prejudices and rarely let go.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 



Well I don't seem to have a beef with you on the topic of illegal immigrants and have already stated that Immigrants should learn the language of the country that they visit. What lies behinfd the curtain in some cases is always the qurestion. I am not attacking you in anyway but I can see many good ideas and intentions being distorted by Xenophobes. That is my biggest fear.

Rgds

T

edit on 24-12-2010 by tiger5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 

"The older generations hold onto their prejudices and rarely let go."
I find this to be a character statement of your personal ideological belief's with a historical relevance, not one that represents all of todays society that has become more adverse and adaptive to accepting change at an ever accelerating rate. Rarely, is a constant changing ratio, what's rare today may not be tomorrow. Your generalizations in your replies are very self opinionated and thats Ok, your more than entitled. Not an attack, just an observation.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 




However, as I examined in this post, linked on the first page of this thread, they do not need to be racist to serve the racist agenda. They can unconsciously demand that the agenda of actual bigots and xenophobes and elitists be carried out because these groups have learned how to sanitize their rhetoric for the politically-correct age.


*tin foil hat on*
Elites have NWO agenda, but you fail to see what is their plan to achieve it, so its YOU who is actually serving them and their plan. Just look at their media - they are all unisono spouting political correctness, endless tolerance and multiculturalism propaganda. Everyone who dares to disagree with them even a little is labeled racist and xenophobe. They also control the government - and look at the border. They are destroying muslim countries, and on the other side promoting endless immigration tolerance? Why? Because reckless immigration is their plan.
There would be no conflicts, almost no xenophobia, and no economic problems if incompatible cultures stayed relatively isolated, at least until the time they become compatible due to globalisation. The elite agenda is to induce those conflicts to justify their NWO measures - by putting incompatible cultures together, thus causing conflicts, chaos, criminality, economic damage, and ultimately their control. So are you certain you are not the one promoting elitist agenda?
edit on 24/12/10 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

edit on 24/12/10 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

edit on 24/12/10 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 


*tin foil hat on*
Oh, please. Look at what website you are on. No paranoid delusion is taboo here, much less your own.

I do not buy into the myth of 'TPTB.' I don't think that there is a secret global conspiracy to rule the world and that they are responsible for everything. I mean, the reason the 'Illuminati' appear to 'love to show off their plans' is that they are not in hiding. The elites of the world benefit from disclosure as long as they control the rhetoric framing it. That's why press releases and speeches are used. The elites all have their own goals as well, and they conflict with each other because 'the elites' are not a unified, monolithic group. Elites are defined differently depending on what group they belong to.

In this case I am talking about those who benefit from the system of closed nation-states. The main benefit of anti-immigration policies, as far as I can see it, is that it makes society more stable. When there are fewer foreign influences in a country there are fewer destabilizing factors. It is much easier to control a monocultural than it is to negotiate a multicultural society. If you pay attention to the press releases and official statements of politicians today, especially from professed conservatives, you will find that 'security,' 'illegal immigration' and 'stability' are among their top concerns. It's as simple and narrow-minded as that; there are those who aim for complete control over entire nations.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 


"I do not buy into the myth of 'TPTB.' I don't think that there is a secret global conspiracy to rule the world and that they are responsible for everything."



" If you pay attention to the press releases and official statements of politicians today, especially from professed conservatives, you will find that 'security,' 'illegal immigration' and 'stability' are among their top concerns. It's as simple and narrow-minded as that; there are those who aim for complete control over entire nations."


Why do I find these two statements you made in the same post,so contradicting, did I miss something?



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by mtnshredder
 


I am saying that there are many cliques, each aiming to control the politics in their region, each desiring control for different reasons. The common treatment of 'TPTB' is that they are a single, massive group and that they all share the same goals. It's an absurd myth that substitutes the omnipotent Satan with the omnipotent Powers that Be.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join