It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Indoctrinating a New Generation: "Think North American"

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 02:49 AM

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
And there's another thing; I think you and I have sweeping, vast differences of opinion on just what those "founding values" actually were. Mine are based off historical fact, and yours are based off nationalist mythology.

Your socialist programming has you confused. Read the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, the Federalist papers, the Anti-federalist paper and the writing of the founders themselves, instead of the modern era tabloid bios of the founders and everything you say will be clearly the polar opposite of the views and values of the founders.

Granted, perhaps the united States is a bit of an extreme in terms of intra-national diversity, but I guarantee you there are no nations in the world that are culturally, politically, or ideologically homogenous. Somehow they manage to be countries just the same.

And then one of two things typically happens. When the scales tip in a way the people are opposed, they either have groups choose to move to other countries or areas that share their values, or revolution.

Your values and location fit you perfectly, in that you are west coast and near Canada, both of which fit you culturally, politically and ideologically. These ‘progressive’ views tend to develop and fester in larger urban areas, which is why the West coast and North East are so liberal.

In fact, you do not value freedom. You're the one espousing control, by the assertion that every nation's inhabitants can only be one way, homogenous. Anyone else - me for example - is a problem that, presumably, must be "dealt with."

I’m not espousing or even remotely suggesting control. I’m not even saying a nations inhabitants can only be homogenous. America is unique in the world in its creation. What the founders did and created here, is the greatest advancement humanity has known. The idea of free people deciding for themselves is something that should be cultivated, not eradicated.

If by dealt with you mean that helping people understand how all the ideas and values you hold are poison for a free people, then yes. I am clearly not for forcing anything on anyone.

With the uniqueness of the United States in its intent, I don’t understand why people like you stay, when everything you hope to change the US into, already exist in multiple places around the world. I can only assume that sticking around to corrupt freedom is just part of your essence or some new age mantra.

As for the current state of the United States, I think that, if you bothered putting even a smidge of research into it, you'll find that this is largely do to the financial deregulations pushed for by people who were absolutely certain that "caveat emptor" is just Latin for "liberty and justice for all," paired with a series of war by people who operated under the delusion that the best way to show you've still "got it" is to crush third-world nations.

I disagree. I think it was the social and moral decline of groups and individuals who made certain choices that brought us to this state.

So if we ever see your dream of severing thispatch of turf up into homogenized little enclaves reach fruition, it's only natural that I'll want Oregon and the Atlantic Seaboard, and stick you with Louisiana and Texas.

I would hate to see the US broke up, but if a few states on the lateral coasts wanted to have a go at nationhood on their own, I wouldn’t shed much of a tear. The populations in those areas tend to be going farther and farther from US ideals and values anyway.

So if I read this right.. .you're against "government handouts" but for the government giving economic support to Americans ahead of other nations. You're against governments dictating people's lives, but for enforced uniformity of opinion, culture, etc. You're against social conditioning, but are undoubtedly one of its most successful studies.

It’s no wonder you are so confused about the Founders and American values as your response here can attest to your poor reading comprehension.

Remember what i just said about "caveat emptor"? Now perhaps you don't agree with that phrase being hte foundation of our system of government, as it currently is. But I can tell you it's certainly not people like myself who made it that way. it actually runs counter to the moral outlook we hold.

Moral? Can you even use that word in the same sentence when referring to yourself? Your entire view on government from a freedom perspective is amoral. Government forcing stealing from people and dictating behavior.

Food refrigeration and treatment for infectious diseases are also unnatural in every possible sense. I think you'd be willing to agree that

Not unnatural at all. These things both follow the natural laws of science, hence the technology exists. Having government force a socio-economic equality is not natural in any sense, which is why it fails in every experiment in history. It most certainly cannot exist in conjunction with freedom.

The US was founded essentially with the idea of trying to keep people as free as possible without total anarchy. The more freedom that is taken away, the farther from what Americas purpose we get.

I just want to reduce inequalities.

The government now as we have allowed it to be distorted, is already forcing inequalities such as affirmative action. Generally speaking, legally we are all equal. It isn’t the governments place to be social engineers. If you want to reduce some perception of inequality, do so without taking away someone else’s money and rights.

See, Wolf, many of our veterans are currently homeless. Meanwhile Dubya lands fifteen million for a speaking gig.

It is a tragedy that we have homeless vets. I have personally known some. Some were homeless by their own choices, others as victims of circumstance. I don’t see how Bush’s income is relevant though. Private people pay an agreed amount and at their request. No one is forced to do anything.

I don’t know what Bush is spending his earnings on, but I know in general conservatives are more charitable than liberals. It was no surprise that Bush gave more than 10% a year to charity while in office and Obama didn’t even hit 6%. Assuming his history is the same, some charity get’s $1.5 million per speaking event. That should warm your heart.

The children of the poor struggle for a basic education, while the children of the wealthy struggle for their own TV Reality shows.

I don’t know much about reality TV shows, so I will defer to your expertise on the matter. I will disagree about struggling for a basic education. Coming from a poor family, public school was free and I can say it from the experience it was the effort of the individual and their parents that make the real difference. I have seen some rich idiots come out of private school, and genius kids public school kids. I have known CEO’s of large companies who were educated at public universities, and seen bums who went to Yale.

Under our current system, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer; which only makes sense, I suppose, since poor people can't afford to run for office, and since poor people can't buy the people who do.

Wow! At least the statement alone, we agree. I think however, we would disagree as to the reasoning to this. For the first part, the people who get rich, typically exhibit the behavior and characteristics of success and it grows, and the opposite for a large majority of the poor.

I am very disgusted at the campaign and election rules and processes in the US. Something could be done without infringing on individual freedom. Businesses, organizations and unions probably wouldn’t like my ideas though.

So is your belief that freedom should only be a consideration for "those with excess," then?

Again with the reading comprehension. Freedom and stuff/money have nothing to do with one another.

I sincerely doubt that when you speak of achievement being earned, you're speaking in favor of ending the practice of inheritance, after all.

Actually the founders were concerned about inheritances. It is one of the few areas where, depending on the circumstance, I think the government should regulate. The founders worried about inherited wealth and families marrying money together would create a new type of noble aristocracy.

Those with power do not willingly cede that power to those with none.

Money is power. I see wealthy people give vast amounts of money to poor regularly.

That is, never in the history of man has poverty been alleviated by the generosity of the wealthy, but always - always by forced mandate against the wealthy,

American history, the towns, people and businesses, are full of examples of the poor being aided by the wealthy. You cannot expect poverty to be eliminated. Compare the poor in the US, to the poor in most other countries, American’s generosity are contributing factors to the dramatic difference in the standard of living.

What you have hit on here is a factor of humanity, not of government. Government force does not advance humanity.

posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:24 PM
It is my opinion that States will soon be outdated and unneeded. I am fully supportive of dissolving all 200+ States of Earth. The State of Russia would not exist. The State of China would not exist. The State of Mexico would not exist.

There would be one State: the State of the United Terran Nations [SUTN]

Nations are born when People Unite willingly.

States are a tool of Oppression , and spread only War and Division. The sole purpose of a State is to Govern the People, bound the People, herd the People.

We are Sheep to the State, to provide for the State, to sacrifice for the State, to give power to the State.

We are Brothers to the Nation, proud to provide for the Nation, willing to sacrifice for the Nation, to make the Nation powerful.

Maybe I am indoctrinated, but I think that thinking North American is too small of a step. I wish for my generation to think of themselves as Human or (as is proper, Terran.) before all else. They are Terran, and they are American, and they are Mexican. But first, they are Terran. People are born into the Nation of Terran (Man!), under which they are then divided into the respectful First Nation: of Africa, America, Europe, Asia, Arabia and then they are divided again and represented by the Nation title of [Mexican, Canadian, Washin for example] (or Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc.) In the event that one Nation or one half-Nation wishes to split into Nations of North and South or East and West, it will be granted peacefully. Violence against any Nation will not be tolerated.)

First Nation: (the Terran Nation) (baby you were born this way [HUMAN])
Second Nation: of Asian, African, Arabian, European, American [Identified as Origin, National Birthplace, cannot Change)
Third Nation: breakdown of Second Nations into (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Laos, etc.) (Up to the civilian, if an African wishes to leave Ethopian Nation and join the (Chinese) Nation, he may do so)
Fourth Nation: Nations that have split into N./S. or E./W. (Working things out...) (Nations that have split go on "probation" for a period of 100 years, requiring every member of the Nation (both Sides) to vote on the future of the Nation, once probation is up; the vote is put into action. [Reincorporate into one Nation, split the Nation into 2, or more, or incorporate to a neighboring Nation, which must give approval to proceed with merge.)

It is in my dreams that Earth would be governed by the vote of the People. All Humans have equal voting power. All Humans have equal rights. Issues are voted on by the People of the Nation concerned. If an issue is applicable to a single 4th Nation, only the members of that Nation will vote on it. If an issue concerns a certain 2nd Nation, only members of that Nation vote. If an issue concerns the 1st Nation, all will vote. No Nation will be allowed to unreasonably exploit or take away the rights of another Nation or another Nation's members.

We've never been at a more critical point in human history. We have the technology to Unite under the 4 tier SUTN. The only thing we lack is the Wisdom and Patience. Oh and Courage. And Pride.

posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:44 PM
I have no problem with a potential Camerica/Americanada country. Maybe some of their mellow attitude will rub off on us folks in the south a little better? It'd be nice to meet less and less panicky, high-strung types such as our friend Wolf321 here.

Jokes aside, all our self-partitioning throughout our history has done is create strife, poverty, and misery. We'll keep trying to live as equal & united humans over and over again until we're mature enough to make it work flawlessly. Practice makes perfect, we're still learning. We can't sit around forever with our heads up our rumps because someone wants keep the status quo static. Existence is fluid, and change indeed comes naturally, but only if we don't let fear & irrationality override the drive for it, for that just sets us further and further back.

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 12:05 AM
reply to post by Nyiah

I think you misunderstand me. I believe in a perfect world, a one world government would exist. However, to quote PatriciusCaesar:

Originally posted by PatriciusCaesar
Nations are born when People Unite willingly.

This should be a natural occurrence. In a perfect world, one group would develop a system and the majority of its people would be happy. Then others would emulate the same system, and eventually they would join systems to make better use of resources.

Doing so through force or propaganda is completely against freedom. Any movement away from freedom is farther away from humanity and we have already lost too much of that.

Originally posted by PatriciusCaesar
I wish for my generation to think of themselves as Human or (as is proper, Terran.) before all else.

I consider myself a human first. However you will not be able to have much commonality between peoples of the world other than defining the scientific term of human. Then I am an American. I mean that in two aspects: Nationality and Idealistically. The first by birthright of political boundaries. The second, a philosophical idealism for certain behavioral, spiritual and political characteristics that I believe as envisioned by the founders of the USA.

top topics
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in