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.

 

Romney ‘Advisor’: Mitt Will Bring a White Man’s Touch

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by pisssss
 


We presently live in a far more degenerated era than our ancestors. Our situation's degeneracy is exacerbated by our clinging to delusional ideals such as 'liberte, egalite, fraternite'.




posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by pisssss
 


We presently live in a far more degenerated era than our ancestors. Our situation's degeneracy is exacerbated by our clinging to delusional ideals such as 'liberte, egalite, fraternite'.


Funny you think that.

European's used to burn women, dis em bowel men, hang people without trial or representation,
sell other people like commodities. I am not sure how eliminating those types of practices indicates
that society is becoming more barbaric or degenerate. Please explain what modern acts are worse
than burning a person alive or slicing their guts open in a public square?

This country has the notions of fraternity and liberty sown into it's founding just as much as
British culture.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by pisssss
 


Where to begin... let me see... we allow people to vote for morons to represent them, an expansive and intrusive state that allows for nothing to exist outside it, an untamed market that levels every culture it enters, the destruction of our aristocracies, violations of private property rights by government and business, the spread of popular culture such as hip/hop, rap, and television entertainment, perversion of the arts, large influx of foreigners into our countries mixed with a demographic decline, a failed moral system which now rotates around individual desires and conceptions of right/wrong (i.e. moral relativism), equality of all people which really amounts to the destruction of distinctions between White/Black, Man/Woman, and much more.

I would rather the leadership torture a person in public for stealing than it allow a Hollywood celebrity into our halls of government. I would rather see Vlad's field of pikes than another rap video. All of these things of past happened because the maintenance of order demanded it to be so. The aristocracies and nobility could not permit the agitation of the superfluous. There were unnecessary excesses at times but they were the exception - not the rule.


edit on 7/25/2012 by Misoir because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by pisssss
 


Where to begin... let me see... we allow people to vote for morons to represent them, an expansive and intrusive state that allows for nothing to exist outside it, an untamed market that levels every culture it enters, the destruction of our aristocracies, violations of private property rights by government and business, the spread of popular culture such as hip/hop, rap, and television entertainment, perversion of the arts, large influx of foreigners into our countries mixed with a demographic decline, a failed moral system which now rotates around individual desires and conceptions of right/wrong (i.e. moral relativism), equality of all people which really amounts to the destruction of distinctions between White/Black, Man/Woman, and much more.



One mans moron is another mans genius, your post got a star after all. Aristocracy is a facade
that is propagated with force and training of the masses, but it does nothing to enhance the
abilities or qualities of the individuals possessing the title. What shred of logic makes you
believe that title augments quality?

You seem to believe in a world where a pretty wrapper makes for a better crisp, but it seems to
me that the world, at large does not believe in that premise.

As for art and culture, those are forms that spring forth from individuals who are not governed
by title or monocles, those are also forms that are regarded or discharged based upon things
man cannot seize, kill or control. What a futile thing to bother about, might as well be angry at
the color of the sky.


I would rather the leadership torture a person in public for stealing than it allow a Hollywood celebrity into our halls of government. I would rather see Vlad's field of pikes than another rap video. All of these things of past happened because the maintenance of order demanded it to be so. The aristocracies and nobility could not permit the agitation of the superfluous. There were unnecessary excesses at times but they were the exception - not the rule.


edit on 7/25/2012 by Misoir because: (no reason given)


Aristocracy was based upon state sanctioned celebrity, very funny you cannot grasp that.
Aristocracy engaged in all manner of orgies and wild behavior, but they preached the opposite
just like the modern governors of society. They also imposed a massive state that dictated
behavior and terms of private ownership. I think you are dazzled by powdered wigs, remember
though, those things do come off at night.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by pisssss

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by charles1952
 


I think he basically meant that Romney's ancestry is all Anglo-Saxon (which I just checked, and it is,) while our nation was founded by men who were of Anglo-Saxon stock and grounded their philosophy, thus our founding, in specifically British principles. Thus Romney would be better able to comprehend and abide by these principles than Obama because of his ancestry is tied in with that our America's founders. And yes, Obama does have a White mother who is of English stock. But the US has a simple rule - the one drop policy. You are no longer "legally White" in the USA if you have just one drop of known non-White blood.


That is a policy of the Old South which did nothing but collapse upon itself due to the incongruities
of festering hatred that ignited the entire culture. Casting intellectual judgements based upon mating
rituals has failed in Britain too because they are inferior ideas of the primordial era.


Are you saying that the one drop policy is from the old south and doesn't occur anymore? So Obama wasn't our first black president? So people should stop claiming that obama is black then, right?



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by theroguelion

Originally posted by pisssss

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by charles1952
 


I think he basically meant that Romney's ancestry is all Anglo-Saxon (which I just checked, and it is,) while our nation was founded by men who were of Anglo-Saxon stock and grounded their philosophy, thus our founding, in specifically British principles. Thus Romney would be better able to comprehend and abide by these principles than Obama because of his ancestry is tied in with that our America's founders. And yes, Obama does have a White mother who is of English stock. But the US has a simple rule - the one drop policy. You are no longer "legally White" in the USA if you have just one drop of known non-White blood.


That is a policy of the Old South which did nothing but collapse upon itself due to the incongruities
of festering hatred that ignited the entire culture. Casting intellectual judgements based upon mating
rituals has failed in Britain too because they are inferior ideas of the primordial era.


Are you saying that the one drop policy is from the old south and doesn't occur anymore? So Obama wasn't our first black president? So people should stop claiming that obama is black then, right?


No, I am saying it is a foolish policy that humanity has outgrown, except for places were
small pockets of culture have decided to cling to it. The KKK is dying out for that very
reason, meritocracy has replaced racial concern in the most powerful nations. I do not
see how race based policies will ever regain a foot hold in places that do not have ties
to slavery and institutional segregation or plain racism.

If I have a blood transfusion which consists of black blood I am still white on the outside,
even though I would be full of millions of drops. It is like discussing trolls and fairies when
we devolve to drops of blood.

Lets grow up and find new avenues of hatred and division to explore.
edit on 25-7-2012 by pisssss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 02:19 AM
link   
Republicans and Democrats= lying, thieving, whore mongering gangster scum. They have run my country into the ground while enriching themselves at the expense of the taxpayers. They have done this blatantly and without remorse or apology. For they are the spawn of Satan and need to be returned to HELL as quickly as possible.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 



My point was that in order to truly understand a country you must not only have lived there your entire life but be of the same blood as the people who created that culture.


Complete pseudo-science and makes zero sense. It's ridiculous if you think non-British person cannot read the constitution and understand it. I guess Brits have a psychic connection to understand what 1700's revolutionary USA was like, because guess what! That culture doesn't exist anymore.



edit on 25-7-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 02:37 AM
link   
While the phrase "white man's touch" was never actually uttered but the Romney aide, the tone and meaning of what he did say was pretty clear, that America is a white Anglo-Saxon nation first, as if all those people from all those other nations and races don't matter. If you only took Americans of white Anglo-Saxon protestant heritage, then you are looking at a pretty small amount because Irish American of Catholic descent certainly don't feel a part of that group, nor do Italian Americans and many other groups. In a country that is increasingly NOT white Anglo-Saxon protestant controlled, this is an increasingly stupid line to take. What are we talking about now, 20% of the nation? Less? Why Republicans think it's wise in a general election to keep appealing to a smaller and smaller demographic is beyond me.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4
Obama has ruined it for a long time for any black person who is even thinking about running for President.

Nothing racist at all about it.

Naw, he's probably going to win and his current favorability ratings are close to 50%. While most on this board don't like him and the echo chamber of that line in this place and in conservative media might make it seem that way, it's simply not the case for the rest of the country.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by Misoir
 



My point was that in order to truly understand a country you must not only have lived there your entire life but be of the same blood as the people who created that culture.


Complete pseudo-science and makes zero sense. It's ridiculous if you think non-British person cannot read the constitution and understand it. I guess Brits have a psychic connection to understand what 1700's revolutionary USA was like, because guess what! That culture doesn't exist anymore.



edit on 25-7-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)


Psuedo science paired with psuedo logic that aristocracy constitutes a proclivity to
more fancy and desirable traits. I have never met a person with a title that was granted
more intellect AFTER they received that title.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by pisssss

One mans moron is another mans genius, your post got a star after all. Aristocracy is a facade
that is propagated with force and training of the masses, but it does nothing to enhance the
abilities or qualities of the individuals possessing the title. What shred of logic makes you
believe that title augments quality?


I am not advocating a hereditary aristocratic system as it had been in years before. There should be one based upon the expertise of individuals in certain fields which are relevant to the development, functioning, and culture of the nation.


You seem to believe in a world where a pretty wrapper makes for a better crisp, but it seems to
me that the world, at large does not believe in that premise.


Does it really seem like I care what the rest of the world thinks?


As for art and culture, those are forms that spring forth from individuals who are not governed
by title or monocles, those are also forms that are regarded or discharged based upon things
man cannot seize, kill or control. What a futile thing to bother about, might as well be angry at
the color of the sky.


How is art and the culture of it something futile to bother about? It is one of the three main parts of a truly functioning society. You have the artistic class which exposes man to himself and reveals the inner workings of that society, the warrior class which upholds and propagates virtues such as the old nobless oblige, and the priestly class which organizes and contemplates the morals, ethics, and decorum of society. Those who do not fit into these three classes exist to provide for these three classes.

Aristocracy was based upon state sanctioned celebrity, very funny you cannot grasp that.
Aristocracy engaged in all manner of orgies and wild behavior, but they preached the opposite
just like the modern governors of society. They also imposed a massive state that dictated
behavior and terms of private ownership. I think you are dazzled by powdered wigs, remember
though, those things do come off at night.

When an aristocracy degenerates of course they will be nothing more than celebrities. That is why it should be based upon merit not birth right. As for engaging in orgies and the like, well Christianity was used by the elites to control the masses which is an important function of any religious belief system whether it is true or not (which I do not believe Christianity to be true). They will be above Christianity but that religion always made for rather good subjects. As for massive state, it was nowhere near as organized and bureaucratic as our modern leviathans. All land should be private property of course owned and maintained by families which pass on their land as inheritance. This is the difference between the nobility and the aristocracy.

And yes, I realize that at the end of the day we are all imperfect humans who have to wipe our rear ends.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


Pseudo-science and does not make sense? How does it not make sense? Even if you disagree with me even the simplest of reasoning could deduce the points I had made.

As for understanding the Constitution, yes a person can understand it regardless of race but only in an abstract way. It will not be concrete for them. The understanding of it will be the same as a person understands "man" compared to a Frenchman or an American or a Russian.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 



the destruction of our aristocracies


Why in the world would you want an aristocracy to rule you?



the spread of popular culture such as hip/hop, rap, and television entertainment


African Americans are just as much part of USA culture as revolutionary descendants. I don't really get where you're going with that. Mass media, ya know technology.. allowed for the spread of ideas which is a great thing.


perversion of the arts


No clue what you mean by that.


large influx of foreigners into our countries mixed with a demographic decline


What is "our" countries?

Foreigners? You mean when Europeans massacred the Native Americans on their land? Or how African slaves were brought here against their will? You mean like when a bunch of European nationalities immigrated to the USA in the 1800s?


equality of all people which really amounts to the destruction of distinctions between White/Black, Man/Woman


Uhh no, equality of people just means that people want to not be institutionally discriminated against. They want to be treated as social equals. People still have eyes and can see someones race. People have eyes and can see breasts. You live in some weird fantasy world.


I would rather the leadership torture a person in public for stealing than it allow a Hollywood celebrity into our halls of government.


Welll that's just sick you must get off on violence. An aristocrat is nothing but an elitist human being made a celebrity due to birth right, violence, money or religion. There really is zero difference between the two.


The aristocracies and nobility could not permit the agitation of the superfluous.


Usually aristocracies imposed laws on commoners but lived life to their own pleasure. Like Saudi Arabia.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by RealSpoke
 

The understanding of it will be the same as a person understands "man" compared to a Frenchman or an American or a Russian.


elaborate? That statement genuinely confused me.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by pisssss
 


We presently live in a far more degenerated era than our ancestors. Our situation's degeneracy is exacerbated by our clinging to delusional ideals such as 'liberte, egalite, fraternite'.

Degenerate because we no longer have a racial or gender bias in our system that kept the vast majority of our people, including one half of the species who just happened to not be born with a penis from being allowed to take part in it fully?

And your bizarre, elitist ideas in your post above about what the old nobility and aristocracy of Europe was like is just woefully misinformed. The noble and royal classes of Europe ground their people into dust to maintain power and this system held back the advancement of Western Civilization for centuries.. Have you actually studied the era or are you basing your notions of it on some sort of fantasy world setting, and not the fantasy setting Game of Thrones, which is actually a lot closer to the truth of what Feudal Europe was really like.

If you want to know what hell on Earth was like, study what it was like to live as a peasant in France for most of the history of Europe, from medieval times through the Renaissance. No, I don't want to go back to that, I don't think America would benefit at all from that sort of system of governance. I think we did pretty well as Republican Democracy, and the more we opened the system up, the better and stronger America became.
edit on 7/25/2012 by LifeInDeath because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
African Americans are just as much part of USA culture as revolutionary descendants. I don't really get where you're going with that. Mass media, ya know technology.. allowed for the spread of ideas which is a great thing.

And let's not forget Crispus Attucks, the first to die at the Boston Massacre...a black slave.
edit on 7/25/2012 by LifeInDeath because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir

Originally posted by pisssss

I am not advocating a hereditary aristocratic system as it had been in years before. There should be one based upon the expertise of individuals in certain fields which are relevant to the development, functioning, and culture of the nation.


Well who grants title and what constitutes title in modernity?

And further more, who or what force determines what is needed and relevant in society?

That seems to be a hard thing for me to imagine

Currently profession or expertise is based upon self determination, what force should replace
or be reverted back to?




How is art and the culture of it something futile to bother about? It is one of the three main parts of a truly functioning society. You have the artistic class which exposes man to himself and reveals the inner workings of that society, the warrior class which upholds and propagates virtues such as the old nobless oblige, and the priestly class which organizes and contemplates the morals, ethics, and decorum of society. Those who do not fit into these three classes exist to provide for these three classes.


The futility lies in the way you perceive how culture and art propagate.

Society cannot manipulate or pick culture as an organized act. A president or a king cannot
decide what impresses the soul or moves the human spirit. Aristocracy or a board of pure
white males will not be able to sway the opinions of the single components that constitute
society. The futility is that culture and art can be wielded or shaped with such intent. Furthermore,
the current state of art in a reflection of society and it serves as a snapshot in time, people
are exposing themselves with art but you seem to deem that the exposition is not executed in the
manner that syncs up with your taste. In that case, you need to become the artists, the very
drive that compels great artists. Society or any of the three classes you cite are not capable with
any human powers to divine a man with the powers to create something that is wholly subjective
and appealing to all that you think should decide what is good for humanity.

Currently those classes are ruled by the executive class, who do promote art and culture
that fulfills the goal of enrichment, but even their attempts are overturned several times
a decade. Trying to shape culture in this internet age might be like trying to lower the ocean's
level by 100 feet.





When an aristocracy degenerates of course they will be nothing more than celebrities. That is why it should be based upon merit not birth right. As for engaging in orgies and the like, well Christianity was used by the elites to control the masses which is an important function of any religious belief system whether it is true or not (which I do not believe Christianity to be true). They will be above Christianity but that religion always made for rather good subjects. As for massive state, it was nowhere near as organized and bureaucratic as our modern leviathans. All land should be private property of course owned and maintained by families which pass on their land as inheritance. This is the difference between the nobility and the aristocracy.

And yes, I realize that at the end of the day we are all imperfect humans who have to wipe our rear ends.

The aristocracy was the second form of celebrity after divinity... Exactly like modern celebrity,
aristocrats were given status which provided for a long list of benefits and preconceived
perks. Title, not merit is what cemented status and outward perception, like any run of the mill
celebrity.

Then as is now, humans assign positive attributes to these people even if the merit is ill deserved.

Many, Many, evil and meritless men had title and celebrity throughout history. Aristocracy and its
building blocks are not new, they are in fact, transferable... People look up to the rich and fabulous,
it is human nature.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


If a person is born in the USA, lived there the majority of their life then they have the exact same cultural understanding of the Constitution (if they read it) than any other American. The only thing that would affect the understanding would be intelligence of the idividual. British people do not have a magical psychic connection that allows them to understand it better.

With your logic only Italians can appreciate spaghetti.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by LifeInDeath
 


I am a History major so I should know about European Middle Ages, Renaissance, migration period, and pre-Christian Europe. I did not say that hereditary aristocracy was best or that any system is perfect. But it depends on whether one sees wealth, safety, and equality as better than virtue, tradition, and order. Of course I am simplifying everything here because I do not feel like spending my entire night arguing with people who clearly disagree with me and have no intent of ever agreeing with me.

People cling to their abstractions, safety, and perversion of morality to get them through existence. Even the most brutal forms of serfdom, such as that of 18th century Russia, did not harm our civilization the way "liberte, egalite, and fraternite" has.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join