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.


The Democracy Hypocrisy

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 05:54 PM

With all the notions of political correctness we have found our selves shooting our selves in the foot.

For example this article

Basically If we are to be democratic in the west should we allow non democratic parties the rights?

Examples if the Nazis, dictators, fascists and the Sharia laws become strong in a small nation do it means it should happen? If it’s a democracy we should at least keep it not throw it away. If a nation decides it’s fine to let a threatening party that will abolish democracy if it comes into power exist then is it not going backwards rather than forwards.

Another example is Andorra which has about 70’000 people as a population, as you know Muslims immigrate in millions to the West, if 100,000 showed up on Andorra’s door step over the next few years you could in fact form an Islamic party by the next generation. So they may not have made war to make Andorra their own country but they can in theory change it and take over like a highjacking. Meaning with their system democracy will cease to exist as it’s against Sharia law to have other beliefs and freedoms which democracy is about. There will be no way back only war will get one out of that system. Anyway this is an analogy and history shows that this sometimes happens to nations anyway. But established nations it’s a bit of a different story these days as there are many more people abut and they don’t live in huts?

So is these democrats acting like fools do they know how to keep democracy or do they just want to go back the to the communist and dictatorships of our cold past.

It’s a bit sad that they substituted political correctness and freedoms for the sake of pleasing minorities that has given us their oppressive influenced cultures they came from to be adopted like theirs in to ours. All this for the sake of security to help us against them like terrorists and to not insult their ways by abolishing majority opinion and historical values for the sake of a few. Should outsiders not agree on our terms in the West rather than changing our generation for the growing and lacking control of mass immigration, which in turn politicians are ignoring?

What is the purpose for all this democracy hypocrisy?
We are not allowed prays in schools, as we once did.
They want to take crosses down from classrooms.
They even say Christmas is offensive to minorities and yet they still celebrate their traditions hence why they call it Thanks Giving.
Children’s books not allowed using certain family terms it might offend gay couples.

Anyway I can say more but what is democracy if the trends rise like this? To me if I want to go down another avenue is that this is part of a Satanic system in place, get rid of Christ from history and replace him with another system which is Prophetically told already. But this angle is one, which one can take but I am not saying everyone should don’t forget it’s about Democracy turning Hypocritical. And why is your response to this take your angle angels.

[edit on 13-9-2006 by The time lord]

mod edit, spelling/grammar in title

[edit on 13-9-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 06:17 PM
So has anyone go any opinons must be the late hour.

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 06:28 PM
I'll take a crack at this.

The divisions you're seeing in today's American democracy are, I think, deliberate marginalizations. What we're seeing now is the net result of a conflict that has been going on since before the ink dried on the Constitution. The classical Federalist vs. Anti-Federalsist battles that have so thoroughly re-arranged our political landscape have been documented in many ways.


The link marked "example" leads to a thread I started in the Conspiracy masters forum. In that text, you'll find the sum total of my argument as it has been laid out so far. I hope this is useful to get the ball rolling in this thread.

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 06:44 PM
So is this a divide and conquer situation to once again move up an agenda ladder that has been set up on purpose? Is it a conspiracy or just a Prophetic alignment that people have being going on about for the last 2 thousand years or is it just things change. Its more than just politics I think there is a spiritual chess game at hand also.
This could be a mankind next step to unity or a next step to be united under one dictator. For some world harmony means UFO’s and aliens will make contact when we reach this level of humanity. Some think we will end up handing the keys to Satan once its all in order in the NOW scenario. But why is democracy acting so odd that it scarifies its own constitution built around generations of conflicts to make society and nation in harmony for once only for it to go through the bad patches again. No wonder conspiracies come from all this, if something is good why waste it for the sake of looking politically correct when the opposition would kill you if you were in their country for being individual by thought. There must be a greater power at hand that is blinding us into a false sense of security. It stirs up Christian beliefs as the worse all this gets the more Prophetic it sounds and one has look into this to see if maybe God has warned us from our selves. But what ever the outlook one can take conspiracy, spiritual or religious angles but the fact is something is wrong. Its not just one nation in the West its all.

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 06:48 PM
Also had half my introduction moderated not sure why moderators? Was the angle too religious or did i say something topically wrong in for this section of post? maybe the idea could actually influence a real situation.

[edit on 13-9-2006 by The time lord]

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 06:57 PM

Originally posted by The time lord
Also had half my introduction moderated not sure why moderators? Was the angle too religious or did i say something topically wrong in for this section of post? maybe the idea could actually influence a real situation.

Nope it was a mistake, I've sent you a u2u with a detailed explanation.

Basically I was editing the post to change the all caps subject line to the standard format, and for some reason lost some of the copy in the edit.

My sincere apologies to you.

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 07:27 PM
I think the religious angles you are looking for may be covered in the "Conpsiracy in Religions" forum. Also, take a look at the "Secret Societies" forum. The angles you're looking for turn on a few different logic forms than what you may find here. You might also look for articles in the wiki that could be of use to you as you participate in whatever discussions meet your needs.

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 07:30 PM
Its ok really, that could have looked like a conspiracy to shut me up suppose but I always respect moderators what ever goes one does. But I have updated it again lucky I had a copy as I always like to preserve my opinions i may need to use them one day.

Hope people respend here I know its late in the UK.

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 08:23 PM

Originally posted by The time lord

Basically If we are to be democratic in the west should we allow non democratic parties the rights?

Examples if the Nazis, dictators, fascists and the Sharia laws become strong in a small nation do it means it should happen? If it’s a democracy we should at least keep it not throw it away. If a nation decides it’s fine to let a threatening party that will abolise democracy if it comes into power exist then is it not going backwards rather than forwards.

Okay, let's take a look at this. As a American political scientist, I wouldh ave to argue hat the answer is "no." The reason being that any political party that sought to do something which was specifically forbidden by the U.S. Constituion shuld not be allowed to exist inside the borders of the United States.

Let's take a look at the current situation. President Bush wants to engage in warrantless wiretaps in order to discover and stop terrorists. Trouble is, that pesky Constitution of ours has laid the foundation for warranted actions nly on the part of law enforcement. Case law says that if they can't get a warrant, they can't do it.

The Republican party has munted many legal chalenges in an effort to defend this practice. So far, the courts have turned the down. Why? Because they want to do something that runs counter to the most basic of our laws. It's a tough situation beucase we've got to do something to find and apprehend those people who seek to do us hard. It would be nice to find them while they are still overseas, but we can't ignore the need to search for them here at home.

Political parties can openly state that they want to change our laws. We've got third parties in America that would like to legalize recreational drugs. These groups are very forthright in their intents. the American nazi Party would like to ship all the Jews to Antarctica without the use of ships, and they say as much. In both of these xases, the groups involved express theri desire to do a certain thing, but they don't do it to the extent that it gets them in trouble with the police.

Will such grups come to power? I hope not.

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 08:40 PM
The problem is if lets say 10 million nazies came to america converted half america as people became afraid or wanted to join in for the money could this form of social invasion totaly abolish the country's constitution by rewriting it?

This is what I mean is democracy so open that it could instinct it self? like my link in that duch article.

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 09:39 PM
the possibility of what you suggest already exists. The best example I can think of that relates to the UK would be the influx of people from Muslim countries. If enough Wahabists emmigrated to the UK and got involved in politics, they might over time dow hat what you suggest.

The best example I can think of that relates to the United States might be the influx of Hispanics across the Mexian border. If enough of those peole became lawful citizens, they could also do what you suggest.

the idea of a cultural invasion or even a theological assault isn't new. During the 17th and 18th centuries, the colonial powers of that period were constantly urging their citizens to populate far away places with hte intention of transforming them in to something like what they know as "home." One good example might be the efforts in South Africa, or even Australia.

I live in Alaska, and I can tell you that the Russians tried to do in the local native populations by literally attempting to breed them out of existence. If they hadn't sold Alaska to the United States, they would surely have succeeded.

posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 04:13 PM
The past may have had free space for the West to colonise, as the world populations in the Americas and Australia were not exactly big and could form their own governments and populate.

The difference now is that all major countries are full they have infrastructure the West is developed with Democracy so why waist all those hundreds of years to a regime or law that will set us back to a few thousand years if not more? Is it because we are so open to suggestions that democracy if it wanted to let communism take hold and over throw it.

Problem with our liberating ways is if we don't have a safety net we can wave democracy good-bye, this will have to include banning political parties that would make democracy impossible to take shape and apply the same understanding of liberal views. Every other non-democratic system is a dead end, once democracy is out its out. So are people of democratic countries going to lose their history in which they struggled decades of freedoms and rights to a system that will not allow a way back? I think the West should band one-way parties and laws if they are not democratic because we might end up in a prison world run by dictators, something the NWO conspiracies types don't want.

posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 04:42 PM
There may be something to hat you say. It's still possible that we could see something beyond Democracy in the future. Current political theory does seem to agree with contemporary conspiracy theory in some respects. The most popular 'bad boy' view of future politics would suggest tha we are headed toward a new derivation of Hegemony.

posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 04:54 PM
Hegemony? sounds a bit complex still I have just looked it up and kind of seems ambiguos in its meaning. I think I know what its saying and i think I maybe explaining it to my self in my other replies. If you could simplify what it means it may help. Guess I am getting a bit computer tired to think.

posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 05:07 PM
It's middle of the day for me. I understand. You may have seen some of the conspiracy buffs around here talking about the North American Union. I suspect the hegemony of the future will be like a vast association or Confederation that is brought together by a long list of trade agreements.

posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 05:11 PM
In its truest form democracy can turn into anything. Your giving standards to something that doesnt have them.

In a true democracy what ever the majority says goes, no matter what. So if the majority of people said "hey relgion should be outlawed" then it would be so. It doesnt matter what the issue is just that the majority of the population aggrees.

However the US goverment is a constitutional republic run on a democratic system. Meaning that if the majority says something then the goverment looks at it sees if it aggrees with the constitution and then decideds to pass it or reject it. The goverment has the final say so. Almost saying "hey thats a silly idea and its not good for you"

YOu have an idealistic view of democracy and that is being comprimised. Seek truth. (what is truth?)

(please do not respond to the question "what is truth" it is a character trait of myself to ask that question everytime I mention the word truth and is not meant to be answered.)

posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 07:47 PM
I confess that I would rather be an optimistic idealist. It's true that government can reject the will of he people, but...for now...the voters have the power to alter the equation. I'm not yet so jaded that I am willing to cede that point.

posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 08:43 PM
But if it is not majority shaping democracy then the other thing is infiltration. Lets say the illuminati with a global agenda at any cost infiltrated a democracy then decisions like the war in iraq would take place even the majority did not want it.

So I am wondering if the population does not have a say any more then a Saddam type of governement could be run by a shadow one that is often been speek of anyway.

How far will democracy go? Untill its in the black hole and never get out.

[edit on 28-9-2006 by The time lord]

posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 08:55 PM
Well, if your really want to know if your opinion means anything or if it really is a democracy find out for yourself. Go to your local council next time they meet and sit in and listen to the issues at hand. By the constitution its your right as a citizen to be admited to this govermental process and voice your opinion and debate the legslagitors.

However I will tell you most people dont ever go to these meetings nor even know they exist. On top of which if you go you are rarely allowed to speak to any of the legslagitors present and voice your opnion.

I also ask you how many times have you heard this one from a represenative or congreman "Im not sure on how I feel on this issue so I do not know how to vote" or better yet "I feel that it is ....." the job of the represenative/ congressman is not to say or vote how they think but to vote and be affiliated witht eh majority of their constituients and the people in their jursidiction. However this rarely happens so essentially most laws are made by a select group of people and not by a true democratic way. Although it can happen the way democracy dictates it it rarely happens so.

- Mizar

posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 01:16 AM
I think that both of you are on the right track. The point I made in my first book...and the point I still that THEY are actually counting on you to NOT use your vote. They've gone to some very great length to 'encourage' you to stay on on election day. They ex-pect you to have no opinions. They ex-pect you to feel so marginalized that you don't vote.

Here in my home State, the encumbent government thought he had it locked up. He was banking on local apathy to allow him back in to office. He got quite a surprise when he lost the primary to somebody who had far less experience and far less money. The gossip from State party officials makes it sounds like they got raped and they're not sure who or what did the deed.

When you vote, you do the one thing they don't expect.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in