POLITICAL CORRECTNES WHY?

[Rhutobello]

It's enlightening to see that out of 161 views only 5 people have participated in this discussion. I wonder why?

Hopefully because our members and guest have an open mind.
If you don't have any strong belief or opinion on the subject, you rather stay away because there is so big feelings involved.

Again is it mandatory that those who fight for "Freedom of speech" evaluate their demand up against what really matter.

It can't be a right to "hurt" other people, just because you feel you have the right to express yourself, the way you want. Just like freedom ofspeech we have the need to show respect to our fellow human.
"
On the other hand....those who fight against "discrimination" must also have a
clear strategy.
With this I mean; If they start to cry for discrimination each time they don't agree with their opponent, they destroy more for theme-self and their cause, they must rather try by discussion to promote their stand.

One thing is what is political correct another thing is what most people find correct.
It is very important that the gap between those two aren't to big.

When the cry for discrimination was on it's highest here, my opinion was that the biggest offender was the one we should "protect" by this law. There was almost impossible to have any discussion...because of that word, because all was afraid to be named a discriminator and it was very popular to use it from the "protected groups in order to stop any dispute"

I feel we have something equal with the name Terrorist.
I agree there is a lot of Terrorist around in the world, but after the "war on terror" you will see that every country that has a opposition, the leader, of the country,started to call it Terrorist, and few are willing to oppose it, so in a way this  "political correct" word make a big "discrimination" against a group that work to change a country in a way many see as legal.

Again only my opinion on the subject

[stan]

Political Correctness: The Scourge of Our Times

   Agustin Blazquez with the collaboration of Jaums Sutton
   Monday, April 8, 2002

Does anyone know the origins of Political Correctness? Who originally developed it and what was its purpose?

I looked it up. It was developed at the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany, which was founded in 1923 and came to be known as the "Frankfurt School." It was a group of thinkers who pulled together to find a solution to the biggest problem facing the implementers of communism in Russia.

The problem? Why wasn't communism spreading?

Their answer? Because Western Civilization was in its way.

What was the problem with Western Civilization? Its belief in the individual, that an individual could develop valid ideas. At the root of communism was the theory that all valid ideas come from the effect of the social group of the masses. The individual is nothing.

And they believed that the only way for communism to advance was to help (or force, if necessary) Western Civilization to destroy itself. How to do that? Undermine its foundations by chipping away at the rights of those annoying individuals.

One way to do that? Change their speech and thought patterns by spreading the idea that vocalizing your beliefs is disrespectful to others and must be avoided to make up for past inequities and injustices.

And call it something that sounds positive: "Political Correctness."

Inspired by the brand new communist technique, Mao, in the 1930s, wrote an article on the "correct" handling of contradictions among the people. "Sensitive training" – sound familiar? – and speech codes were born.

In 1935, after Hitler came to power, the Frankfurt School moved to New York City, where they continued their work by translating Marxism from economic to cultural terms using Sigmund Freud's psychological conditioning mechanisms to get Americans to buy into Political Correctness. In 1941, they moved to California to spread their wings.

But Political Correctness remains just what it was intended to be: a sophisticated and dangerous form of censorship and oppression, imposed upon the citizenry with the ultimate goal of manipulating, brainwashing and destroying our society.

PC Cuba

My first conscious exposure to Political Correctness was in 1959 – the first year of Castro's revolution in Cuba – while attending an indoctrination session at a neighborhood elementary school in Havana. There I learned for the first time of the claimed superiority of life in the Soviet Union vs. the U.S.

There I also learned that the word "compañero" (filtered version of the communist "comrade" – Fidel was denying his communist preferences) was the correct way to refer to the other members of the new Cuban society-in-the-making.

Mr., Mrs. and Miss were no longer acceptable, and their further use could reveal that you were not a Fidelista. Since repression and violations of human rights came roaring in right behind Castro's sweep down from the mountains in 1959, objection or rejection of Fidel Castro's revolution would (and still will) land you in a lot of trouble. You could easily lose your life in those summary executions at La Cabaña prison under the direction of Che Guevara.

But don't worry about Che. Che was later transformed and cleansed by the masters of Political Correctness. His likeness became a revered icon of the far left, with T-shirts and posters still adorning the campuses of America.

The same techniques were used to cleanse one of today's "heroes," Mumia Abu-Jamal (even if he was convicted, by overwhelming evidence, of killing a cop).

And under the pervasive guidance of Political Correctness that took hold from elementary school to university, from the media to the arts, from the country fields to factories and offices, Cubans learned to say what it was safe to say. Always in line with the overpowering state. Always following the dictums of the only political party left: the Communist Party.

The self-censorship resulting from Political Correctness easily trampled freedom of speech. Political Correctness has succeeded in Cuba by creating a uniform political discourse that has lasted for 43 years.

Political Correctness has given the state (Castro) complete control of speech. That is the main reason why the U.S. media cannot extract the truth of what Cubans really feel when they interview regular citizens and deceptively present their comments as valid to the American public.

The same was true in the former Soviet Union and the former satellite countries. The same continues in the remaining communist world.

It's nothing new. The U.S. media must know that, so why don't they openly report that fact instead of misleading the public? Perhaps that is the reason why the American people are so uneducated about the Cuban tragedy and acted regrettably during the Elian Gonzalez affair.

The PC U.S.

With profound dismay, I have seen how the scourge of Political Correctness has taken hold in the U.S. It is very well entrenched in our educational system, at scientific, religious and community levels, the media, the workplace and even our government.

It is changing the American society from within, and the citizens of this nation are increasingly censoring themselves and losing their freedom of speech out of fear of Political Correctness repression.

It is the nature of Western Civilization to be civilized – respectful of others and concerned with correcting injustices. We don't need Political Correctness to make us think we are not civilized on our own and must have our thoughts and words restricted.

In December 2001, in Kensington, Md., an annual firefighters Santa Claus festivity to light the Christmas tree was objected to by two families. The city council, in the name of Political Correctness, voted to ban Santa from the parade. Fortunately, due to citizen outcry, the decision was reversed in the end and many people protested by dressing up as Santa.

Logically and respectfully, how can one person's benign icon be objectionable to the point of banishment? Offer to add other people's icons. Make it a broader celebration. That's the Perfectly Correct American way.

The rulers of Political Correctness reach absurd levels when they refer to the betrayal of America by the spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg – executed in 1953 – as "non-traditional patriotism"!

We see shameful situations created in our schools and universities in America that have fallen prey to Political Correctness. Some professors, students and publications are being attacked for expressing a point of view that differs from that imposed by a fanatical far left, under the guise of Political Correctness.

In schools and workplaces we see that "diversity" has degenerated into reverse discrimination, where often the less qualified are admitted and the incompetent cannot be fired. We have seen characters like Rev. Jesse Jackson shamelessly blackmailing and threatening to boycott entire corporations if they don't hire those selected by him or simply make "donations" to his organizations.

The Double Standard Emerges

Our Constitution requires the separation of church and state, which has always discouraged our public education system from teaching religion. However, in December 2001, while Christmas cards, symbols and decorations were being objected to for the first time in American public schools in Georgia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Oregon, in an elementary school in Texas, a girl was allowed to give to her classmates an overview and show a video about her Muslim religion.

And in January 2002, a public middle school in San Luis Obispo, Calif., had its students pretend to be warriors fighting for Islam. Another school near Oakland, Calif., also encouraged 125 seventh-grade students to dress up in Muslim robes for a three-week course on Islam.

This arbitrary double standard was applied in the name of Political Correctness following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

According to Ellen Sorokin's "No Founding Fathers?" published by the Washington Times on its front page on Jan. 28, 2002, even our Founding Fathers have fallen victim to the travesty. The article says of the New Jersey Department of Education's history standards,

"The latest revisions to the state standards have disappointed educators across the country, who said the board's exclusion of the Founding Fathers' names is 'Political Correctness to the nth degree.' "

Sorokin points out that "the standards specifically note that students should identify slavery, the Holocaust and modern Iraq as examples in which 'people have behaved in cruel and inhumane ways.' " Conveniently, communism is absent from that short list.

In another article by Sorokin, published by the Washington Times on March 10, "Report Blames Anti-Americanism on College Teachers," she presents two examples of upcoming courses for next spring and fall. They are " 'The Sexuality of Terrorism' at University of California at Hayward; and 'Terrorism and the Politics of Knowledge' at UCLA, a class that, according to its course description, examines 'America's record of imperialistic adventurism.' "

Recently, a historic photograph of the New York firefighters raising the American flag over the ruins of the World Trade Center was going to be made into a sculpture as a memorial.

But history's revisionists used Political Correctness to dictate that other minority faces replace some of the faces in the historical photograph! Fortunately, in the end that didn't fly either, due to the outcry of firefighters and the public.

The Goal of the PC Dictators

For people with the background and firsthand experience of living inside a totalitarian communist society, the tilt and goal of the dictators of Political Correctness in America are obvious.

The beneficiaries in the end will be the fanatic believers in the totalitarian state, who, in spite of the dismal failure of communism and the 100 million people exterminated pursuing that criminal system, have not given up.

Political and religious fanatics, as demonstrated by the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the subsequent war in Afghanistan, are extremely dangerous in today's world.

All citizens who cherish liberty must reject the scourge of Political Correctness. Freedom of speech must be preserved in America if we are to continue to be free.

Let's say it: Castro is not a 'president,' as the U.S. media's Political Correctness calls him. Castro has not been democratically elected to anything in Cuba. The correct word to define him is 'tyrant.' He is not just a 'leader,' as the U.S. media also calls him. He is more of a criminal Mafioso-type character.

Why criminal? Because he has caused the deaths of more than 100,000 Cubans. Thousands have died through his support of guerrillas in Central and South America. Thousands of blacks were killed by Castro's soldiers in Africa. Castro in the 1980s introduced the use of bacteriological weapons to kill blacks in Angola.

How many thousands have died in America as a result of his drug trafficking into the U.S.? How many thousands have died all over the world due to terrorists trained in Castro's Cuba?

Former Soviet colonel Ken Alibek, who defected to America, was once in charge of the Soviet Union's production of biological weapons. In Alibek's 1999 book, "Biohazard," he revealed that with the help of the Soviet Union, in the 1980s Cuba created laboratories to produce chemical and bacteriological weapons of mass destruction – just 90 miles from U.S. shores.

The information about Castro's involvement with bacteriological weapons also comes from various independent sources. We must not forget either that Cuba is on the U.S. State Department's list of terrorist nations.

Why Mafioso? Well, Castro is like an untouchable godfather, surrounded by bodyguards and thugs and a private army of about 40,000 soldiers for his personal protection (roughly the size of the entire army of Cuba prior to 1959).

He stole foreign and national properties in Cuba. He has become one of the richest men in the world, according to Forbes magazine. He has created a despotic and corrupt elite to exploit the Cuban people and keep himself in power. He has made the Cuban people hostages and slaves of his corrupt regime.

The U.S. media do not call Al Capone "the former leader" of the Italian Mafia. Why the double standard with Fidel and other far-left regimes? The answer can be traced to where the sympathies lie – with the elite dictating Political Correctness in America.

It's one thing is to be educated, considerate, polite and have good manners, and another to be forced to self-censor and say things that are totally incorrect in order to comply with the arbitrary dictums of a deceiving and fanatical far-left agenda.

Let's preserve our freedom and say NO to the scourge of Political Correctness.

© 2002 ABIP

Agustin Blazquez is producer/director of the documentaries "Covering Cuba," Covering Cuba 2: The New Generation," and the upcoming Covering Cuba 3: Elian," and author with Carlos Wotzkow of the book "Covering and Discovering."

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:

Castro/Cuba

Media Bias

[Rhutobello]

As with anything we read...we need to evaluate and think for ourself....The post above is the Truth seen from this "teams" point of view....I am sure there is a lot of others too, that have different or opposite views, and can promote their thoughts in an equal good way.

Most of us have seen the "conspiratorial video" and read about 9/11.....if there was some truth in it...why haven't there been taken any actions?..is the whole legal system corrupt?....or might it be that you easy can express yourself..but..to prove you are right is a whole other thing......
And this gives the reader a big responsibility to evaluate and not just jump on the first bandwagon....

I find it quiet alright to discuss such thing....even to make investigations...and promote their views.....this will lead to a awaken society that not just get the official product.

In a democracy it is said that people have the power......but do they really?.....each 4th year they can vote for their favourite politician....and only that day have they a say.

For the rest 1460 days politicians are hit by "Groups of interest" .... By paid lobby people,who have great funds to their disposal..... Where the interest of profit and power count much more then the interest for the common citizen.

If you also look at "parties", you will see that the Party and what it can gain, is far more worth then what gain the Country most, this we have seen in several political games, at least in my country, but I think it will be elsewhere too, from what I have seen from the news.

So yes.....groups can promote political correctness.....but in the end we have to "trust" our leaders....but keep an eye on them...power seems to have a intoxicating effect...and as we know...that can lead to strange thing

[stan]

Secret Society Goes Global
by H. Hoffman – Aftermath News November 20, 2007

It’s likely that you’ve never heard of an organisation called Common Purpose, unless that is you are a ‘leader’ or aspire to be one.

From what I have read so far people urgently need to be aware of what it is doing.

It began in the UK in 1988, where it has some 45 offices, but has now taken its sun symbol logo into many countries as Common Purpose International.

These include France, Germany, Ghana, Hungary, India, Ireland, Netherlands, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey.

I understand it is also moving in on the United States. This is its stated goal: ‘Common Purpose aims to improve the way society works by expanding the vision, decision making ability and influence of all kinds of leaders.

The organisation runs a variety of educational programmes for leaders of all ages, backgrounds and sectors, in order to provide them with the inspiration, information and opportunities they need to change the world.’

From such bland descriptions come two questions immediately: A common purpose to what end? And ‘change the world’ in what way exactly?

We need answers here because Common Purpose is sweeping through the UK ‘training’ leaders in all areas of society and if they have a ‘common purpose’ we ought to know about it.

Common Purpose trainees The organisation now has training programmes in every major town and city in Britain and since 1989 more than 60,000 people have been involved with 20,000 ‘leaders’ completing one or more programmes.

These are: Leaders: Matrix and Focus Emerging leaders: Navigator Very young leaders: Your Turn Leaders who need a local briefing: Profile National leaders: 20:20

The benefits of Common Purpose training are the following, the sales-pitch tells us: Participants gain new competencies and become more effective in a diverse and complex world. Organisations benefit from stronger, more inspired, better-networked managers and senior managers who are closer to the community Communities benefit from cross-sector understanding and initiatives as different parts of the community learn to operate more effectively together. Maybe it’s just me, but I keep seeing a picture of George Orwell in my mind. He is shaking his head and smiling.

Those who complete the courses are called Common Purpose ‘graduates’ and throughout British society such ‘graduates’ are at work in government, law enforcement, health and many other areas that affect daily life. So what’s it all about and what is going on here?

The official founder and Chief Executive of Common Purpose is Julia Middleton who in her profile at the Common Purpose UK Website fails to mention a rather relevant fact: she is also Head of Personnel Selection in the office of John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister to Tony Blair. Prescott has been the man with responsibility for creating ‘regional assemblies’ around the United Kingdom which are part of the plan to abolish nations and bring their powerless ‘regions’ under the jackboot of the European Union.

He has, of course, sought to sell this policy as ‘devolving power to the people’.

Prescott has common purpose with Common Purpose and Julia Middleton because they are all committed to the same end.

The European superstate is designed to be centrally controlled and managed at lower levels by bland and brain dead ‘leaders’ who are all programmed to think the same.

This is where Common Purpose comes in. You can always tell a front by its desire to centralise everything and that includes the centralisation of thought as diversity is scorned, ridiculed and dismissed in favour of a manufactured ‘consensus’; you will also see the Orwellian Newspeak technique in which the organisation claims to stand for what it is seeking to destroy - Common Purpose says its aim is to develop ‘diverse’ leaders; and fronts always tend to use language that actually says nothing when describing what they do.

Political speech writers work for days to produce statements that say nothing because if politicians don’t commit themselves to specifics they can hide the real agenda amid the bland and banal. Wilson Bryan Key writes in his book The Age of Manipulation about his experience of writing a speech with others for U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower: ‘For thirty-six sleepless hours, three writers turned out draft after draft, reviewed by a White House deputy press secretary who offered terse comments like, “Much too specific!” “Ease up on factual references!” and “Take it back and fuzz it up!” “Fuzz it up,” we discovered eventually, meant avoid all clear, factual statements about anything more specific than the time of day …

The speech was endlessly discussed for likely audience reactions, belief and attitude reinforcements, and implied meanings … Would anyone take the empty rhetoric seriously? The speech read smoothly, but said absolutely nothing about anything. This was precisely what it was intended to say. During audience interviews after the oration, most expressed satisfaction with the great man’s words. “Ike really gave it to them!” “He has my vote!” “I like the way he thinks!” “Great speech!”.’ This is how organisations operate and when you look at the propaganda for Common Purpose it is bland and without specifics, just as you would expect.

So what does this organisation teach its ‘leaders’? You wouldn’t know by reading its blurb and with its courses costing thousands of pounds it would be expensive to find out. But for sure it will manufacture consensus among its ‘diverse’ clientele. This is a key technique throughout society - to manipulate agreement on a range of issues that then become the norm to be defended from all challenge and true diversity.

It has been developed by organisations like the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in London which was funded into existence in 1946 with a grant from the Rockfeller Foundation and is one of the global centres for developing the ‘hive mind’ mentality or ‘group and organisational behaviour’. Tavistock works closely with ‘public sector’ (state-controlled) organisations including the UK government and the European Union and the Orwell-speak on its website could have come straight from the pages of Common Purpose. Or the other way round. Jargon is always the language of the junta: ‘Multi-organisational working, cross-boundary working and the global-national-local interface each raise their own set of organisational dynamics which must be surfaced and worked with if collaboration is to be effective.

They also raise particular challenges for leadership (and followership). The Institute’s approaches to organisational consultancy and leadership development, based on organisational theory and systems psychodynamics are particularly appropriate for helping organisations to address these complex issues.’ Like working out what the hell all that is supposed to mean. What we can see is that Tavistock and Common Purpose share the same pod. Both want to develop ‘leaders’ and they do it in the same way by manufactured consensus that then stamps out all diversity by using those who have conceded their right to free thought to the group psyche.

Mind manipulation techniques like Neuro-linguistic programming or NLP are also employed in the language employed to engineer consensus. NLP is a technique of using words to re-programme the body computer to accept another perception of reality - in this case the consensus agreed by the manipulators before their victims even register for the ‘course’. Apparently the CIA refers to these pre-agreed ‘opinions’ as ’slides’. As one Internet writer said: ‘A “slide” is a prefabricated, “politically correct” blanket “pop” “opinion”, “view” or “take” upon a particular issue of general interest which is designed to preclude further consideration, analysis or investigation of the issue in question. In other words, it is a “collectivised” mental position which is never to be questioned. This is precisely the “product” of the Deputy Prime Minister’s insidious neurological linguistic control programme “Common Purpose”.’

Anyone who resists the programming is isolated and the group turned against them until they either conform or lose credibility to be a ‘leader’. Look at global society in any country and you will see this happening in the workplace, among friends down the bar and in television discussions.

The consensus on global warming has been manipulated to be that carbon emissions are the cause and anyone who says otherwise is an uncaring, selfish, racist and quite happy to see the planet and humanity face catastrophe. The fact that carbon emissions are not the cause of global warming is irrelevant because the ‘truth’ is what the consensus has agreed it to be. In short, if you don’t agree with the extreme consensus you are an extremist. It is the manipulation of consensus that has turned the three main political parties in Britain into one party with their leaders Tony Blair, David Cameron and ‘Ming’ Campbell all standing on the same ground. They might offer slightly different policies - and only slightly - but they are all agreed on the fundamentals and this makes elections irrelevant. The Conservative Party’s David Cameron, the likely winner of the next General Election, is Blair Mark II and this pair certainly have common purpose.

The Tavistock Institute has been working this flanker for decades and Common Purpose seems to me to have the Curriculum Vitae of a Tavistock front. One of the Tavistock founders, Dr. John Rawlings Rees, who also became co-founder of the World Federation for Mental Health, talked of infiltrating all professions and areas of society - ‘Public life, politics and industry should all … be within our sphere of influence … If we are to infiltrate the professional and social activities of other people I think we must imitate the Totalitarians and organize some kind of fifth column activity!’ He said that the ’salesmen’ of their perception re-programming (mass mind-control) must lose their identity and operate secretly. He said: ‘We must aim to make it permeate every educational activity in our national life … We have made a useful attack upon a number of professions. The two easiest of them naturally are the teaching profession and the Church: the two most difficult are law and medicine.’ The common purpose of the Tavistock/Illuminati guerrilla war on the human psyche is to wipe clean any sense of the individual and unique because only that way can they impose the global dictatorship and have the masses accept it. Brock Chisholm, former Director of the UN World Health Organisation, was right when he said: ‘To achieve One-World Government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism’
http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2007 ... an-consent

Also see a talk by former Royal Navy commander Brian Gerrish on Common Purpose:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc ... 4&hl=en-GB

Printer friendly with pictures / without pictures Email this article to a friend

Last updated 23/11/2007

[Charlesman]

Heh...

I think you have some very valid points, and yet I doubt I could disagree more.

Politics.

When it comes to communism vs. capitalism, democracy vs. dictatorship, theocracy vs. a seperate state/chuch, or whatever vs. whichever, I personally believe it is totally irrelevant what system of government is used - what really matters is the agenda of those in power, and because of our history combined with our relatively short lifespan, it is clear that the only way to gain power is to take it from those who currently have it; in essence, the bad guys win, because the good guys don't care about winning. Because of this, one can assume that the agenda of those in power is simply to gain power.

I believe that freedom and democracy is a constant - it cannot be taken away. If a tyrant rules, it is because the people do not overthrow him. The obvious way to get around this (since basically everyone values their own freedom) is to convince the public that freedom and democracy is not automatic, that it must in fact be fought for, and, ideally, can be provided by the government. The government can then point out various scapegoats (such as communists or muslims) for the public to focus their attention on, so that they do not focus their attention on their own government.

Someone once said, "People should not be afraid of their governments - governments should be afraid of their people." I could not agree more, which is why I would in all honesty prefer to live in some kind of theocratic dictatorship. After all, if the person in charge is also officially in charge, then he has to serve the interests of the people, or he will end up being burned at the stake by an angry mob. On the other hand, in a capitalistic democracy, the people with the money rule, while the individual is led to believe his opinion and preference actually matters because he is able to vote for his favored strawman roughly once every four years.

I am personally for globalisation, simply because we are all human beings living on the same planet and as such we are living in a global enviroment whether we want to or not.

Political correctness.

It may very well be that the term was coined in the 20th century, but the concept has been in effect since humans banded together for other purposes than procreation. When you speak for the current policy of society, whether this society is your family, your football team, or your nation, you are politically correct, when you speak against it, you are politically incorrect (although you will not be labeled as politically incorrect, because the politically correct term for politically incorrect people are 'terrorist', 'fundamentalist', or 'extremist' or what-have-you.) It is totally fine to be politically correct if you actually agree with what you are saying, but if you let fear of repercussions determine your words, well, then the world is really better off without you.

[stan]

Charlesman,
Thank you for sharing how you honestly think. Also the others, who all have made valid points as well! I mean that!!
As for me, I find some things disturbing. I really don't care about the different political systems and forms of Governments and how they function and I don't knock those who find this important. I think everyone here would agree with you, that it is more important to know the intent of those in power and not, the system. I agree that we should not look for scape goats. What I find very, very interesting, is how sophisticated we have got in the art of covert persuasion and you just skipped over it. Maybe, that was not important to you  at the time you were responding but I would like to hear what your thoughts are on those who operate in unawares? Maybe you could start with the average John Doe on the street and how globalization is being slowly implemented? Peace[/b]

[sidewalk_bends]

Charlesman,
Thank you for sharing how you honestly think. Also the others, who all have made valid points as well! I mean that!!
As for me, I find some things disturbing. I really don't care about the different political systems and forms of Governments and how they function and I don't knock those who find this important. I think everyone here would agree with you, that it is more important to know the intent of those in power and not, the system. I agree that we should not look for scape goats. What I find very, very interesting, is how sophisticated we have got in the art of covert persuasion and you just skipped over it. Maybe, that was not important to you  at the time you were responding but I would like to hear what your thoughts are on those who operate in unawares? Maybe you could start with the average John Doe on the street and how globalization is being slowly implemented? Peace[/b]

This just reminded me of some of the theories floating around right now about purposefully bringing down the value of the dollar. True globalization as I understand it, cannot happen without that, yet people in the states what to keep their foothold. The president of Mexico, had at one point also mentioned the introduction of the "Amerigo" that would be the American (North and South) version of the Euro.

[stan]

Charlesman,
Thank you for sharing how you honestly think. Also the others, who all have made valid points as well! I mean that!!
As for me, I find some things disturbing. I really don't care about the different political systems and forms of Governments and how they function and I don't knock those who find this important. I think everyone here would agree with you, that it is more important to know the intent of those in power and not, the system. I agree that we should not look for scape goats. What I find very, very interesting, is how sophisticated we have got in the art of covert persuasion and you just skipped over it. Maybe, that was not important to you  at the time you were responding but I would like to hear what your thoughts are on those who operate in unawares? Maybe you could start with the average John Doe on the street and how globalization is being slowly implemented? Peace[/b]

This just reminded me of some of the theories floating around right now about purposefully bringing down the value of the dollar. True globalization as I understand it, cannot happen without that, yet people in the states what to keep their foothold. The president of Mexico, had at one point also mentioned the introduction of the "Amerigo" that would be the American (North and South) version of the Euro.[/quote(

I hear you! Theories in developmental stage! It's Awesome when you step back far enough. Thanks.

[stan]

I hope everyone realizes this discussion is not about particular races, or religions, it's about all of US.

[stan]

Found this interesting



Constitutional Irrelevance?
Forfeiting sovereignty for sodomy.

By Quin Hillyer

o poorly reasoned was Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion in the recent Texas sodomy case that perhaps its most dangerous precedent has gone overlooked.

In the course of overturning existing Supreme Court precedent, Justice Kennedy also, at least slightly, undermined the very sovereignty of this nation and its Constitution.



 
The highly objectionable reasoning came in the course of a bizarre, long-winded attempt to argue that there really isn't a centuries-old tradition of outlawing homosexual sodomy. Kennedy's point was to refute an assertion by then-Chief Justice Warren Burger in the 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick case that rejected a "right" to private sodomy. Burger had written, seemingly unremarkably: "Decisions of individuals relating to homosexuality have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization."

Burger's opinion was merely a concurrence, not the controlling majority opinion, but no matter: Kennedy set out to swat it down — and he swatted and swatted and swatted until he had built up quite a lather.

After dubiously asserting that "our laws and traditions in the past half-century are of most relevance here" (although why 50-year-old "traditions" trump a 135-year-old amendment to a 215-year-old Constitution isn't clear), Kennedy then made a segue to "other authorities" in "Western civilization." Somehow he found it relevant that the British parliament repealed laws against homosexual conduct in 1967.

Then came what would have been a real howler, if it weren't so serious. "Of even more importance," wrote Kennedy,

   almost five years before Bowers was decided the European Court of Human Rights considered a case with parallels to Bowers and to today's case. An adult male resident in Northern Ireland alleged he was a practicing homosexual who desired to engage in consensual homosexual conduct. The laws of Northern Ireland forbade him that right.... The court held that the laws proscribing the conduct were invalid under the European Convention on Human Rights.... Authoritative in all countries that are members of the Council of Europe (21 nations then, 45 nations now), the decision is at odds with the premise in Bowers that the claim put forward was insubstantial in our Western civilization.

A few paragraphs later, Kennedy returned to this theme: "The right the petitioners seek in this case has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom in many other countries. There has been no showing that in this country the governmental interest in circumscribing personal choice is somehow more legitimate or urgent."

There you have it: The values of Europe, and the decision of its Court of Human Rights, are deemed somehow relevant for American constitutional jurisprudence.

On one level, Anthony Kennedy's line of reasoning should be familiar to American youngsters and parents nationwide. It's not much more than a gussied up version of "Johnny's mommy lets him do it, so why can't I?" (Or, more precisely, if Johnny can do it, shouldn't Billy's mom let him do it too — and by extension, if Billy's mom lets him do X, shouldn't I be able to do Y?)

But on a deeper level, the citation borders on the subversive. If the authority of extra-national courts is held to be even partially dispositive in the United States (especially without a formal treaty yielding a specific measure of American sovereignty on a particular issue), then the same foreign authority cited in supposed defense of liberty could be cited to take an American individual's liberty away.

As Justice Clarence Thomas noted in his brilliantly concise dissent from the Court majority — in overreacting to a "silly" (and even obnoxious) Texas law — left behind its judicial restraint and assumed a legislative posture instead. Unable to find clear authority in the U.S. Constitution for its raw exercise of judicial will, the Kennedy majority looked to a foreign source for justification. But any American with native intelligence can see that down that road lies alienation from our country's rule of law.

— Quin Hillyer is an editorial writer and columnist for the Mobile Register

[suzisco]

I think politcal correctness is just a way to make us all say and think the same way regardless of the country.  its not really going to work unless we all become green with blue stripes, godless, lawless and sexless.


I do believe that i should have the right to dislike individuals and i believe i have the right not to lie about my feelings. I also think i have the right to say that i dislike a person.  

I disagree that nations should dislike other nations purely on the basis of colour or religious background.  Better to dislike individuals for their actions

I do think that if you move to another country to live you should respect that countries beliefs, be able to speak their language and not impose your own set of beliefs on the neighbours regardless of what country you've moved to.

Its very difficult subject to broach, especially in a small country like my own where the immigrant population is set to out strip the indigenous population and where i will be looked upon as a curio and a relic of a bygone age.


Diversity is an emerging problem within my own culture.  I still do not understand why people choose to come to the country that i was born in to live and then change it to be like their own country.  If my country is not good enough to live in as it stands why live here?  

We already have a divided culture within christianity with the perenial problem of who's god is the best god, the green one or the blue one.  If the local people are having problems dealing with that, why allow other ethnic groups to come and add yet more gods/religious views into the melting pot when we haven't learned how to live with other people of the same colour yet.  We are probably horribly irresponsible by exposing other cultures to our way of life.  Its probably payback for what my ancestors did to the rest of the world.

[stan]

I think politcal correctness is just a way to make us all say and think the same way regardless of the country.  its not really going to work unless we all become green with blue stripes, godless, lawless and sexless.


I do believe that i should have the right to dislike individuals and i believe i have the right not to lie about my feelings. I also think i have the right to say that i dislike a person.  

I disagree that nations should dislike other nations purely on the basis of colour or religious background.  Better to dislike individuals for their actions

I do think that if you move to another country to live you should respect that countries beliefs, be able to speak their language and not impose your own set of beliefs on the neighbours regardless of what country you've moved to.

Its very difficult subject to broach, especially in a small country like my own where the immigrant population is set to out strip the indigenous population and where i will be looked upon as a curio and a relic of a bygone age.


Diversity is an emerging problem within my own culture.  I still do not understand why people choose to come to the country that i was born in to live and then change it to be like their own country.  If my country is not good enough to live in as it stands why live here?  

We already have a divided culture within christianity with the perenial problem of who's god is the best god, the green one or the blue one.  If the local people are having problems dealing with that, why allow other ethnic groups to come and add yet more gods/religious views into the melting pot when we haven't learned how to live with other people of the same colour yet.  We are probably horribly irresponsible by exposing other cultures to our way of life.  Its probably payback for what my ancestors did to the rest of the world.[/quote)

THANK YOU!

[stan]

I believe that political correctness is the biggest threat this nation faces today,” writes Beck, who sees it as a “coordinated effort to change Western culture as we know it” by restricting the language of public debate on many topics.

Beck’s remedy for political correctness is “to take back the First Amendment” by again allowing “every opinion to be spoken, no matter how ugly or unpopular it may be. That’s the essence of free speech.” (GLENN BECK QUOTE)

[mercurial]

Does this "Freedom of Speech" proposed by Beck apply to all sections of the society, or is it just a ploy to attack muslims and the rest of the non-western world, under the pretext of political incorrectness?

Put simply, would it be ok for a muslim to call USA a rogue nation due to its actions in Iraq, in much the same way certain Americans exercise their freedom of speech to describe Iran as a rogue nation for whatever reason?

Hope you get my drift. This isn't an argument, but just a question to remind one and all that 'freedom of speech' and 'political incorrectness' could work both ways. Two can play this game.

[stan]

Does this "Freedom of Speech" proposed by Beck apply to all sections of the society, or is it just a ploy to attack muslims and the rest of the non-western world, under the pretext of political incorrectness?

Put simply, would it be ok for a muslim to call USA a rogue nation due to its actions in Iraq, in much the same way certain Americans exercise their freedom of speech to describe Iran as a rogue nation for whatever reason?

Hope you get my drift. This isn't an argument, but just a question to remind one and all that 'freedom of speech' and 'political incorrectness' could work both ways. Two can play this game.

I couldn't agree more! Eliminating this Political Correct stuff is not the answer to America as he thinks. The answer is the heart. We can dialog all day long and never be friends if one heart is hardened. We can exterminate 80% of the people with hardened hearts and guess what, our future generations will be dealing with the same kind BS we are going through now. There will always be kingdoms rising and kingdoms falling. There's nothing new under the sun. Thank you for your thoughts. Peace and Love.