So the fact that a large international organization (NATO) may be in danger of being broken up as its members pull in different directions is a sign that there is a conspiracy to create a one-world government?
OK.
I guess the declaration of the Confederate States of America was an attempt to create a single one Western Hemisphere government, as well. Certainly, the Kurds and Chechens and Tamils and the Catholics of Northern Ireland are all working to create a one world government (based on the logic displayed, so far).
Razorsharp, the creation of a “Euro-Army” independent of NATO is not a sign of an emerging world government. (If only!) It is a sign of an emerging international continental government in Europe. High time, too – if the EU holds together there will never again be war in Europe. What have you got against that? If the Europeans remained content to follow America’s lead in all military affairs, now that would be a sign of emerging world government, in the form of an American world-empire. You don’t want that, do you? So what’s wrong with the Europeans breaking away? There is absolutely no chance the U.S. will come under EU domination. (If only!) What it means is a new great-power system – a world in which the great powers are the U.S., Europe-as-a-single-unit, and China (and, just maybe, in the long run, a pan-Arabic or pan-Islamic alliance – but I see little chance of that; the Arabs have such a hard time getting along with each other). These great powers are more likely to compete with each other, than to join forces to rule all the lesser powers. How do you see a world government emerging from that?
I see we’re drifting off-topic. My understanding was that this thread had something to do with the assimilation or non-assimilation of immigrants to English-speaking American culture. I have definitely come down on the side of the melting pot, as against multiculturalism. That’s your position too, right? If not, what is your position? What exactly do you want? Stricter immigration controls? Deportation of all immigrants? Or simply the elimination of bilingual education and bilingual ballots? Please be specific, Razorsharp, or we won’t know what we’re talking about! “Diversity is dumb” is not sufficient content for a GD post.
I earlier suggested, as a possibility worth concern, that the long-term presence of significant numbers of substantially unassimilated Latinos in the Southwest might turn the region into an odd-man-out in the the Union, like Quebec in Canada.
Apparently I’m not the only person thinking along these lines. From a thread in the GQ forum, asking the meaning of the term “Aztlan” (it’s the legendary ancestral homeland of the Aztec or Mexica Indians and no one is sure where it is), I learned of the existence of an organization called “La Voz de Aztlan” (website at www.aztlan.net) which aims at the creation of a new independent state of Aztlan, comprising the southwestern U.S. from Texas to California, plus the northern states of Mexico, with its capital at Los Angeles. It appears to be a small organization. It is also weirdly anti-semitic – I cannot for the life of me understand what Latino nationalists would have against Jews.
I do not suggest that most, or even a significant number, of Latinos in America would support something like this. I just say it bears watching. Diversity is wonderful, but too much of it might be dangerous.
I say we must be, must remain, one people. But if you’re interested in alternative views, check out the “Micronations Web Site Index” (www.angelfire.com/nv/micronations/enter.html), a site devoted to micronations (imaginary, virtual nations, and real attempts at starting new countries, such as Sealand). It also has a page on “USA Sedition” which lists various regional-secessionist groups in America, such as Voice of Aztlan, the Kingdom of Hawai’i (don’t forget the apostrophe!), and the Republic of Cascadia (the Pacific Northwest). And Alaskan secessionists, of course. No American Indian nations listed, for some reason.
I just felt like adding that I find it doubtful that Razorsharp has ever been to Europe, and really seen it. By the time it would have revealed itself to him, he would’ve seen two things. 1. Claiming that Europeans are an homogenous group today is silly, claiming they were that 200 years ago isn’t very clever and 400 years ago is, well, laughable. 2. In the light of knowing that Europe isn’t homogenous, it should be quite obvious that despite EU and despite the Euro, a world government isn’t going to appear from nowhere.
About 140 years before the U.S. gained it’s indepdence, Europe was shook by the 30 years war, which had to do with, to an extent, religion. Now, care to reiterate that Europe was a big bundle of religous love back then?
I ofcourse meant to add that, since the 30 years war took place during the colonization of northern america, it would be hard to argue that all the people coming over were all part of the big and friendly European family.
I’m sorry, but I had to stop laughing before I could type that entire phrase. And I had to go back and retype it twice more, due to typos caused by giggling.
Man, there are some things the Government can accomplish very well. Accumulating lots of money, for example. Building interstate highway systems. Chartering and funding an army (NOT organizing one, unless the government in question is a military junta – any officer will tell you that politicians who wanna play soldier is how wars get LOST).
… and there are things governments do not do very well at all. Putting a leash on pop culture. Convincing the masses of something that is blatantly not true. Terminating the import, sale, and use of illegal drugs. Legislating morality.
Man, the idea of the “establishment” trying to brainwash ANYONE pretty much has me rollin’. It’s never worked before. And now you want me to believe they’re trying to do it NOW in order that I might be willing to pay for bilingual education for illegal aliens?
Sorry, bud, but I just can’t buy this. “Spindoctoring” is one thing. Some politicians do it very well. But “Establishment-sponsored brainwashing?” Implying a mass organizational system of disinformation and propaganda? OUR government? The same government that handles the phrase “weapons of mass destruction” like a monkey trying to handle a live fish?
It’s amazing how some absolutly refuse to see things that are right in front of them.
So, bud, consider this:
Mention the term “hate-crime” to the average individual, and he or she will almost invariably have the mental image of a white persecuting a minority. But, FBI crime statistics reveal that minorities are several times more likely to victimize a white in what could be termed a “hate-crime”.
Oh, so you don’t really want to address the issue of brainwashing, but, being that you did raise the issue, let’s examine it in the context of this thread.
The Constitution explicitly states that the FedGov is to provide “a republican form of government”. Why is it that those who should know better, Presidents, Senators, legislators and teachers continually refer to the United States as a democracy?
You will probably dodge this, so I’ll answer for you.
Democracy is a tool used to enact legislation and social programs that are contrary to the Constitution.
See, in a democracy, all you have to do is fool most of the people some of the time.
I was wondering, Razorsharp, if you could you tell us what’s your opinion on:
a) who should choose the leaders in a country, and which governing levels must exist?
… and if you have time:
b) should borders be drawn to seperate ethnic groups, and if so, how do we get there, in America and elsewhere?
b) is it your opinion that democracy should be ended?
c) have you ever voted in an election?
In the first place, Razorsharp, the Constitution only guarantees that every state shall have a republican form of government.
Second, the Constitution does not define what does or does not qualify as a “republican form of government” for these purposes. Since all state governments in the Union have been set up on roughly the same model – elected (and almost always bicameral) legislature, separately elected governor, independent judiciary – the question has never really come up.
Third, the distinction between “republican” and “democratic” government has never been entirely clear, even to political scientists. Even in the days of the Founders, the words were used as synonyms or near-synonyms, viz. Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans. We could go by etymology – “republic” is Latin for “public thing” and “democracy” is Greek for “power of the demos [citizen body]” – but words often are used in ways that are very different from their antique meanings.
Fourth, what has any of this political theory got to do with “the diversity myth” of your OP? This thread is now on its third page and you have yet to specify what you’re protesting or arguing for that has to do with “diversity.” I repeat, Razorsharp: What exactly do you want? Stricter immigration controls? Deportation of all immigrants? Or simply the elimination of bilingual education and bilingual ballots?