|
Post by The Resister on Nov 14, 2023 4:01:35 GMT
" The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild,(sic) and government to gain ground." Thomas Jefferson Since the launching of this board I have tried to stay away from this one topic, hoping that someone would comment on my many attempts to open the door to someone that MIGHT know something about the way we lost to the left. But, but, but Trump is going to win the presidency and drain the swamp, etc., etc. Have you noticed that the election is a year away and the overwhelming majority of the media has already selected the contenders and the predictable outcome? A cursory glance at who is running for reelection at the federal level and who isn't reveals that more Republicans are leaving the House than Democrats: ballotpedia.org/List_of_U.S._Congress_incumbents_who_are_not_running_for_re-election_in_2024That information is rapidly changing. If you see a better link, post it. The primary point on this thread is that America is turning a HARD LEFT and for years I have belabored the point, hoping that by feeding people milk they would ask for the meat. It ain't happening and this should be the topic we needed to be looking at all along. There are total dumb asses or really hard core propagandists on other boards that swear and be damned that I'm promoting communist propaganda. They are just barely smart enough to stay out of this forum as their criticisms would be answered without censorship. The funny thing is, they cannot tell you WHY they disagree with me because they don't know jackshit and they will wait until I post something for them to research and then they know all about it... AFTER they Google all the facts, figures and other information associated with my posts. If you don't read but one thread on this entire board, it should be this one. Read the next post. You're about to hear something you've probably never heard before.
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Nov 14, 2023 4:30:21 GMT
I have been pointing out for decades the fact that the paradigm of left v. right; conservative v. liberal; Democrat v. Republican is simply something that doesn't exist. There are many forms of political guerrilla warfare and the patriot community was somewhat educated on SOME of them in the past. Pavlovian Conditioning,the Big Lie Technique Hegelian Dialectics, Subluminal Conditioning and the constant use the term " false flags" dominated the vocabulary of the right, but even that is changing. There is yet another term that is known by change agents and poly sci students in college. It explains what brings about the changes in the way people view the issues and how the right became the left. It is called the Overton Window. The Overton Window is described as follows: " The Overton window of political possibility is the range of ideas the public is willing to consider and accept. In the United States, the idea of different races mixing in public or women’s suffrage were once considered fringe, extreme policies. That they’re now deemed common sense, reflects progress (sic) in shifting the Overton window." conceptually.org/concepts/overton-windowWow! That the liberal change agents will openly admit how it works is amazing except that what they call progress is an end to Liberty, Freedom and most importantly, the Constitution as originally written and intended. Those who develop public policy (think tank groups) work with the media, non-profit organizations, sports, entertainment venues, the music industry and anywhere else they can infiltrate to introduce concepts to you that you once would have found repulsive. If it were to be summed up by Cliff's Notes, it would be like the old adage of putting a frog in a pot of lukewarm water then turning it up a degree at a time until the frog boils without being able to hop out due to the incremental increase in the temperature of the water. I saw this very early in life when tv shows began using subliminal conditioning to promote racial amalgamation. There might be people in the dance and in the background there was an inter-racial couple that your conscious mind didn't see (unless you were one of those that are always studying the background rather than the main story.) Little by little they worked on the psyche while social engineers slowly changed the books that people read and what they read in newspapers to get people to accept something they saw as being repulsive (regardless of the rationale.) I'd like to leave you with a video of how the Overton Window works and then return with more commentary at a later time: See this too: www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/25/overton-window-explained-definition-meaning-217010/
|
|
|
Post by noclevername on Nov 14, 2023 13:06:09 GMT
This is amazing. This is new to say the least. It might be asking a lot but if you tied all those other strategies to this principle it might be the topic that everybody needs to read. When all of this is added up it is probably an education in how the masses got manipulated. If another soul never reads this you have my promise that I will.
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Nov 14, 2023 20:59:23 GMT
This is amazing. This is new to say the least. It might be asking a lot but if you tied all those other strategies to this principle it might be the topic that everybody needs to read. When all of this is added up it is probably an education in how the masses got manipulated. If another soul never reads this you have my promise that I will. Let's begin the journey then. As I stated the left v. right, conservative v. liberal, Democrat v. Republican paradigm is a fiction that doesn't really exist. What really does exist are moral absolutes that never change. America was founded on certain principles. As long as we were on course, America prospered. Once we changed, we began to falter as a country. Let's begin to think of America in terms of what the original intent was compared to what the MSM claims is progress. BTW, the lifespan of Americans is decreasing; fewer Americans are buying homes (both in raw numbers and as percentages.) We have more people in prison than any country on this planet. The average American is less affluent than his parents and will have fewer children - many will have NO children. A significant number of people are drug addicts and homosexuality is being glorified as is the war against the Right to Life. We are importing people because Americans are not repopulating. We are outlawing the Posterity of the framers and engaged in genocide against those descendants of the founders and framers. Crime, illiteracy and disrespect are off the charts. And the change agents call it progress. Let's see what is really going on: Insofar as parties are concerned, the first political party in the United States was the Federalist Party. It then lost out to the anti-Federalists aka the Democratic Republican Party within, maybe, two decades. In that era the Democratic Republicans were the conservatives. The major issues dividing the Federalists and Democratic Republicans were the implied powers concept in the Constitution and having a national bank. In the days of Jefferson ( conservative) and John Adams ( liberal) you had some issues that were commonly agreed on and understood. For example, both men would have been pro-gun. The Democratic Republican Party championed republicanism, individual liberty, equal rights, decentralization, free markets, free trade and agrarianism. The Democratic Republican Party existed from 1792 to 1834 (a whopping 42 years.) It split into two factions, primarily (or so the pretext was) over slavery. Therefore, the first liberal party in the United States was the Republican Party. In order to have individual Liberty, you must have guaranteed unalienable Rights If you want equal rights then you have to support a Democracy (or mob rule) Today, both Republicans and Democrats want democracy, equal rights and a big government As you can see the paradigm keeps in a state of flux. It is always changing and political views change so the labels become meaningless. As a result, if you want to really stand for something, you would identify as a Christian Patriot, constitutionalist or on the other side of the aisle, a progressive or socialist if you abhor the Constitution. Democrats were the safe haven for the Ku Klux Klan until around the 1960s. In 1948 Truman (Democrat) got 77 percent of the Black vote and the parties began to shift. Within 20 years close to 80 percent of Blacks were voting for Democrats. You can begin to see the Overton Window come into play there as things change. Digest that. We have a lot of 'splaining to do.
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Nov 15, 2023 4:22:53 GMT
Modern students of this subject matter weigh the subject on recent occurrences that have taken place in the political realm in recent times AND from their own perspectives. I'm not criticizing them; just explaining the limitations of their conclusions. With that in mind, this is what I've experienced over the course of my life:
I got involved in political, legal and social activism in the late 1970s as a kid. I was first influenced by the John Birch Society and Lt. Col. Gordon "Jack" Mohr (US Army) in particular. Mohr was the first American captured during the Korean Conflict. He was beaten, tortured and sentenced to death only to escape and later help the Army with manuals on psychopolitics and brainwashing. Mohr and I worked together on many projects. In addition, I am among the first graduates of S.P.I.K.E. (Specially Prepared Individuals for Key Events) that was initiated by Lt. Col. James "Bo" Gritz (US Army.) Gritz was the most decorated soldier on the Vietnam era and was a former Green Beret and CIA operative. In my mind, their experience (that they imparted to me) was of factually fighting communism, not bragging about some poly sci degree from a liberal college.
By the late 1980s I had amassed a great deal of experience in the trenches fighting liberalism and communism plus the editor of my hometown newspaper once said that I was the "most quoted man in Georgia." Between the late 1970s, as a kid and today I've remained the same in beliefs and commitment. I didn't change. The people who used to be Christian Patriots did. Most of what was once pro-American is now considered the fringe and what was perceived as socialist to communistic is now acceptable. In my lifetime I've witnessed the culmination of the strategies and can explain many of them so that you understand.
For example, in the 1980s approximately 87 percent of the people polled were against National ID. Then, in 2001 the World Trade Center was attacked by what the media says were Saudi terrorists. In the blink of an eye the conservatives began pushing the liberal National ID agenda and we ended up with the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify system. The left went right and the right went left. Both used different pretexts, but the fact is the Overton Window had come into play and the conservatives began making (and still make) ultra liberal arguments in favor of the womb to the 24 / 7 /365 tomb surveillance society. They have forgotten the arguments against such a destructive path and they cannot be reached with reason and reminded of WHY National ID is a terrible idea. Conservatives won't even allow you to tell them the fallacies of the talking points they've adopted. The path from Liberty to acceptance of National ID went like this:
Big Lie Technique Pavlovian Conditioning Subliminal Conditioning Hegelian Dialectics
Don't know what they are? That's okay. I will be back and explain them so you see the progression that allowed the Overton Window to be effective.
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Nov 15, 2023 20:11:03 GMT
Whether by design or by accident the powers that be employ many different techniques to move the goal post and con the average person in accepting BIG GOVERNMENT and rejecting Liberty. Sometimes one strategy is being used; sometimes more than one; many times all the strategies are being used by different entities and for their own reasons, but all leading to the same place. Let’s review them Big Lie Technique Pavlovian Conditioning Subliminal Conditioning Hegelian Dialectics Big Lie Technique - Adolf Hitler did not invent the Big Lie Technique. He only observed it and commented on it. According to one source: " The German expression was first used by Adolf Hitler in his book Mein Kampf (1925) to describe how people could be induced to believe so colossal a lie because they would not believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously". Hitler claimed that the technique had been used by Jews to blame Germany's loss in World War I on German general Erich Ludendorff, who was a prominent nationalist political leader in the Weimar Republic" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_liePalvovian Conditioning - We are all familiar with Pavlov’s experiments with dogs. He discovered that they would salivate at the sound of a bell if he always rang the bell prior to feeding the dogs. Humans are conditioned the same way. A good example is that the powers that be keep telling us that racism and discrimination are bad. Pretty soon, the average person gets defensive about being called a racist or practicing discrimination. Why did you choose your spouse of significant other? Did you just walk up to the first person you saw and said, “Hey let’s give it a shot?” No, you discriminated. Are you attracted to one color of person over another? If so, then you are a racist. In reality, there is no negative connotation to the buzz words we’ve been conditioned to respond to Hegelian Dialectics - This is the most widely used technique, but it is harder to explain. Let’s try: Thesis + Anti-thesis = Synthesis What? Sounds complicated, right? Let’s uncomplicate it: Thesis – Create a Problem Anti-thesis – Create the chaos and controversy necessary to sell the notion that the problem exists Synthesis – Allow the people to pick from pre-planned solutions to the problem you created Think on those as we will discuss a few examples of how these techniques were used and are being used today to control how you think.
|
|
professorx
Global Moderator
Site Administrator
Posts: 410
|
Post by professorx on Nov 16, 2023 20:11:43 GMT
No person with a rational mind exists that can make a case that the msm is not involved in issues like selling the masses on National ID. For those over 40 they can remember when talk of National ID and all kinds of registrations were fighting words for those on the right. The right today sees no other way of controlling immigration without National ID. They seem unaware or blind to the consequences of such a policy. It was a liberal policy until 9 - 11. It is with great anticipation that we want to see how all of this led up to what we have today. This view about the Overton Window is something that has gotten little to no notice of on most discussion boards.
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Nov 17, 2023 3:39:52 GMT
No person with a rational mind exists that can make a case that the msm is not involved in issues like selling the masses on National ID. For those over 40 they can remember when talk of National ID and all kinds of registrations were fighting words for those on the right. The right today sees no other way of controlling immigration without National ID. They seem unaware or blind to the consequences of such a policy. It was a liberal policy until 9 - 11. It is with great anticipation that we want to see how all of this led up to what we have today. This view about the Overton Window is something that has gotten little to no notice of on most discussion boards. Outside of explaining how the race issue was changed so even those on the right want a mutually assured destruction, I do like discussing National ID since it happened while I was lobbying. Let's explain that one first. In the 1980s most people were against National ID. By about 1998 (if not then, thereabouts) there were plans within the government to implement a National ID Card. I may still have a prototype of the fingerprint registration that was to be issued to the U.S. Postal Service. As per my own personal destiny I found myself working for a company that was part of the technology of creating the proposed National ID Card. I also know that there were those in think tanks coming up with scenarios by which people could be convinced to support National ID. As a result of that, I went to a Town Hall Meeting given by Congressman (at that time) who was Rep. John Linder. I told him that the government was sitting on intelligence that there would be a major terrorist attempt within the next five years, but nobody had any interest in doing anything to stop it. He laughed, said I listened to too many Internet rumors and brushed me off by asking rhetorically, " And why would they do that?" My response was that there was already major proposed legislation that would strip us of our rights and, ultimately lead to an attack on the Constitution. Three years later 9 /11 happens. And then... October 25, 2001 only weeks after 9 / 11 the so - called " Patriot Act" was passed and then signed into law the next day by King George the Bush. Whoa, wait! You are expected that someone drafted a law that was approximately 348 pages long and affected an untold number of statutes and court rulings. This bill was researched, shepardized, proofread, considered by both Houses of Congress (who must've read it if they were going to vote for it) and agreed to by close to 535 federal legislators who can't even agree on what time of day it is at a given moment. Bull Freaking Excrement. The so - called " Patriot Act" was written years in advance and like the Democrats proclaim, " never let a good crisis go to waste." Only this time it was the Republicans. I'm not alleging a conspiracy wherein the American government participated in 9 / 11. Neither am I dismissing the possibility. My rational mind says that intelligence sources knew that an attempt would be made, but they didn't pursue it. They probably thought that the plans would implode or that state and local LEOs would catch most of the terrorists before anything serious happened. All that was needed was the threat. Let's follow this one through: Thesis: Pass laws rescinding the guarantees in the Constitution relative to due process, equal protection, free speech, religious practice and our Freedom Association / Disassociation not to mention the many privacy concerns Anti-thesis - Create fear and chaos by allowing threats to paralyze the American psyche so that they will support a forfeiture of Rights while laying blame on terrorists, foreigners and ultimately immigration Synthesis - The so - called " Patriot Act" followed up by National ID - It was no coincidence that both the so - called " Patriot Act" and the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify legislation was introduced by the same man, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, a Tea Party Republican. There was a broader agenda at play, but it is obvious how certain events were manipulated to move the Overton Window more and more toward the side of those wanting a bigger and more intrusive government with fewer and fewer Liberties and NO unalienable Rights. So successful was that campaign that what used to be patriots are unable to understand or accept the fact that they were played. They cannot understand (nor do they want to) that there are better ways to address the root cause of the evils they perceive. AND they don't include giving up your Rights. We have a long way to go...
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Nov 17, 2023 19:28:18 GMT
Those who laud the Overton Window are beside themselves with its success regarding racial issues in America. It is here where every technique to foment racial discord and encourage genocide and the mutually assured destruction of the Republic along with the White race is practiced. It is from here we learn the greatest lessons. In all the political jockeying of liberal v. conservative; right v. left and Republican v. Democrat we've witnessed that political issues are manipulated in a variety of ways and the Overton Window explains why what was good yesterday is considered evil today. I'm not going to try and convince you to join one side or another or to believe one thing over another. This is pure reality as you've never heard it. Thomas Jefferson wrote a personal letter in which he admonished William Johnson: "... on every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was past." founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-3562Today the legal community gets bogged down in arguments over a living Constitution versus original intent. Then it becomes a further argument over Textualism v. Pragmatism v. Originalism. Some would argue that Stare Decisis is another way to interpret the Constitution. Those who seek to use the judicial branch of government to control what you think have devised umpteen different theories about how to interpret the Constitution. In the end the courts have become not just arbiters of the law, but judges use their positions to legislate from the bench. In doing so, they can push what was once fringe thinking into mainstream thinking. Enter the immigration debacle. In September of 2001 Saudi terrorists attacked the World Trade Center. The United States went after Iraq and a convoluted story about " Weapons of Mass Destruction" in retaliation. After that happened, I didn't tie that mindset to what would go on several years later when the so - called " Patriot Act" and then National ID were front and center in the news. Those who are molding public opinion will take unrelated events and build a case for it. Those who study the history of the legislation, the intent, etc. often walk away with a different perspective. Here is how the powers that be ended up controlling the narrative of immigration and steering the people into some very dark places. America was founded by Whites for the advancement, protection and preservation of the White race of which our forefathers believed were the Israelites of the Bible, building a beacon of Freedom that would set the standard for all other people. As such they did not believe in miscegenation (race mixing.) Inter-racial marriages were outlawed. But, more than that, within weeks after the ratification of the Constitution, Congress passed the first immigration law which limited citizenship to free white persons. United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof... Continued in my next post
|
|
professorx
Global Moderator
Site Administrator
Posts: 410
|
Post by professorx on Nov 18, 2023 3:38:44 GMT
Realizing that this thread is not partisan this link is being provided as it is an msm link about the history of immigration. www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/immigration/global-timeline/It's tempting to talk about how the meaning of labels has been changing but it looks like that is coming. For now no comment from this side while the information is flowing in an unfolding pattern.
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Nov 18, 2023 21:59:13 GMT
Realizing that this thread is not partisan this link is being provided as it is an msm link about the history of immigration. www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/immigration/global-timeline/It's tempting to talk about how the meaning of labels has been changing but it looks like that is coming. For now no comment from this side while the information is flowing in an unfolding pattern. I had to use the example of immigration to illustrate that the concept of left v. right, conservative v. liberal and Democrat v. Republican is a fictional idea with little basis to support it. For instance, the whole idea of so - called " illegal immigration" being a conservative trait is without sound basis since the MAGA Republicans have adopted that issue as their defining political stance. George Washington was the only president that did not belong to a political party. He ran two terms as the only presidential candidate in the United States that did not belong to a political party. The Federalists started in opposition to the policies of Washington. Technically speaking, the Federalists would have been the liberal party though that distinction is based more on the fact that the Federalists wanted a strong central government. George Washington didn't like the idea of political parties. It was the Federalists that started calling anti - Federalists the Democratic Republican Party. The Democratic Republican Party began in 1792 and ended in 1834. So, the Democratic Republican Party (which was about limited powers, states rights and the Bill of Rights) would have been the conservative party. The Federalists didn't last but, for the two terms of Washington and they were pretty much over. On the issues of race and immigration they simply were not major issues wherein people had differing views on it. Social liberals (by today's standards) want to claim Washington as their own due to his many statements which, on the surface, sound like he wanted an inclusive society. The problem is that the topic of " the people," in those days referred to the White race. Why else would Washington sign a law limiting immigration to " free white persons?" Would you consider Washington a liberal or a conservative? Washington was a big government type and that made him a liberal (by our standards) and yet he was what is known in modern parlance as a racist. Washington's views on an inclusive society was based on the presupposition that this was going to be a White country. I bring that up because the immigration laws are directly related to the issue of race. Specifically, the anti-immigration laws of the United States were not passed on some idiotic notion about " illegal" immigration. Immigration and slavery were as different as night and day. As a matter of fact, Republican Abraham Lincoln (who signed the illegally ratified Fourteenth Amendment into law) once stated: " I am not, nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people". Douglas, Stephen A. (1991). The Complete Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858. University of Chicago Press. p. 235. The liberal Republicans of the day, by and large, did not want to give up our cultural integrity; they just abhorred the idea of slavery. And, since the left likes to hate on Americans, claiming it is part of " our" dark history, in 1660 English Monarch Charles II created the Royal African Company to deal in the business of transporting enslaved people. But I digress. Liberal Republicans ended slavery. It was Democrats that held onto the concept of racial integrity. That brings me to the FACTS behind so - called " illegal immigration." And, in 1929 Coleman Livingston Blease, a Democrat introduced what is now 8 United States Code 1325 that deals with " improper entry." THAT is your statute that created the class of so - called " illegal immigrants." According to Wikipedia: Blease ..." was against education for black people. As U.S. senator, he advocated penalties for interracial couples attempting to get married, criticized US First Lady Lou Hoover for inviting a black guest to tea at the White House, and was the architect of Section 1325. In 1926, Blease proposed an anti-miscegenation amendment to the US Constitution to require Congress to set a punishment for interracial couples attempting to get married and for people officiating an interracial marriage..." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cole_L._BleaseMy basic position is that being anti-immigrant has its roots in the Democrat Party. The same objections to " foreigners" then are the same ones that Democrat Bill Clinton used in the 1990s. SOMEBODY moved the envelope and caused public opinion to change AND predicated on a LIE! Opposition to foreigners coming into the United States has NEVER been about some perceived legal or illegal issue. The laws were put into place to maintain our country's cultural and racial integrity.
|
|
professorx
Global Moderator
Site Administrator
Posts: 410
|
Post by professorx on Nov 19, 2023 2:08:42 GMT
Realizing that this thread is not partisan this link is being provided as it is an msm link about the history of immigration. www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/immigration/global-timeline/It's tempting to talk about how the meaning of labels has been changing but it looks like that is coming. For now no comment from this side while the information is flowing in an unfolding pattern. I had to use the example of immigration to illustrate that the concept of left v. right, conservative v. liberal and Democrat v. Republican is a fictional idea with little basis to support it. For instance, the whole idea of so - called " illegal immigration" being a conservative trait is without sound basis since the MAGA Republicans have adopted that issue as their defining political stance. George Washington was the only president that did not belong to a political party. He ran two terms as the only presidential candidate in the United States that did not belong to a political party. The Federalists started in opposition to the policies of Washington. Technically speaking, the Federalists would have been the liberal party though that distinction is based more on the fact that the Federalists wanted a strong central government. George Washington didn't like the idea of political parties. It was the Federalists that started calling anti - Federalists the Democratic Republican Party. The Democratic Republican Party began in 1792 and ended in 1834. So, the Democratic Republican Party (which was about limited powers, states rights and the Bill of Rights) would have been the conservative party. The Federalists didn't last but, for the two terms of Washington and they were pretty much over. On the issues of race and immigration they simply were not major issues wherein people had differing views on it. Social liberals (by today's standards) want to claim Washington as their own due to his many statements which, on the surface, sound like he wanted an inclusive society. The problem is that the topic of " the people," in those days referred to the White race. Why else would Washington sign a law limiting immigration to " free white persons?" Would you consider Washington a liberal or a conservative? Washington was a big government type and that made him a liberal (by our standards) and yet he was what is known in modern parlance as a racist. Washington's views on an inclusive society was based on the presupposition that this was going to be a White country. I bring that up because the immigration laws are directly related to the issue of race. Specifically, the anti-immigration laws of the United States were not passed on some idiotic notion about " illegal" immigration. Immigration and slavery were as different as night and day. As a matter of fact, Republican Abraham Lincoln (who signed the illegally ratified Fourteenth Amendment into law) once stated: " I am not, nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people". Douglas, Stephen A. (1991). The Complete Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858. University of Chicago Press. p. 235. The liberal Republicans of the day, by and large, did not want to give up our cultural integrity; they just abhorred the idea of slavery. And, since the left likes to hate on Americans, claiming it is part of " our" dark history, in 1660 English Monarch Charles II created the Royal African Company to deal in the business of transporting enslaved people. But I digress. Liberal Republicans ended slavery. It was Democrats that held onto the concept of racial integrity. That brings me to the FACTS behind so - called " illegal immigration." And, in 1929 Coleman Livingston Blease, a Democrat introduced what is now 8 United States Code 1325 that deals with " improper entry." THAT is your statute that created the class of so - called " illegal immigrants." According to Wikipedia: Blease ..." was against education for black people. As U.S. senator, he advocated penalties for interracial couples attempting to get married, criticized US First Lady Lou Hoover for inviting a black guest to tea at the White House, and was the architect of Section 1325. In 1926, Blease proposed an anti-miscegenation amendment to the US Constitution to require Congress to set a punishment for interracial couples attempting to get married and for people officiating an interracial marriage..." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cole_L._BleaseMy basic position is that being anti-immigrant has its roots in the Democrat Party. The same objections to " foreigners" then are the same ones that Democrat Bill Clinton used in the 1990s. SOMEBODY moved the envelope and caused public opinion to change AND predicated on a LIE! Opposition to foreigners coming into the United States has NEVER been about some perceived legal or illegal issue. The laws were put into place to maintain our country's cultural and racial integrity. Trying to put this together is still confusing. Are you saying that whatever power was behind the illegal immigration slogans has some other agenda? MAGA continues to push the illegal immigration panic and denies it is about race. They keep saying we should secure our borders. You have one point that is easy to see. The issue about immigration is actually about race. Some people have drank the kool aid. It does not make a lot of sense in my mind. If we have no commitment toward race then what is the opposition to open borders really about?
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Nov 19, 2023 16:12:40 GMT
This site isn't allowing me to use the quote feature at the moment, but this is in response to Reply # 11 I began this thread with a quote by Thomas Jefferson regarding the natural progress of things. Whether you believe in the Bible, the conspiracy view of history, an accident theory of history, a combination of those things, or something else while the natural progress of things is for the government to gain ground, it always happens because of the deliberate acts of mortal men. The founders and framers of our Republic knew that it would be under constant attack by those who had a natural aversion to a limited government, Freedom and Liberty. Someone is always behind moving the needle to push us toward tyranny, globalism, socialism and / or communism. Having been involved in this argument for about two and half decades at this point, I'm surrounded by MAGA types and disinformation artists that know how to appeal to the prejudices and ignorance of the masses. The unspoken part of Trumpism is that the immigration laws exist for a reason, but those that say that accuse me of being a " White Nationalist." Think about this: " A double minded man is unstable in all his ways."James 1: 8 I'm sure you've heard of the psychological term cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person accepts two contradicting views and believes both equally at the same time. The Bible calls it being double minded. MAGA followers maintain that the immigration laws were enacted for a reason, but when faced with the reality of WHY those laws were enacted, they have been programmed to accuse the person telling them why of being a White Nationalist. Those people have been programmed, Pavlovian style, to react to certain stimuli and by calling me a White Nationalist, I'm supposed to run for cover, feel ashamed and be in fear of my life because the MAGA activist implied that I'm a racist or White Supremacist aka White Nationalist. Yet those are the same people hiding behind laws that were passed by people that were, unequivocally, White Supremacists (by our current definitions.) Further, those people aren't capable of reasoning to find out what THEY really believe. The standard canard is to accuse anyone that disagrees with them of being for "open borders." Okay, but what is the anti-thesis of open borders? Let's start with the Constitution Free Zone. The Constitution Free Zone is that area 100 miles inside the border where the Constitution is suspended on the pretext of enforcing the border wall and foreigners entering the U.S. without papers. What was once a conservative talking point, it is now exclusive to the left: www.aclu.org/documents/constitution-100-mile-border-zoneEven the most evil people can sometimes serve a public interest. Most of what the ACLU points out was right wing fare in the 1980s and the John Birch Society was using those talking points before the ACLU made them. The downside here is that if the left wants something, it is automatically opposed by the right. In this case, the left gets to watch the right destroy their own arguments. The right rails against the Fourth Amendment, weakening the Constitution and the manipulators pushing the Overton Window get to watch us inch closer and closer to global socialism. It should also be noted on this point that there is a real danger in how this Constitution Free Zone issue plays out in the future. The illegally ratified Fourteenth Amendment guarantees to all persons the equal protection of the laws. So, regardless of immigration status, everyone shares the same guarantees. IF the government can violate the Fourth Amendment on the basis pursuing suspected criminals in the Constitution Free Zone, then why should any other property owner not be subjected to the Fourth Amendment violation if the government can say they are pursuing criminal activity? Under disinformation agents like Donald Trump, the average MAGA supporter is now opposed to the Fourth Amendment. It is hard for the right to admit when they've been had, but in this instance, they were had. Secure the border is a mantra hiding an ulterior motive by the globalists. IF we really wanted to secure the border, we'd begin by letting private property owners along the border protect their property line from trespassers. I will have a bit more in a follow up to this later on.
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Nov 20, 2023 4:14:05 GMT
Earlier today I asked the rhetorical question about what the anti-thesis of open borders. I started out with the Constitution Free Zone. By jumping onto one bandwagon an activist is embracing other political issues, whether wittingly or not.
The secondary costs (or maybe primary costs) of having a militarized border is that the citizenry is effectively locked in. How do you think the Palestinians felt when the borders were shut down and the citizenry couldn't escape the Hamas v. Israeli war? I've always had the gut feeling that some people supporting MAGA understand what is going and what Trumpism is really about. They may think that Trump is lying to the Israelis, the gays, the globalists and Democrats; however, Trump was one of them and probably still is. Each of his moves is calculated to con the right into adopting left wing talking points and left wing objectives. The part that gets confusing is the simple fact that those who influence public opinion have most believing that if you are for one issue or another and against one issue or another, you fit a predetermined side be it left, right or whatever. Labels are used to keep the sheeple from thinking. And for every thing you gain, there is something lost.
A secondary cost of adopting the left's talking points on so - called "illegal immigration" is that the Fourth Amendment is trashed. The left uses the Fourth Amendment only to the extent that it helps them circumvent the guarantees in the Bill of Rights. If you ask any political prisoner who had their Fourth Amendment Rights ignored if they regret having been on the wrong side of the Constitution where the Fourth Amendment would have saved them, I guarantee they will all side with the protections of the Fourth Amendment.
The next cost to pursuing the MAGA course of action was National ID. Trump took up the cause of "getting rid of illegals" as the mantra goes. Consequently Tea Party Republican James Sensenbrenner introduced the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify legislation. BTW, it may have mentioned earlier in this thread, but Sensenbrenner introduced the so - called "Patriot Act" on the pretext of protecting us from foreign terrorists. National ID is predicated on your Socialist Surveillance Number ... I mean "Social Security Number" and that number as your de facto unique identifier is how everybody tracks you. Everything you do from getting a cell phone to a job and from credit and loans to health insurance and buying a firearm are all tied to your SSN and National ID. Therefore, those who favor having the government to gain ground were able to gain ground and what, exactly, has the so - called "conservatives" gotten in return? Conservatism used to mean reducing the size, power and scope of government. Yet speak to any of them about this topic and the response you get is, "well I don't care what it costs."
Due process, private property Rights, the Right to Privacy and a 24 / 7 / 365 womb to the tomb system that keeps you under surveillance are the costs of the war against so - called "illegal immigrants." In the last 25 years those people cannot tell you what they've gained. The reality is, the left conned the right into building a pretext for this massive sized government that will supposedly build a wall around the United States and keep people out that don't have "papers." It lacks a rational foundation.
The United States became the greatest nation in the annals of history with open borders yet it never dawns on those who got hornswoggled by the left to ask one relevant and important question: What were the laws like that allowed us to become a great nation without a POLICE STATE? How did we manage for centuries without a militarized border and a wall? How did the left win? They conned the right into picking up the battles the left started, but couldn't sell to the masses. The left has little interest in sinking their own cause so they offer token resistance - and even let the right get the illusion of a political "win" after the right forfeits their essential Liberty.
Adding insult to injury, those wearing the label of MAGA and / or conservative (what is perceived at the right) end up making socialist arguments instead of having productive conversations revolving around how to make America great again (imply it was great, but insinuating that the only way to do it again is to accept socialism instead of asking what we did wrong.) I'm not slinging baseless accusations. Think it over. ONE of the pretexts to pursuing the war against so - called "illegals" is to accuse them of stealing Americans jobs. The ideology of socialism has an agenda. The word means something. When the government owns the jobs and the production of a country, you have socialism. Our Republican Form of Government means that the person who creates the job, owns that job. The individual owns the land his / her company sits on; they own the building; they own the contents (all of this subject to private loans.) Now, regardless of the label people wear, most buy into that stealing Americans jobs mantra. It is a socialist postulate AND that solution fails to answer what the correct solution really is.
That concludes that part of the analogies on that subject. Next time we can change gears and cover other aspects.
|
|
professorx
Global Moderator
Site Administrator
Posts: 410
|
Post by professorx on Nov 20, 2023 13:38:26 GMT
From the point of studying tactics it never made sense to get so mad because people did not have registration papers. The Mexicans and others from that part of the world come here in droves but if our objections are not about race they simply do not make sense. The power to tax comes from the voters. If the Hispanics were really not paying enough taxes we can tax them and leave them alone from a legal perspective. It is simply not that. Most people know that the flood is changing our national character. If we are not willing to acknowledge that and fight on that basis we might need to lose that battle.
The idea of a wall is laughable. The amount of money needed to build it, maintain it, man it, enforce the laws like the Constitution Free Zone, pay for the ongoing costs of technology would cost more than we allegedly lose in taxes. Then people tunnel under walls and corrupt border watchers let people in just as they do right now. Congress would make it easier for families to get their kin into this country and the wall would make the issue worse. Trading all our liberty for the enforcement of a law intended to promote white supremacy does not make sense. Maybe the white race in America is afraid of honesty.
|
|