Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion

Rupert Dreyfus
This topic is about Rupert Dreyfus
181 views
MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS > Dissecting anti-immigration arguments

Comments Showing 1-50 of 102 (102 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1 3

message 1: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11072 comments UK author Rupert Dreyfus has written what I consider a very astute article about rising anti-immigration sentiments. The article, which was published the other day by media outlet Consented, ties in with the upcoming referendum in Britain about the UK potentially exiting the EU: http://www.consented.co.uk/read/brexi...

Here's the article in full:

ANTI-IMMIGRATION ARGUMENT CONTINUES WAR AGAINST POOR
By Rupert Dreyfus
7 JUN , 2016


“You have more in common with immigrants than with your leaders.” – Akala

As the date of the EU referendum nears, anti-immigration has become one of the few dominating arguments which is convincing floating voters to pitch a tent in the leave camp.

After weeks of a close but steady majority for remain, the current polls are showing an assertive lead for those who want out and it’s no coincidence that this has come largely off of the back of A-list celebrity Brexiters Boris Johnson and Michael Gove publically frothing over the idea of having an immigration system based on the Australian model – even though we already have one.

Meanwhile The Telegraph has recently reported that Nigel Farage has repeated his claims that women in the UK are at risk of sex attacks because of the “cultural differences” between British society and migrants; a brand of racism which is so archaic, its popularity was last seen in the British colonies a century ago.

What raises an eyebrow is that the remain camp has already pulled out its trump card which tends to sway all referendums and elections considerably: the economic argument. A significant majority of economists have clubbed together to point out the economic dangers of leaving the EU.

The A-list Brexiters have responded like all free market fundamentalists tend to respond to economic uncertainty: have faith in the God of Neoliberalism.

Contrast this with the Scottish National Party who in 2014 had stalled on questions of economic uncertainty during the Scottish independence referendum. Westminster seized on this, browbeat the electorate for a couple of weeks and the SNP never seemed to recover from it.

However, for the time being it appears that the vast majority of the leave campaign don’t care about abstract concepts such as “economic uncertainty” and would risk tumbling the stock exchange in order to keep out the immigrants.

It would be wildly unfair to accuse the entire leave camp of being Union Jack flag waving racists. While a small percentage of Brexiters no doubt think we still trade in slave labour and tea, many of them have real concerns which have unfortunately manifested as a misguided, impotent protest against the EU while our domestic leaders are set to get away relatively unscathed.

It’s pretty clear to the rest of us that if we do come out of the EU then the key problems of living in what has been called the most corrupt country in the world by mafia expert Roberto Saviano aren’t going to go away.

In fact, these deep-rooted problems of corruption and greed are likely to intensify as we watch an unrestrained Tory government dismantle the welfare state, the NHS, public services, workers’ rights, human rights and everything else that binds the fabric of our society together and provides us with at least some protection against abuses of power.

We only have to look at their manifesto to see that the Tories aren’t going to use any money saved from exiting the EU to compensate those who have already been brutalised by austerity; the sick and disabled, and those getting robbed on zero-hour contracts to name only a few. But what they will do is scrap the Human Rights Act.

So when the age-old clincher of economic uncertainty appears to have little to no impact on public opinion, we really have to ask ourselves why the anti-immigration argument – an argument which doesn’t hold up to scrutiny – has so much sway over the British public?

There are clearly many reasons but one observation I’d like to make is that the human targets for this hostility all share one thing in common: they are at the extremely poor end of the income spectrum.

Wealthy migrants such as Russian oligarchs, Chinese entrepreneurs and professional footballers from outside the EU have up until recently been free to come to Britain without prejudice. In the eyes of the propagandised such people aren’t migrants. However, if you’re poor and considered unskilled then you’re definitely a migrant.

Things are getting so ridiculous that there have recently been proposals for an immigration system which favours the wealthy. This means that if you’re rich enough, you can buy your way out of having to learn to speak English whereas if you’re comparatively poor, you have to jump through all manner of hoops to get here.

Furthermore; if you’re arriving in the UK because you’re fleeing illegal wars kick-started by the very countries which are turning against you or, like the rest of us, you simply want to improve your quality of life then you have nothing to offer us. This is a rich man’s world and you just happen to live in it. But not here: go live somewhere else.

If the leave camp has their way on the 23rd then this trend perhaps indicates who is going to be the next victim once poor people from overseas can no longer be blamed: our domestic poor.

This means it’ll be you; it’ll be me; it’ll be the poor fella on the zero-hour contract; it’ll be the supermarket till operator; it’ll be the office cleaner; it’ll be the homeless person begging for change; it’ll be the bedbound; the needy; those with mental health issues.

At this rate it’ll be anybody but those who are actually responsible for the drudgery we endure because this is the Age of Impotent Protest. This is the age where we do what we’re supposed to do and tear our society apart. This is right-wing warfare in action.

The only way we can surmount this ugly, divisive tactic is by recognising who the real enemy is and not letting them out of our sights because otherwise this is what you get.

----------------------------

Rupert Dreyfus is the author of Spark and The Rebel's Sketchbook; transgressive black comedies which keep the spirit of rebellion alive by taking swipes at the establishment as well as those nightmarish corporations which seem hell-bent on turning our world into one giant supermarket. You can find him at www.rupertdreyfus.co.uk

Rupert Dreyfus


message 2: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments Yeah, that's a great article.


message 3: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11072 comments Sad to think the masses are being distracted by immigration issues and blaming minorities instead of realising the elite are repeatedly screwing us with high-finance/banking chicanery, Big Pharma rip-offs and their ongoing wars...

Rupert hit the nail on the head in the article: we have more in common with immigrants than our political leaders.


message 4: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments Absolutely. And even if one does believe that immigrants are causing problems in our country (which they're not), I find it sickeningly laughable that people blame the migrants rather than the politicians that allowed them to be here in the first place. Makes no sense at all - unless you're a racist illogical cunt!


message 5: by James, Group Founder (last edited Jun 11, 2016 06:27AM) (new)

James Morcan | 11072 comments Melora, I think that's a very balanced post you wrote and of course all the crimes and issues you bring up are legitimate and concerning. Thanks for sharing these media reports as I haven't had time of late to keep up to date with the latest news in Europe and Germany regarding these issues.

I think though there are two separate discussions operating in tandem in this thread.

One is what you imply: Immigration (including acceptance of refugees) should be more carefully monitored with the right restrictions put in place to make sure we don't allow criminals and/or terrorists into our borders. Makes perfect sense to me.

The other broader topic relates to the article Rupert wrote: Migrants are not our enemies and cannot be blamed for all the wider problems our political leaders have created. Also makes sense to me, especially when we consider throughout history Far Right, fascist leaders have often swept into power by blaming migrants, foreigners and racial/religious minorities for problems that have nothing to do with immigration.

That's my two cents anyway.


message 6: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments Melora wrote: "Harry wrote: "Absolutely. And even if one does believe that immigrants are causing problems in our country (which they're not), I find it sickeningly laughable that people blame the migrants rather..."

It's pretty simple from where I stand, Melora. When I said "if one does believe that immigrants are causing problems in our country (which they're not)" I was talking in very broad terms, and didn't mention any criminal behaviour. I was thinking more along the lines of "the immigrants are taking our jobs" and other such nonsense.

Criminals are criminals regardless of where they come from and who they are and there will always be crime and other problems committed by people of all backgrounds and cultures, of course.

There'll be more natives of any country causing more crimes and problems than immigrants, so I don't think it's important to say 'this many immigrants caused these crimes'. People are people and people create crimes. That's not to say that it's not important to say 'this faction of people are causing this' - whether it be underground paedophile rings from a certain country or the Mafia or whatever. Let's blame those individual factions/people and not blur the issue with immigration - not that I'm saying you were at all.


message 7: by T E N Z I N (new)

T E N Z I N (SPACESspaces) | 7 comments Harry wrote: "Absolutely. And even if one does believe that immigrants are causing problems in our country (which they're not), I find it sickeningly laughable that people blame the migrants rather than the poli..."

xD


message 8: by Rupert (last edited Jun 12, 2016 03:44PM) (new)

Rupert Dreyfus | 4 comments Thanks to everyone who is discussing this article - regardless of what you’ve taken away from it. I don’t tend to get involved with online forum debates these days because of time management issues. However, I’d like to chuck my two pence worth into the piss pot with regards to some of the more pertinent points I’ve been reading…

Melora states: “as someone who cares very deeply about human rights issues, I don't believe that it's fair to completely ignore the crimes that actually are being committed by a large number of migrants -- or, even worse, to say that no such crimes are occurring.”

First off: thanks for reading and thanks for your thoughts. The following is a reply to the numerous points you’ve raised. I enjoyed reading your thoughts and I hope that this post is received in the friendly spirit it’s intended.

I don’t know if the above quote was aimed at my article but I’d like to reassure you that I’m not ignoring any crimes or saying that such crimes aren’t occurring. As far as I’m concerned the topic of criminality is outside the scope of what the above article is about. To clarify: the article is about the anti-immigration brigade having sway over the EU referendum and what this means in real terms i.e. a continuation of the war against the poor. Criminality is a separate issue but seen as though you’ve raised it, I’ll put some thoughts down for you.

However, I think you should perhaps read the sources you link us to because at least one of them contradicts your view that “a large number of migrants” are committing crimes. To the contrary the Yahoo article you linked us to says the exact opposite: “the vast majority of migrants didn’t commit any crimes”. But if we don’t read these articles thoroughly then we get caught up in the horrific details which can overshadow the realities.

Because you’ve brought up human rights, I’d also like to ask: do you care for article 6 of the UDHR 1948 (“Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law”) and do you believe that it should be consistently upheld for every single charge that you’ve linked us to or do you think we should accept a trial by media? I’d argue that the surest way to undermine human rights is to read news articles and mistake them for crime reports. The two are very different.

This is what I think about the rape ‘epidemic’ you’ve referred to: when I hear that somebody’s committed a crime such as rape I don’t blame a large group of unrelated people for it: I blame the actual rapist. If I was to be consistent and blame entire groups for the acts of one criminal then we’d all be guilty of rape by association. But if we seriously want to protect human rights and the rule of law, such a position of ‘guilt by association’ becomes indefensible.

It’s come to light over the last few years that there’s been a very sinister and active ring of sex offenders and paedophiles in the UK. These were high profiles celebrities and politicians and could be identified as being mostly white men. Do I read about these horrendous things and begin to blame all white men for what happened or do I blame those who are actually found to be guilty of the crimes? As it goes I blame only those who are proven to be guilty. Blaming others by association is a slippery slope. Should we go further and prosecute everyone for one person’s heinous act? No we shouldn’t, because this is what happens in countries where there is no rule of law. It’s why in places like North Korea entire families will be sent to labour camps because one person allegedly did something naughty against the regime. North Korea doesn’t have the protection of the law; people in Europe do and this includes migrants.

You state: “if one really researches the subject… and seeks out the information that the mainstream media has been deliberately concealing…”

I’m sceptical that the mainstream media has deliberately concealed anything. I actually think they do a good job of shining the spotlight exactly where they want to shine it. For example; why aren’t those people who are outraged by the rape ‘epidemic’ also getting outraged over the 160 deaths of asylum seekers across Europe in the last 5 years? It’s because they don’t know the full extent of what’s going on. Why don’t they know the full extent of what’s going on? Because the mainstream media are busy painting a negative picture of migrants. They’re all just rapists and criminals apparently.

http://www.irr.org.uk/wp-content/uplo...

With regards to mainstream reportage of the migrant crisis: I’d also like to note that the Ethical Journalism Network (EJN) argued back in December of 2015 that there’s been a global failure among journalists to provide balanced reportage. This includes all the corporate media articles that you’ve linked us to (FYI the Daily Mail is now infamous for supporting Hitler and other fascists back in the ‘30s so I can’t take anything they say seriously and The Sun is the media equivalent of a willy warmer: seems nice but it’s full of pricks).

According to the EJN the British media has consistently reported “without a sense of scale or balance” while journalists exploit a handful of migrants’ stories –particularly those in Calais who want to come to the UK (some of which are British nationals who can’t return with their families). The portrayal has been overwhelmingly negative which explains why any conversation about migrants quickly descends into stories about widespread rapes and other atrocities. When they’re victims of human rights abuses, nobody cares because nobody knows it’s going on. Or worse still: they’re not thought of as humans.

So I think the problem isn’t with the mainstream media concealing information; rather they’re not providing good standards of journalism. It’s just a noise which helps to paralyse good people and divorce them of all empathy.

Melora states: “However, in light of what has truly, actually been occurring, across Europe, his statement regarding "racism" seems based more in blind, naive ideology than in actual reality.”

Let’s be absolutely clear: the only person I accused of racism in that article is Nigel Farage and I stand by it because he is a racist. Even people in the leave campaign have been openly condemning him for racism owed to that statement. If you think he’s not racist then you fall into a minority of people. Here’s an article on Farage being condemned for racist bigotry by other Brexiters for making the very statement I mention in the article:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2...

“My point, in all of this, is simply to say that these rapes ARE occurring (along with numerous other crimes and atrocities; far too many to even mention), and no one -- including the Elite -- are forcing these migrants to commit these acts; they do so of their own, independent will and volition.”

With all due respect: this is where I think you’ve misunderstood what the article is about. I apologise: perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. However, the article didn’t once say rapes aren’t occurring [in Europe] or that any crimes aren’t occurring for that matter. This falls outside the scope of the article. I’m only going over it because you’ve brought it up.

You state: “how could they not be perceived as "the enemy" by many, when they are behaving exactly how an enemy would?”

What, you mean all of them? Every single migrant is behaving exactly like an enemy would? Even the children? Those who are so young that they have to be carried by family members across entire nation states? The old and frail who’ve died making the journey across mainland Europe? What about those fleeing the Taliban and war-torn Syria for fighting the more extremist factions of Islam - countries where they stood hardly any chance of survival if they didn’t flee? Are they all to be perceived as enemies?

Melora states: “In addition, contrary to Mr. Dreyfus' assertion, there is nothing even remotely "racist" about speaking out about these crimes and being fearful that one could be a victim of such attacks, when, again, these things truly are occurring on a vast scale, in the real world.”

…not according to the Yahoo article you linked us to. Apparently the vast majority of migrants are obeying the law. But again: you’ve misquoted me. I specifically called Farage a racist which is consistent with public opinion (I’m presuming you don’t live in the UK?).

With regards to this: “Left-wing supporters of the campaign to remain in the European Union regularly claim that the EU “protects workers’ rights”, many almost implying it is the one body standing between the Conservative Party sending British people to the Victorian workhouse.”

Breitbart are nothing more than neoliberal phlegm. The Conservative Party are already sending people to the modern day equivalent of the Victorian workhouse. It’s called workfare. However, there are stark differences: the people who ended up in Victorian workhouses actually received a wage whereas people on workfare don’t.

Regardless; people who known their history don’t think the EU protects workers’ rights or fights for them. There’s a difference between identifying that an unrestrained Tory government will crush workers’ rights (as per the Beecroft report of employment law which I’m sure you’re aware of) and believing that the EU are a beacon of employment protection. They’re not: but they’ll go some way to keeping the Tories on a leash. And I say that as somebody who can’t stand the EU.

“But it’s unclear how they think British workers can maintain a lifestyle, in which they can afford to live in reasonable lodgings and bring up children, when foreign competitors are sleeping rough in camps with almost no day-to-day living expenses."

The answer is simple: unionise and target bosses who set your wages rather than turn against ‘foreign competition’ who definitely don’t set your wages. That’s like blaming your mechanic for a botch operation made by your dentist. It doesn’t make any sense. And foreign competition is a shit euphemism. In the workplace low-skilled foreign workers are our allies. They share the same oppressor. The only way to overcome the oppressor is to organise against it. Turning against each other solves nothing.

I may or may not get back to any responses – purely owed to the time it takes to write up replies and how little spare time I have for this sort of thing. However, I do appreciate your time reading my article, Melora. I hope you take the above comments in good spirits. I appreciate that you’ll probably have a lot to say in any response you formulate. I’m unlikely to respond – purely because of the time these things take. However, what I took from your reply is that you have good intentions out of a very real concern for how you see the world and I wish you all the best.

R.D


message 9: by Elisabet (last edited Jun 12, 2016 04:25PM) (new)

Elisabet Norris | 486 comments I'm not sure this is really relevant to the original article, but Melora has spent much energy on stating opinions and facts on immigration as a problem in Europe.
Melora, much of what you wrote is source dependent and it seems like only one side is being focused on. In order to make a good argument for your sources, you need to show sources from other viewpoints and argue your case from there.

The first article you referred to https://www.yahoo.com/news/migrants-l... states this:

“Absolute numbers of crimes committed by Syrians, Afghans and Iraqis - the three biggest groups of asylum seekers in Germany - were high but given the proportion of migrants that they account for, their involvement in crimes was "clearly disproportionately low", the report said.

It gave no breakdown of the number of actual crimes and of would-be crimes, nor did it state what percentage the 69,000 figure represented with respect to the total number of crimes and would-be crimes committed in the first three months of 2016.

The report stated that the vast majority of migrants did not commit any crimes.
It is the first time the BKA has published a report on crimes committed by migrants containing data from all of Germany's 16 states, so there is no comparable data.

The report showed that 29.2 percent of the crimes migrants committed or tried to commit in the first quarter were thefts, 28.3 percent were property or forgery offences and 23 percent offences such as bodily harm, robbery and unlawful detention.
Drug-related offences accounted for 6.6 percent and sex crimes accounted for 1.1 percent."

This does not appear to me to support your one sentence focus from the article. Cherry picking is not a good way to argue a point you are passionate about.

Your next three statements all came from the same article: http://www.news.com.au/finance/econom...
Which is fine, but, again, it makes for a one-sided argument.

Finding articles to prove the contrary of many of the things you said is just as easy:

Immigrants are good for the economy. They have actually been a part of creating jobs for Brits.
According to Creatingourjobs.org (DueDil report 2014) There are 456,073 migrant entrepreneurs in the UK. They represent 155 nationalities from across the world; 464,527 companies founded or co-founded by migrant entrepreneurs total 14.5%, or 1 in 7 of all UK companies; 1.16 million migrant-founded employ at least 1.16 million people around the UK.

DueDil also calculated 16% first generation migrants in UK start their own firm compared to 9% of UK natives.
Instead of naming multiple examples, case studies and links to multiple articles can be found here:
http://www.creatingourjobs.org/
The NIESR study (2012) found “general lack of an aggregate impact of migration (EU and non-EU) on unemployment.” http://www.niesr.ac.uk/sites/default/...

British Labour market: “Despite anecdotal evidence, we found little hard evidence that the inflow of accession migrants contributed to a fall in wages or a rise in claimant unemployment in the UK between 2004 and 2006” http://ftp.iza.org/dp3756.pdf

“Even a large influx of migrant workers is only likely to affect average hourly wages in the UK by a few pence an hour, either upwards or downwards. Compared with the impact of changes to the tax system (for example), the effects of immigration are negligible.” http://www.newunionism.net/library/in...

A study done on EU migrants (and Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway) found that migrants actually helped the economy: “Notable is the strong positive contribution made by immigrants from countries that joined the EU in 2004,” http://www.cream-migration.org/files/...

“immigrants replace natives in certain industries and the econometric studies that suggest that natives do not receive lower wages as a result”. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rc...

“The empirical evidence overwhelmingly suggests that there are zero or small negative effects of immigration on wages. Some papers find positive effects. The studies for the UK do not find negative wage effects.” http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rc...


“we can find no significant relationship between immigrants and violent crime….The prison data also show that it is non-violent crimes that were driving these incarceration rates rather than violent crimes.”
Out of two immigrant waves to the UK “There was no observable effect on violent crime for either wave. Nor were immigrant arrest rates different to natives.” http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/28732/

“Crime in neighbourhoods that have experienced mass immigration from eastern Europe over the past 10 years has fallen significantly, according to research that challenges a widely held view over the imp act of foreigners in the UK.”
“Brian Bell, a research fellow at the London School of Economics, said: “The view that foreigners commit more crime is not true. The truth is that immigrants are just like natives: if they have a good job and a good income they don’t commit crime.” https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/a...

“Cleveland has benefitted from the arrival of these refugees. The arrival of these refugees has worked to bolster the county’s population, increase demand for local housing as well as locally produced goods and services, and boost the regional economy via their employment and entrepreneurship. All of this economic activity ge3nerate3s substantial taxes for the region that it would otherwise forego.”
“Despite misconceptions, the Cleveland area refugee community relies relatively little on public assistance and what public benefits they do receive serves largely as an influx of federal funds into the Cleveland area, which without these refugee arrivals would be diverted to other cities that welcome new refugees.”
http://www.hias.org/sites/default/fil...

“From 1996 to 2011, the business startup rate of immigrants increased by more than 50 percent, while the native-born startup rate declined by 10 percent, to a 30-year low. Immigrants today are more than twice as likely to start a business as native-born citizens.”
“Despite accounting for only about 13 percent of the population, immigrants now start more than a quarter of new businesses in this country. Fast-growing ones, too—more than 20 percent of the 2014 Inc. 500 CEOs are immigrants. Immigrant-owned businesses pay an estimated $126 billion in wages per year, employing 1 in 10 Americans who work for private companies. In 2010, immigrant-owned businesses generated more than $775 billion in sales. If immigrant America were a stock, you’d be an idiot not to buy it.”

ALL NATIONS ARE NATIONS OF IMMIGRANTS. Ann Coulter.

Be careful when talking about migrants in general, but only focusing on specific ethnic groups and age groups......... cherry picking this way can make any group of people appear dangerous.


message 10: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments Rupert wrote: "Thanks to everyone who is discussing this article - regardless of what you’ve taken away from it. I don’t tend to get involved with online forum debates these days because of time management issues..."

Yep.


message 11: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments Lisa wrote: "I'm not sure this is really relevant to the original article, but Melora has spent much energy on stating opinions and facts on immigration as a problem in Europe.
Melora, much of what you wrote i..."


And yep.


message 12: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11072 comments Lisa wrote: "Be careful when talking about migrants in general, but only focusing on specific ethnic groups and age groups......... cherry picking this way can make any group of people appear dangerous. ..."

Very well said, Lisa.


message 13: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11072 comments Rupert wrote: "What, you mean all of them? Every single migrant is behaving exactly like an enemy would? Even the children? Those who are so young that they have to be carried by family members across entire nation states? The old and frail who’ve died making the journey across mainland Europe? What about those fleeing the Taliban and war-torn Syria for fighting the more extremist factions of Islam - countries where they stood hardly any chance of survival if they didn’t flee? Are they all to be perceived as enemies?..."

Those are crucial questions to ask anyone who makes sweeping statements about migrants, Rupert.
Excellent post.


message 14: by Elisabet (last edited Jun 14, 2016 07:39AM) (new)

Elisabet Norris | 486 comments James Morcan wrote: "Lisa wrote: "Be careful when talking about migrants in general, but only focusing on specific ethnic groups and age groups......... cherry picking this way can make any group of people appear dange..."


People are a little more complex than to be judge by their migratory choices.

We should be careful judging people whose common denominator may only be their culture, but in any other way, they may have more in common with any of us (in the free world ;) ) than each other.

I think this isn't just about immigration issue, but perhaps more appropriate for one of the other group threads about Universal Citizenship.

Melora touched on the recent shooting in Florida and its relation to ISIS.....I despise everything about terrorism, but what it comes down to, also, is the easy access to assault weapons in this country.
I can, to a certain extent, understand why some people want handguns for protection in their homes or why people need hunting rifles for hunting......but who the fuck needs an assault rifle? to protect your home? To load your meat with bullets? It only serves one purpose: mass shootings. This is not just an issue of terrorists immigrating, but also about the skewed views of gun control in this country.

So, my thought is that terrorists and 'bad' people in general also come in the form of immigrants, because they are humans!!......hell....just think about the Pilgrims!! The Europeans coming to North America had some pretty 'bad' people amongst them....does that mean they were all bad?


message 15: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11072 comments Elitist Rupert Murdoch pushes for Britain to leave the EU...
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-bri...


message 16: by James, Group Founder (last edited Jun 15, 2016 02:06AM) (new)

James Morcan | 11072 comments You could easily be right about the EU and it wouldn't surprise me.

I have no idea as to the truth of the matter and am entirely open-minded on the issue.

However, to play the Devil's Advocate....
I have been studying the Global Elite for many years and have come to the conclusion it's most times impossible to know what favors the ultimate power players in the world - only in hindsight does it seem possible to be really certain what favors the common people and what hinders them. The masses can at times be easily swayed or manipulated into believing they are part of various radical "People Power" movements which are on most occasions being slyly orchestrated by the world's real movers and shakers. They are masters of propaganda and trickery.

It's also my analysis that who the mainstream media and even many alternative/conspiracy publications regularly report as "the Elite" (e.g. US Presidents, UK Prime Ministers, bankers etc) are usually mid-level at best and mere pawns at worst - these so-called elitists have the illusion of power and that's about it. The real Elite are in my analysis the puppet masters behind the scenes in the shadows who are often invisible or semi-visible and often have subtler and far more complex agendas which sometimes and even regularly go against the positions of various world leaders such as Obama, Cameron etc.

So whilst I would admit on the surface it does appear as if the UK leaving the EU would be a victory for the common people and a blow to the Elite, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if this is all once again being engineered. After all, remember that the planned African Union and BRICS union and various other planned/existing unions including in Asia, have been labelled a threat to the Establishment. The powerful Euro currency also needs to be taken into consideration e.g. US officials were furious when various Middle Eastern oil-rich nations said they would list their oil in Euros not US Dollars - some economists even said in 2015 that if that would occur the US Dollar and the US economy would be doomed and Wall Street was fearful about this.

Also, I'd be very suspicious of any "movement for the People" that uses fear to incite change and influence voting. In this little discussion thread alone there is ample evidence in articles and posts of mass hysteria regarding immigration (a favorite tactic of elitists to effortlessly manipulate the voting public)...This discussion thread even includes some stating migrants are our "enemy"...


message 17: by James, Group Founder (last edited Jun 15, 2016 02:29AM) (new)

James Morcan | 11072 comments Before any of us come to any final conclusion whether Britain leaving the EU, and therefore likely breaking up the EU and decimating the Euro currency, is good or bad or neutral for the common people, some of the content in these articles should probably be considered...especially as these articles appear to indicate a much more complex narrative than "the common people vs the Elite" argument...

Are EU Elites Cheering For A Brexit? -- http://blog.gainesvillecoins.com/2016...

Brexit: Why are society’s most privileged complaining about elitism? -- https://inews.co.uk/opinion/brexit-re...

Brexit is an empire-era trick -- http://www.theguardian.com/politics/c...

However we vote, the elites will win the EU referendum -- http://www.theguardian.com/commentisf...

Queen backs Brexit as alleged EU bust-up with ex-Deputy PM emerges -- https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/pol...

Quitting the EU 'would help our security', former MI6 chief suggests -- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/...

Brexit and a turn to the right - The ‘special relationship’ might prosper again with a new U.S. president -- http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/201...

Republicans Back Brexit -- http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/janic...


message 18: by Elisabet (last edited Jun 15, 2016 06:58AM) (new)

Elisabet Norris | 486 comments Melora wrote: "Lisa wrote: "James Morcan wrote: "Lisa wrote: "Be careful when talking about migrants in general, but only focusing on specific ethnic groups and age groups......... cherry picking this way can mak..."

Your posts are quite lengthy, which makes it difficult to respond to all the statements you mention....with the time I have for now, I'd like to clear some things up for you....because, as you noted yourself about other people in this thread misunderstanding you or the issue at hand, I think that this applies to you as well.

Just because there are other methods of mass killings does not mean that we should sell guns. This sounds highly illogical to me.....yes, if they want to kill a bunch of people, then they will find a way, but why make it easier for them?
...and comparing planes to automatic weapons? These two things are mainly used for completely different purposes....but that being said, let me humor this idea: Look what has happened to airport security? As soon as planes were being used for the purpose of terrorism or hijacking, they went to work and found ways to tighten the security. They didn't think to themselves: well, if they're not going to use our planes, they'll just use automatic weapons or suicide vests, so lets not worry about security issues.

Keep in mind that nobody in this thread, as far as I have seen, has made excuses or justified criminal behaviors....I understand it more in terms of being an argument for discrimination.
You're right about cultures being different, hence the reasoning behind the "sex-ed" classes in Norway you referred to earlier.....sex crimes exists, because deviant humans exist.....these people would be the same in their country of origin....what makes it any better that they are criminals in their own country? Just because we were born in a safety bubble, does not mean we have the right to lock the doors for those in need of safety.
If you looked into some of the statistics I mentioned earlier, you'd see that most immigrants do not commit crimes.

I'm not sure why you'd make the assumption that I believe women are inferior or that I want gay people put to death? You are apparently not reading my posts for what they are.
I have not mentioned anything about women's rights, nor have I mentioned anything concerning gays....besides, the terrorist did not choose the club due to its gay culture.....the news say that he was considering Walt Disney World first.....which I'm glad he decided not to do.

You mentioned that you shouldn't judge a person based on their "opinions and political/social choices", so perhaps you shouldn't judge others by how you read between the lines in their posts....that also goes for how you misinterpreted Harry's post.


message 19: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments Melora wrote: "In fact, that was actually the precise reason why I chose to comment on this discussion thread, in the first place. :-) When I noticed Harry's statement that, "Makes no sense at all - unless you're a racist illogical cunt!" I was beyond shocked at how needlessly judgmental and "out of touch" (with the experiences and viewpoints of other people) that comment seemed.

(Again, if I may note, the Dalai Lama, himself, has expressed great concern over the migrant situation, and he is one of the most compassionate, logical and intelligent people on the planet -- the exact opposite of a "racist illogical cunt". :) )"



My full statement was:

" I find it sickeningly laughable that people blame the migrants rather than the politicians that allowed them to be here in the first place. Makes no sense at all - unless you're a racist illogical cunt!"

Obviously that statement was saying our politicians are more to blame than any immigrants. People who blame immigrants (as a whole) rather than the politicians making the decisions, are most definitely illogical, most likely racist, and in my opinion, a bunch of cunts.

So I don't understand when you say you were "shocked at how needlessly judgmental and "out of touch" (with the experiences and viewpoints of other people) that comment seemed."

Judgemental? Nope. Logical.

Out of touch? I've a feeling I'm more in touch with the everyday Brit over the issue of immigration than you are.

Shocked? At what? A reasonable perspective?


message 20: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments Lisa wrote: "Melora wrote: "Lisa wrote: "James Morcan wrote: "Lisa wrote: "Be careful when talking about migrants in general, but only focusing on specific ethnic groups and age groups......... cherry picking t..."

The voice of reason, as always Lisa.


message 21: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11072 comments But Harry, surely you at least enjoyed the accidental humour in the quoting of Nigel Firage in this thread?

Maybe it's time someone schooled people on who Firage is before anyone else quotes him again on immigration issues!


message 22: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments James Morcan wrote: "But Harry, surely you at least enjoyed the accidental humour in the quoting of Nigel Firage in this thread?

Maybe it's time someone schooled people on who Firage is before anyone else quotes him a..."


O.K, I'll clarify who Nigel Farage is for anyone who doesn't know: he's an illogical, racist cunt.


message 23: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11072 comments Good one.
That saves me having to rename the group UKIP Knowledge after Firage's brain dead "political party" of bigots.


message 24: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments I vote we force all Brits living abroad to return home. Furthermore, we should make sure all Mancunians living in London return to Manchester (the crime rate shot up after they arrived in London, y'know).


message 25: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11072 comments What about redheads and left-handed people, mate?? Surely they are nothing but trouble! :)


message 26: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments Those left-handed gingers. They're the worst. And don't get me started on big breasted pensioners from Cornwall.


message 27: by Elisabet (new)

Elisabet Norris | 486 comments Harry wrote: "Those left-handed gingers. They're the worst. And don't get me started on big breasted pensioners from Cornwall."

I sense an inspiration in the making for some new poetic youtube videos....... ;)


message 28: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments Poet Andy Carrington beat me to it. As he says: “It‘s ―BRITAIN FIRST they say when people come to this land/yet nothing is said about the empire crimes/or Brits emigrating to live overseas.”


message 29: by Elisabet (new)

Elisabet Norris | 486 comments Harry wrote: "Poet Andy Carrington beat me to it. As he says: “It‘s ―BRITAIN FIRST they say when people come to this land/yet nothing is said about the empire crimes/or Brits emigrating to live overseas.”"

Fucking Brits! ;)


message 30: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments We're all a bunch of immigrants, y'know.


message 31: by Elisabet (new)

Elisabet Norris | 486 comments Harry wrote: "We're all a bunch of immigrants, y'know."

ya, me too.....I should just go back to where I came from.....perhaps not a bad idea, actually....considering the potential future ruling of this country (US).


message 32: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments Lisa wrote: "Harry wrote: "We're all a bunch of immigrants, y'know."

ya, me too.....I should just go back to where I came from.....perhaps not a bad idea, actually....considering the potential future ruling of..."


The great U.S.A. Founded by immigrants...


message 33: by Elisabet (last edited Jun 15, 2016 11:02AM) (new)

Elisabet Norris | 486 comments Harry wrote: "Lisa wrote: "Harry wrote: "We're all a bunch of immigrants, y'know."

ya, me too.....I should just go back to where I came from.....perhaps not a bad idea, actually....considering the potential fut..."


Harry wrote: "We're all a bunch of immigrants, y'know."


Remember when they gave the natives disease infested blankets? If i were you, I'd be watching out for any gifts from immigrants. ...you just never know!


message 34: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments Beware of Greeks bearing gifts. Got it.


message 35: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 63 comments Lisa wrote: "but who the fuck needs an assault rifle? ..."

The 2nd amendment wasn't intended to be about personal protection and hunting. It was meant as a deterrent to politicians who might want to use their offices for personal gain. It was about giving us the ability to overthrow the government should the corruption reach the point where the electoral process cannot fix the problem.

If the military sides with the politicians and defends the hypothetical corrupt government, the citizenry has no chance of throwing off the oppression with nothing more than a handgun with 5 or 6 round clip against the heavy artillery our military wields.

If we actually discuss the 2nd Amendment in terms of a government overthrow, the gun control debate becomes a lot more interesting. In this sense, the Constitution allows us to own weapons far more ungodly than assault rifles, but you could then make the case that it does not grant you the right to carry your guns in public. A ban on concealed-carry doesn't hinder your ability to prepare for war. Registration and background checks wouldn't necessarily stop the public from arming themselves for the possible overthrow.

Politicians frame the argument in terms of self-defense and hunting because they want to keep the public's mind off the intended meaning of the Amendment. If we were to suddenly realize the Constitution grants us the right to use force against them when all else fails, they might eventually find themselves in far more trouble than a potential re-election loss. Especially as people now believe the two parties are both the same and all politicians are the same no matter who we elect, the idea of armed revolt could very well become real.


message 36: by Elisabet (new)

Elisabet Norris | 486 comments J.J. wrote: "Lisa wrote: "but who the fuck needs an assault rifle? ..."

The 2nd amendment wasn't intended to be about personal protection and hunting. It was meant as a deterrent to politicians who might want ..."


J.J I'm glad you brought this up, actually....but here's the thing....and this is me asking out of curiosity, because it's hard for me to see how this could work out in our favor for anyone...how would this help us overthrow the government?

Let's take the example of how would a few radicals....or a thousands of radicals gathering all types of weapons be able to overthrow a government who is carrying not only the same weapons, but probably bigger weapons, and also has access to CWs and BWs? How would this end well? ....and who would be supplying us these weapons and where would we get the money from?

I can only see this turning into a mass slaughter of citizens with a more stringent militaristic government.....that is, if the military contractors making the weapons, would actually allow the general public access to purchase those weapons.....or are there private weapon manufacturers?


message 37: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 63 comments Lisa wrote: "J.J. wrote: "Lisa wrote: "but who the fuck needs an assault rifle? ..."

The 2nd amendment wasn't intended to be about personal protection and hunting. It was meant as a deterrent to politicians wh..."


Hypothetically speaking, before you could even consider a total overthrow of the entire government, the movement would have to encompass a significant portion of the country and not just the few disparate "militia" groups holding themselves up right now with their individual paranoia. The movement would have to be on the scale of our Civil War so that the citizen army would be large enough to take serious - large enough so that the government couldn't simply label them as extremists and put an end to it with local law enforcement. A "few radicals" would never pull it off - especially if they don't have a significant portion of the country supporting their regime.

Basically, you couldn't even consider such a move unless you expected mass casualties, but your hope is that it would have the potential of becoming so bloody that the politicians would think twice before the bodies of dead Americans were plastered all over the news.

You would also try to gamble that your position is in line with the views and attitudes of our service members. The individual soldiers might follow orders out of duty for country, but you could try to gamble that many of them wouldn't have the stomach to fire on fellow Americans if they agree philosophically with their position.

As for where the weapons come from, they would already be in people's hands. The 2nd Amendment is meant for us to be ready for the worst, not give us access for a last-minute scramble.

There are a few stories out there of citizens invoking the 2nd Amendment to drive out corrupt politicians at the local level in the past, but I have no idea if they're true or merely tall tales.


message 38: by James, Group Founder (last edited Jun 17, 2016 07:06AM) (new)

James Morcan | 11072 comments Jo Cox suspect bought gun guides from US neo-Nazis, group claims -- https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...

Southern Poverty Law Center publishes receipts purporting to show Thomas Mair bought guidebooks from National Alliance

The man arrested over the killing of the MP Jo Cox bought books from a US-based neo-Nazi group, including guides on how to build homemade guns and explosives, according an anti-hate campaign group in the US.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) published receipts that appeared to show Thomas Mair bought, among other books, a manual on how to make a homemade pistol from the National Alliance.

The receipts, some of which date back to the 1990s, showed Mair spent more than $620 (£436) on literature from the group, which advocates the creation of an all-white homeland and the eradication of Jewish people.

He bought books that instructed readers on the “chemistry of powder & explosives”, “incendiaries”, and a work called Improvised Munitions Handbook. The handbook included detailed instructions on constructing a pipe pistol using parts available in DIY stores.

Receipted items also included Ich Kampfe, an illustrated handbook issued to members of the Nazi party in 1942.

Heidi Beirich, the leader of the SPLC’s Intelligence Project, said the group had obtained transaction records from members of the National Alliance.

Witnesses claimed Mair shouted “Britain first” during the attack on the Labour MP. The far-right political party Britain First said afterwards it was not involved in the attack and “would never encourage behaviour of this sort”.

There were also reports that Mair was named as a subscriber to SA Patriot, a South African magazine published by White Rhino Club, a pro-apartheid group. The club describes the magazine’s editorial stance as being opposed to “multicultural societies” and “expansionist Islam”.

The National Alliance was founded in 1974 by William Pierce, from an earlier group called the National Youth Alliance, which emerged from the support of the segregationist demagogue, Alabama governor and three-time presidential candidate George Wallace. A book by Pierce, who died in 2002, was an inspiration for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing which killed 168 people, according to the bomber, Timothy McVeigh.


message 39: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11072 comments I think xenophobia also needs to be added to the list (along with Harry's aforementioned and now infamous "racist cunts") of those who become obsessed with immigration issues instead of focusing on the obvious corruption of political leaders and the corporatism that's replaced democracy in many ways. Islamophobia would be another key word as many who are not friends with enough Muslims fail to realize most who come to the West are not extremists at all and extremism is a tiny element of the billion-plus Muslims.

In my observation, most of those who select the anti-immigration stance and start blaming migrants for their country's internal problems (a tired old theory that has been debunked over and over) generally fit into the above categories (even if they won't admit it or are not self-aware enough to realize it...).

Personally, I am very pro-immigration and pro-multiculturalism.
Does that mean I ignore serious crimes, terrorism or problems with extremist religions? No.

I don't need to post looooonnnnngggg one-sided one-eyed poorly-researched essays (where I misunderstand everybody else's original points and inadvertantly quote renowned racists and fascists like Nigel Farage!!!!) to express what's obvious to most rational thinkers: Our enemies are the elitists in power and corportocracy not migrants and refugees who often sacrifice a lot to reach our nations and contribute a lot once they become citizens.


message 40: by James, Group Founder (last edited Jun 17, 2016 08:00PM) (new)

James Morcan | 11072 comments I think we also need to be aware many of these extreme viewpoints about immigration expressed in certain "news reports" coming out of Europe are happening at a time when fascism and Far Right politics is returning. In fact, just last month the NY Times said there has never been so much fascism and Far Right politicians in Europe in all the years since WW2. Crimes against Jews, Muslims and other racial/religious minorities are at an all-time high in all those years since 1945.

So given what history shows us about such fascist ideologies, I would be far more afraid of Far Right movements than the minority (Read carefully: MINORITY) of migrants who commit crimes...


message 41: by James, Group Founder (last edited Jun 18, 2016 06:01AM) (new)

James Morcan | 11072 comments In response to Melora's comment about Sweden saying "Muslim Gangs Take Control of 55 Zones in Sweden", one of the members of this group is Scandinavian and has an aunt in Sweden who they asked about this so-called news story...What follows is the Swedish-based aunt's reply (and note that the Swedish word "överdriver" means exaggerates):

"About immigration, online media "överdriver"!!! The immigrants are not taking over and terrorizing us, but they are many right now, and the swedish government has stopped refugees to come to Sweden, to be able to take care of those that already are here."

The aunt also added about the "news story" in general that: "I can not see anything about this in the papers here either!! It is bullshit!!!"
And also that: "A lot of false information is being released by the anti-immigration movement. .....and that some immigrants are rumored to have thrown stones at neo nazis."


message 42: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments Gee, Melora, you really know how to misinterpret what people are saying, and I'd be here all day if I decided to refute each point you make, so I'll just mostly stick to those bits you've directed at me.

How many more times do I need to clarify my original statement? "Racist, illogical cunts", as I called them, was directed at PEOPLE WHO BLAME immigrants for 'coming to our country' when they have every legal right to come.

Native Americans, of course, did not invite foreigners to their land. They were invaded and slaughtered. The nation of the U.S.A was then built upon immigration - and I believe our point there was to call people, who are anti-immigration, hypocrites, and nothing more.

You say: "(In other forums) there were no, "People are just racists" or "Anyone who has an opposing viewpoint is a cunt" -type comments. The vast majority of people have just been interested in learning the truth, and comprehend the fact that Europe is at a very critical juncture point, at this time in history."

Anyone who has an opposing view is a racist cunt? Stop putting words into people's mouths.

We ARE at a critical juncture in history with the influx of refugees (and the Western governments are largely to blame), and that's why people are debating the issue with such passion. Myself, I'm passionate to know what the hell we're gonna do to HELP the refugees. There are almost 20 MILLION refugees in the world at present. And people, not least the refugees themselves, want a solution to that.

What I don't find helpful is blurring the issue of a) refugees b) legal immigrants and c) illegal immigrants by putting them all in the same pot and giving example after example of what crimes certain people are committing.

Do you want me to reel off statistics of how many crimes in Britain are committed by white Brits? Would that be helpful?

It's also not helpful to tar all countries with the same brush. Norway, for instance, is a very different situation to the U.K.

Remember when Trump said that there were so many Muslim extremists in London that even the British police were fearful to walk through the streets of London? What did the British public do when they heard of such outright lies? They tried to ban Trump from the U.K, and even got the matter debated in parliament. So, I feel you're very out of touch with Britain for starters.

We can all play the 'see this video which gives the truth of the matter' game.

And if you believe that the Elite are to blame, as I do, then I don't understand why you're not blaming the Elite and instead focusing your energy on tarring all immigrants with the same brush. Or have I misinterpreted you as you have misinterpreted me?

If there's one thing that gets my goat, it's discrimination.


message 43: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11072 comments Harry wrote: "Do you want me to reel off statistics of how many crimes in Britain are committed by white Brits? Would that be helpful? ..."

No, that would be very unhelpful to the anti-immigration movement. Nigel Farage and his team of nasty dimwitted colleagues are working around the clock to silence reports about any whites committing crimes...Besides, those stories don't sell newspapers anyway, so Britain's fascist party UKIP aren't worried :)


message 44: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments From The Guardian:

"An anti-migrant poster unveiled by Nigel Farage has been reported to the police with a complaint that it incites racial hatred and breaches UK race laws. On Thursday night Dave Prentis, of the Unison union, said he had written to the Metropolitan police about the poster, which shows a queue of mostly non-white migrants and refugees with the slogan “Breaking point: the EU has failed us all.”

Indeed, not only that, but the poster in question seems to be a deliberate 'copy' of a Nazi propaganda poster, as you can see in the article.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2...


message 45: by James, Group Founder (last edited Jun 18, 2016 06:34AM) (new)

James Morcan | 11072 comments Harry wrote: "Indeed, not only that, but the poster in question seems to be a deliberate 'copy' of a Nazi propaganda poster, as you can see in the article...."

No surprises there, mate.
And what is scary is Farage is not only damaging the UK, but his fascist speeches are actually influencing the ill-informed all over the world...Including quite a few in America apparently...


message 46: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments The similarities to pre-WWII propaganda, in this whole broad issue, are really worrying. When will people learn from history?

When will we decide to focus on HELPING ONE ANOTHER? Man, I'm full of crazy-ass ideas!


message 47: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments God save our German Queen.


message 48: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11072 comments Harry wrote: "God save our German Queen."

Shhhhhh...don't tell anyone that, Harry...the Royals ARE British! I mean, yes they changed their name from the Germanic House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to the House of Windsor, but they ARE British...And yes Prince Philip has Nazi brothers, but they ARE British...And yes Prince Harry has been photographed in Nazi uniform, but they ARE British...

"God save the queen, the fascist regime."
Johnny Rotten doesn't look so silly now, does he?


message 49: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments I vote we eject all racists from our countries.


message 50: by Elisabet (new)

Elisabet Norris | 486 comments J.J. wrote: "Lisa wrote: "J.J. wrote: "Lisa wrote: "but who the fuck needs an assault rifle? ..."

The 2nd amendment wasn't intended to be about personal protection and hunting. It was meant as a deterrent to p..."


J.J, I’d say that all this sounds like a great premise for a fiction novel.
You said: “The movement would have to be on the scale of our Civil War…” , “…you couldn’t even consider such a move unless you expected mass casualties………becoming so bloody that the politicians would think twice before the bodies of dead Americans were plastered all over the news.”, “….your position is in line with the views and attitudes of our service members.” And “…weapons…they would already be in peoples’ hands.”

The 2nd amendment was made official in 1791….over 200 years ago!

….and since when does the Constitution give us rights? … Is it not just restrictions and responsibilities put on the government so it doesn’t infringe upon our rights? Isn’t it this way so the government won’t have the power to give and take rights away from us?

Robert Natelson when writing the Original Constitution: “The rules protecting the natural rights made up the First, Second and Third Amendments….” What is a natural right? From what I understand, it is an inalienable right which can’t be given or taken by government….the government only protects these rights….hence, they can’t give us the right to bear arms, neither can they take it away.

Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Do we need militia in order to be free in this country?

What specifically is meant by “Arms”? my guess is that an assault rifle was not one of the things they had in mind. We have added multiple weapons to this term since it was written….should we not re-write this amendment to fit today’s terminology?

How has it worked out with militia in other countries?

How many “spin-off” groups can potentially come out of the militia and will they all be fighting the same agenda?

Is this going to prove to the rest of the world that the American government was tainted or that Americans are gun crazed extremists?

Even so, let’s say that the Second Amendment was erased and no longer existed….would it really make a difference? Wouldn’t the same people who are for firearms and use firearms act the same?

Isn’t the second amendment just a way to justify their actions and opinions? Isn't this amendment just being used as a shield? Something tells me that their passion for guns did not have its root from reading/supporting the second amendment.

If my assumption is correct, then the second amendment is a clause, then when does this clause become void? Is it not when it is no longer a threat? Do you feel your freedom is threatened? If yes, do you feel that a full blown militia attack on the government would grant you more freedom?

Why are we more worried about dissecting the words of a 200 year old amendment and basing our decisions on it, rather than the effect these weapons have had on our society and solve these problems with the knowledge we have today?

Who are these state militias today? From what I understand, these are what we would now consider the National Guard……isn’t it?


« previous 1 3
back to top

142309

Underground Knowledge — A discussion group

unread topics | mark unread


Authors mentioned in this topic

Rupert Dreyfus (other topics)