jump to last post 1-13 of 13 discussions (98 posts)

Red Alert: NOWTs want to turn us into Tar Babies.

  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    I am addressing a suspicion which I can no longer deny. The New World Order Types want to turn the US into a Social Democracy to facilitate their  power over it. We were once a nation of fiercely strong lions, instead they want to tun us into obedient sheep. They want to turn us into tar victims, stuck in the black ooze of mandatory financing for universal welfare programs.
         Their plan is to create a utopian One World Government for themselves to acquire absolute power and wealth. Greed has overtaken them and they clearly see where they can encourage our weaknesses which exist like a dam with cracks. They will let, (through encouragement,) that dam break to wash away anything standing in their way for world dominance. To fight the NWOTs is to regain what we stand to loose. Keep the dam from breaking, I say:
                                  No taxes for universal welfare programs.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      - there are many avenues for encouraging the dam to break. Consider where  where the cracks exist:
      *Entertainment media: Television and movies.
      *Print: Magazines and newspapers.
      *Internet: All sites which feature conversation, opinions, information, news etc.
      *Placing "their people" in positions of political power.
      *Financing NWO political campaigns and schemes.

    2. Josak profile image59
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      YAY conspiracy theories.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Yay NWOTs

    3. J - R - Fr13m9n profile image86
      J - R - Fr13m9nposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Are we talking about the new global economy and how it exploits poorer countries and is heavily responsible for global climate change?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        No.

    4. Zelkiiro profile image84
      Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, why let everyone be wealthy and healthy when we can just stick with Capitalism and ensure that only the top 1% are wealthy and healthy?

    5. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
      wrenchBiscuitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Kathryn,I lived in California for a while in the late 70's while in the U.S.N..You are very cute! I'm sorry we never met.

      I'm curious: What period of American history are you referring to when you say,"We were once a nation of fiercely strong lions ..." ? During a period of nearly  400 years (1492-1865) Indigenous and African people were kidnapped and used as slaves by the Colonial Powers, and later the United States.During that time, millions of acres of land were stolen outright from the Indigenous nations, or through treaties at the point of a gun.I think a nation of greedy vultures or parasites would be a more appropriate metaphor.Of course,my first question is rhetorical.What I really want to know is: Why would an intelligent woman like yourself pretend that the United States had once been something good and wonderful,when history teaches us that it never was? Not just from my perspective,but as a woman ,surely you are aware of the discrimination,inequality, and violence against women that has existed here since the very beginning.

      As far as your title is concerned: Having suffered through my preceding diatribe,you might be surprised to find that I see nothing wrong with your usage of "tar babies".Political Correctness is a fascist mechanism.Free speech is non-existent unless it is absolute.Meaning: You can call me names if you like ; I won't be offended.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        No.

  2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    Education and awareness of the truth is the only way to fight their onslaught of lies.

    1. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I think the whole problem is who's version of the "truth" is it you define.

  3. 0
    Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago

    The title of this forum is highly offensive. Tar baby is a derogatory term for African Americans. As a person of that ethnicity, I cannot condone this

    1. 60
      squeeknomoreposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Tar baby: "A difficult problem that is only aggravated by attempts to solve it."
      Dictionary.

      1. 0
        Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Tar baby may be in the dictionary, but so is another derogatory term. Doesn't change how it is sometimes used

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          never heard of it. how could it be used in a derogatory fashion?
          I am not referencing to that here. So, how dare YOU!

          1. 0
            Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Much in the same fashion as other racial slurs. Especially when focused on a person with extremely dark skin

          2. aliasis profile image95
            aliasisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Wow. "Angry white person" response.

            I quickly found the derogatory meaning on Urban Dictionary (n-word censored by myself):

            "Tar baby is a synonym for n*****, except that it is only used in bigoted manners, whereas n****** can be a sign of respect, if the speaker is also African American.

            It comes from a children's story in which the dark skin and seeming ignorance (caused by a lack of schooling) of slaves were explained by the idea that black children were baptised in tar, which made them dark and dumb. "

            So yeah, it is racist. And the correct response, even to accidentally offend, is to say "sorry, I didn't know it had this meaning." not "HOW DARE YOU ACCUSE ME OF BEING A RACIST". Even if you want to stick to your guns, you could at least have the decency to acknowledge the word's racist meaning and apologetically insist on using it in an alternative meaning.

            That's not even to comment on your massive conspiracy theory. Maybe the title suits the post in that regard, lol.

            1. 0
              Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              It can also be found in wikipedia under list of ethnic slurs

            2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Oh, brother!

              1. 0
                Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Okay.. I've been enough of a jerk.. I wasn't really offended, but I did want to point it out that it can be deemed offensive because it is considered a slur.. I'm sorry, Kathryn. I really am.

              2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Sorry, I don't have your dictionary, guys.
                Pardon me for my ignorance. Unfortunatly I chose a tainted term through no fault of my own, except ignorance. My apologies. Can't erase it now. I do not like that feature of not being able to edit the title. sad
                - anyway you all are-side skirting the issue. Thank you sqeeknomore and wilderness. I guess I should let this thread quietly die…
                …like the country covered in the black tar of governmentally mandated welfare released from the dam of ignorance and false hopes.
                Tar *victims* is what I meant

                1. 0
                  Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  No, Don't let it die.. I agree with some of your OP. The government is and always has tried to exert control over the masses. It is becoming more prominent when looking at the shutdown. People willing to shut the government and country down all in the desire for control.

                  1. jmark13 profile image81
                    jmark13posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Well, what other role should government take? By design it is supposed to govern over large groups of people. The issue is that no one can decide on what ideology should influence that government, whether it's conservatism or progressives and there are so many versions throughout the entire spectrum. Progressives believe those programs should help people, conservatives prefer that people be left alone. One way or the other, a democracy is supposed to give us the power to control these decisions through voting and 'lobbying', but people are people and will always take advantage of something. It's the way we are -- however, everyone wants to give each other credit for being better than that which we're not. We're impulsive and selfish and scared because that's our nature. Those of us who realize this limits are very few and have no voice but our own, which no one listens to. So this is going to go on and on and on...

                2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I would rather the thread die. Only a few are ready for it.

                3. jmark13 profile image81
                  jmark13posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Now I apologize.

                4. 0
                  Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I guess we went a different route.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    No.

          3. jmark13 profile image81
            jmark13posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Kathryn, the majority of the population agrees that the use of the word Tar Baby is a racist statement. While this is certainly not the case, most will respond to it derogatory before they look it up. It's a lot like when someone would refer to a black person as a uncle Tom which became derogatory but if anyone read the book they would find that uncle Tom was a very kind, humble and a person everyone should strive to be. Slow down, stop being a reactionary and do some research before you post... unless you're one of those trolling from a reaction.

      2. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Correct.  It is a derivative from the Uncle Remus stories in the 1800's about Br'er Rabbit and Br'er Fox.  The tar baby was a statue made of tar and turpentine that entrapped Br'er Rabbit when he struck it repeatedly for not speaking back upon being addressed.

        Similar tales come from South America, Meso America, American Indians and as far away as West Africa and Jamaica.

      3. psycheskinner profile image81
        psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Some of us live in the real world, not the dictionary.  Even I know the derogatory/racst meaning of the world and I am not even American.

    2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      No it isn't! Only You have brought that up. I refer to the Uncle Remus story of Br'er rabbit getting stuck in tar by Joel Chandler Harris. It has no negative racial reference or connotation.  We are going to be stuck in tar just like the rabbit in that story. Thanks for nothing deepes.
      Joel Chandler Harris (December 9, 1848 – July 3, 1908) was an American journalist, fiction writer, and folklorist best known for his collection of Uncle Remus stories. Harris was born in Eatonton, Georgia, where he served as an apprentice on a plantation during his teenage years. He spent the majority of his adult life in Atlanta working as an associate editor at the Atlanta Constitution.

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Not sure where you hail from, butt Deepes is right. I was so shocked by the title I clicked on it to see what was up. The term is considered racist here where I'm from.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          And I'm on Kathleen's side - never heard it as anything but a doll in a Remus book.  Maybe just local interpretations, then.

          1. 0
            Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Let's not reopen this argument. Kathryn and I handled it. It's done

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I saw your post a moment ago.  Agree.  Didn't want an argument anyway, just smoothing feathers that might be ruffled.

              1. 0
                Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Appreciated. Very much so

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  smile

        2. 0
          Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks Emile. But I apologized for being a jerk just to make a point and she apologized for not knowing. I wasn't really offended.

          We kissed and made up.. I think.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            yes, we did!

            1. 0
              Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Good to hear. Don't want you to keep a bad picture in tour head of me even though I used a strong way to make a point.

              Okay.. back to the topic at hand. Congress did not want a delay. They wanted him to totally remove it. Republicans have fought President Obama on everything he has wanted to try. Some things I can understand totally. Others it seemed just that they wanted to fight him period. In either case, the Republicans only damaged their own image and standing going into the next election

              1. 60
                squeeknomoreposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                …the house finally passed a bill to get rid of Obama's PPACA exemptions of Congress and their staff. It is Constitutionally established that the leaders must abide by the same laws as the people.

                The Senate still needs to pass it to solve the issue.

                He wouldn't/won't hear of it ...and thats why the shut-down continued.. it is only temporarily open now… the shutdown will continue after February unless the President complies with Constitutional law. He can't be changing laws that have been established.
                They gave up every other demand except that one.

  4. 60
    squeeknomoreposted 3 years ago

    No, Kathryn L. Hill. It is not a force from without. It is worse. A force from within. We ourselves are making the cracks worse by willingly voting away our liberty through social welfare programs.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Don't say you haven't been warned!

    2. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Too true.  Should we then limit voting rights to those that pay in taxes more than they take out in "entitlements" in order that people don't continue to vote themselves "free cake" at other's expense?  Would it do any good?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        - say that again? Interesting! that would be a check on the intentional takers. I hate to think that there are intentional takers. I would rather think there are those who just become weak depending on the government. It becomes a way of life. We have to be careful not to create dependency within the population.
        it is very easy to do.
        very easy.
        It is human nature to get addicted to *the outer*.  Drugs, for instance: take heroin once and you're hooked. Why? cuz if the body gets it *from without,* it figures, why do I have to work so hard to be happy?  Just give me some more of that!!!!.
        Feel good chemicals are percolating within us. We need to respect the natural high we carry around *within* and not destroy it with substances from *without.*
        In the same way, we have a way to make ourselves happy here in America. We have to depend on ourselves to make ourselves happy and prosperous and successful. That is the true nature of being human.
        And it comes from within.
        Not from without.
        Keep the inner life free.
        Just say no to taxes which support universal welfare.

        1. gmwilliams profile image84
          gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Agree with the last sentence!

  5. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    "The nations of our time cannot prevent the conditions of men from becoming equal, but it depends upon themselves whether the principle of equality is to lead men to servitude or freedom, to knowledge or barbarism, to prosperity or wretchedness.” (v.2 bk. 4 c. 8)" Alexis De Tocqueville

  6. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    If the new world order's goal is to help poor and disabled people--I am all for it, including my tax dollars.

  7. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    A social democracy is soft despotism in that it takes away the power the people have,
    through managing their own supply of money.

    When they manage their own money, they manage their own lives,
    and do not need to rely on the government...
                                           or therefore be at its mercy.

  8. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    Who wants to be at the mercy of any government?

    1. 0
      Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Not too many people do. Unfortunately, as the government shutdown proved, we are in a way

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Deepes, the shut down was to slow down the implementation of Obama care which in my view is merely part of the ooze coming to get us.
        The govt. shut down was for a good cause. It was a fight against a major crack in the dam… the desire for equality in health insurance/care.

        1. 0
          Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          How is it a good cause if it prevents fair access to all for things that are needed. I read the article and I agree with some of the points mentioned, but equality is about more than just handouts. Its about ensuring that all people have the same treatment and fairness. To this day, women may have more opportunities for advancement in the workforce, but they are still being paid less than less qualified male counterparts. Short term and long an extended government shutdown could have and would have crippled this country and possibly brought another great depression. Their efforts to seal a"crack" would have blasted the dam aaltogether. Sorry, there is no good cause in that, especially since Congress was still collecting paychecks while military and other government personnel were not.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            ...and all President Obama had to do was agree to certain non-harmful/helpful requests. HE, however refused. He is the one to blame.

            Equality can not be guaranteed. Only the unalienable rights. And that is saying a lot. It is called justice.

            1. bBerean profile image60
              bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              He just needed to agree to a common sense and inevitable delay, he will likely soon be begging for.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                - yes.

  9. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    ..here is a great article by Richard Williams which explains the problem of insisting on equality. http://mypoliticalsolutions.com/discuss … Vs+Freedom

    "The nations of our time cannot prevent the conditions of men from becoming equal, but it depends upon themselves whether the principle of equality is to lead men to servitude or freedom, to knowledge or barbarism, to prosperity or wretchedness.” (v.2 bk. 4 c. 8)" Alexis De Tocqueville

  10. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    Surprisingly enough, I am looking for people who agree with me!

    We need to keep a social democracy at bay. End of story. How? Stop agreeing to more and more taxes.

    Very simple.

    1. Disappearinghead profile image88
      Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It's rather bizarre that you have such a reaction to the notion of state provided health care funded by general taxation that provides free health care at the point of need irrespective of socio-economic status. This system works very well in much of the Western World without hysterics of a new world order. Perhaps you haven't the faintest idea about what happens outside your country. Have you ever seen anything other than Fox News? Do you know what the BBC World Service is? Do you have a passport? Have you ever left your own country?

      1. Silverspeeder profile image59
        Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        For gods sake don't quote the BBC as an impartial purveyor of the truth and all that is right in the world, the BBC has become a political monster, only telling the truth if it suits the hierarchies political slant. It has become the mouthpiece of the left and knows no bounds in its hypocrisy.

        State provided health care is a noble notion indeed as long as you can keep it away from the politics of insanity, Take a look at the NHS in the UK, at the point of service it is free to all but the cost is extortionate because of the politics of running a huge organisation has outweighed its original design.
        There are as many mangers looking after the political aims of the organisation as there is doctors and nurses looking after its users.

        Tar babies? I have never heard of the term here in the UK, we have many derogatory terms for all ethnic cultures here, even for whites. But the worst of all things that I can be called by anyone is a racist, it boils my blood when someone who knows me not calls me one based on a short conversation or just the fact that I am white. I also think it is an absurdity that someone adopts a word or term to suit their own meaning and then tout it as racist, the original meaning lost in the mire of political correctness and the inability to see through ones own political trait. Lets take the N word for instance, my very good friend told me I cant use it because I am white and didn't understand the meaning, I suggested he couldn't use it because he was black and obviously did understand the meaning. The meaning of the N word has certainly been lost if one can use it but others cant,  should we all stop using it?

        As for the NWO is it an urban myth perpetrated by the left to inspire others to believe all things capitalist is bad?

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Hey Silver, what's your idea of an impartial news source? The Daily Mail lol

          You surely haven't forgotten which government decided that matrons and the like were far too working class and ought to be replaced with nice middle class managers with no nursing experience?

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            - so you are against keeping taxes low?

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Er, how do you work that out?

          2. Silverspeeder profile image59
            Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No John I am not touting the Daily mail as an impartial news source, but I must say they usually print the stories the BBC keep quite about because of their PC slant.

            I haven't forgotten John, I also haven't forgotten who reintroduced them after 13yrs of Labours political meddling and increase in the management of NHS politics. When the politics of the left meddle in anything it becomes the beast that eats itself.

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Have you ever thought that the stories the BBC keep quite about aren't stories at all?
              Have you any examples?

              Make up your mind, either Labour or the left. Remember that was another of her successes - to destroy the left as a political force in the UK.

              1. Silverspeeder profile image59
                Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Sorry John I forgot about your hatred of anything Thatcher. She in fact destroyed the unions and the grip they had on the country at the time. However under the Labour government the Unions have once again risen to the levels of stupidity they enjoyed in the 70's and early 80's.

                No John the BBC only reports things that suit their slant on politics. I am not saying its all BS just like any other news agency but it certainly looks very selective. I noticed this week that the pro EU BBC didn't mention anything about the report that states the UK as the most densely populated area in Europe, I wonder why that is?

                There are still a lot of lefties that make up the Labour party john, the unions that control the labour party confess to being leftists. You notice I haven't said socialists John.

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Referring to the Daily Mail, I see they claim the UK as the most densely populated country in Europe (except for Malta) but why is that news?

                  How can you claim that the unions have risen to their levels of the 70s and early 80s when there were 13 million members in 1979 but only 6.5 million now - and that's with a supposed larger working population.

                  1. Silverspeeder profile image59
                    Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I didn't read it in the mail John but to some who see what's happened here I suppose it isn't really news is it. The fact that the immigration programs of past governments has placed immense strain of services, the NHS, housing and employment isn't really news is it.

                    I claimed they had risen to the level of stupidity that they had in the 70's and 80's John, a different thing than the level of members.

  11. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    Thanks SilverSpeeder.
    Some say a One World Religion is also coming into being.
    My fight is to protect our autonomy through preserving the liberty of the individual. We need to keep our individuality and not fall for government oriented schemes, such as social welfare programs, which sound good in theory but can't function as they are envisioned in the real world...
    at all.
    These schemes present, propose and implement soft despotism. How soft? Hard enough to hurt our Spirits: Our motivation, our Enthusiasm and ultimately our Joy of Life. Thats what we stand to loose through the soft despotism of social democracy.

    1. Disappearinghead profile image88
      Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      A one World religion is coming? Where do you get this from? What are its doctrines? Is it an organised religion with a hierarchy of bishops, imams and druids? What will its churches, mosques, stone circles look like? Will their construction be funded by general taxation? What will constitute the central committee? You do realise there are 10,000 christian denominations that can't agree, two main sects of islam bent on killing each other, and umpteen pick and mix pagan belief system don't you? How on Earth are you expecting everyone to drop their beliefs and sign up to a new invented religion? Ah the magical antichrist.

      Social welfare: the concept were those poor and in need in society receive support from the government funded by general taxation is inherently evil? State provided health care is evil? Somehow these things infringe the rights of the individual? I guess government should also stop funding schools, the road network, anc national parks too. After all funding a park requires tax dollars which infringes on your rights.

  12. maxoxam41 profile image79
    maxoxam41posted 3 years ago

    When were we lions? And if we were, don't you think that the same ones were at the head of those governments?

  13. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    Happy New Year and lets keep our taxes low enough to enjoy all the new years to come.

 
working