99% WE THE PEOPLE GET OUR RIGHTS AS CITIZENS AND WE PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THAT US FLAG.
What RED Skeleton as Bob Hope do as 5% PLAYERS back in 1950s-70s is confuse what REAL right wing ties to religion and patriotism was at that time. RED gave that story of being the poor citizen rising to STAR child labor was his right at a time when US CHILD LABOR LAWS protected our US children from just such necessity allowing them a period for a strong public K-12 education. Bob Hope as Red Skeleton both used their global 1% STAR power to hide the fact that US Presidents were empire-building towards ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE by ILLEGAL WARS as in Korean War and Vietnam War ----and all others after. PATRIOTISM tied to RED Skeleton's PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE would not back a US President violating those very US RULES OF LAW AND US CONSTITUTION with goals of undermining our US sovereignty----BOB HOPE AND RED SKELETON knew this-----they simply used their STAR POWER to make all those POLICE ACTIONS patriotic.
We shared an article as the one below that tells us OBAMA is MULTI-CULTURAL -----this public policy of POST-RACISM is tied to the OPPOSITE----the goals of ONE WORLD ONE WORLD CULTURE seeks to kill cultures globally including US to create a new single Foreign Economic Zone culture of our global 99% labor pool.
Remember, Clinton/Obama are FAR-RIGHT WING -----and here is what appears to be an East Indian Muslim citizen providing FAKE NEWS. It appears the writer of this article is that global 2% tied to global banking telling us OBAMA is post-racism and MULTI-CULTURAL when SIDDIQUI is tied to ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE for only the global 1%.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Born in Hyderabad, India,
Mohammad Najatuallah Siddiqui (Indian Economist and promoter of Islamic banking and winner of King Faisal International Prime for Islamic Studies)
So, our 99% of REAL ISLAMIC MUSLIMS wanting to abide by a KORAN filled with morals, ethics, living according to rule of law, and GOD'S NATURAL LAW are being undermined by these global 1% FAKE MUSLIM freemason/Greeks.
Barack Obama’s win heralds the rise of multicultural America
Republicans’ race card turns out to be a joker.
Barack Obama's diverse coalition of supporters is the face the new, emerging America. Says Haroon Siddiqui: 'Blacks and Hispanics and other minority voters can no longer be ignored.' (Nov. 6, 2012)
By Haroon SiddiquiColumnist The Star.com
Wed., Nov. 7, 2012
For all its faults, waning world power and deep domestic divisions, America is still capable of miracles.
Mitt Romney’s Mormonism did not prevent him from becoming the Republican torchbearer.
An African American has been elected to a second term by a convincing margin.
The race card, played more brazenly in this presidential contest than ever before in the contemporary era, did not matter in the end. Xenophobic and Islamophobic characterizations of Barack Hussein Obama as a foreigner and a closet Muslim failed to sway enough voters.
Big money could not buy the election either. The billionaires who loathe the president because — unlike Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, etc. — he was insufficiently obeisant and/or had failed to champion their brand of rapacious capitalism or their favourite causes (from Israel to lower taxes) were rendered powerless by the voting power of the people.
All the Republican gerrymandering of electoral districts and the shameless attempts at disenfranchising Democratic-leaning blacks, Hispanic and young voters — by imposing absurd identity requirements, suppressing advance polling and slowing down the casting of ballots — failed to suppress the will of the majority.
Something even more profound has happened.
If Obama was the post-racial president, this was the first real post-racial presidential election.
White nationalism may have just had its last big hurrah. Multicultural America has asserted itself electorally as never before.
Blacks and Hispanics and other minority voters can no longer be ignored, or spoken to or of derisively. Mainstream politicians and parties that do will pay a price.
The price will be exacted not just by the minorities but by an increasing segment of the white electorate. In ever-increasing numbers, they, too, are recoiling from the peddlers of racist, religious, homophobic and other forms of bigotry.
Obama’s race was not an issue in the election, writes Darryl Pinckney, American novelist, essayist and playwright, in the New York Review of Books. Neither were the “black people in the dock as the source of social pathology.”
He adds: “Romney’s kind control the country’s wealth, but they cannot get back in charge, psychologically, and this induces a kind of mania in people like (House Speaker) John Boehner and the Koch brothers (David and Charles, the Kansas-based billionaire businessmen), because power in America is real, and presidential power most real of all.
“Such white folk cannot forgive Obama for winning in the first place. He sits astride the engine of federal power and patronage — a bookish black man whose elegant family has been sleeping and eating in the quarters where Reagan cracked patrimonial jokes about welfare queens.”
The election heralds the dawn of a new America in other ways as well.
The extremist position Romney had to take to win the Republican nomination is precisely what did not allow him to win the presidency. Had he not moved toward the centre in the last few weeks, he would have lost by an even bigger margin. And had some of the party’s candidates not taken the positions they did on abortion and contraception, the Republicans could have had more seats in the Senate.
Obama won despite the tepid economic recovery — no incumbent has ever won during tough economic times. That shows how much the Republicans spooked the very segments of the population that are on the rise, in both numbers and political assertiveness: women, the young and the minorities.
Such groups have had better success at political representation in multi-party parliamentary democracies, especially ones with strict limits on election spending.
Canada, for example, leads the western world in the number of foreign-born citizens elected to Parliament and provincial assemblies. This process of political integration has been particularly aided by multiculturalism. Our entrenched constitutional and, therefore, socially acceptable equality of all citizens, and the assertion of pluralism have engendered a broader social outlook. No anti-immigrant, bigoted party can hope to win nationally, even provincially, as we saw this year in Alberta, that most American of our provinces.
The U.S. has been slower in this transformation. Tuesday’s election is the harbinger of the new America flexing its electoral muscle.
If the Republicans, especially the Tea Party diehards, draw the wrong conclusion from Romney’s defeat, that he was not conservative enough, they risk becoming increasingly irrelevant.
Obama’s re-election will not end the extreme partisanship on Capitol Hill. Speaker John Boehner is already hinting that the Republican majority in the House will continue its war with the president.
But a social and political transformation is clearly underway.
'It is a good thing because “cultural homogenization” makes us more accepting, increasing our "sense of togetherness via the sense of a shared culture."'
Most US citizens and global citizens NOW understand there is indeed MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE ---it was never a conspiracy theory. It is clear the goal is to eliminate cultures globally ---this is what CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA and their global human capital distribution system has done in Foreign Economic Zones these few decades----and expanding these Foreign Economic Zones to Africa, Europe, UK, US, Canada will if we continue to allow MOVING FORWARD have that goal----ONE WORLD CULTURE.
Obviously the opposite of MULTI-CULTURALISM---obviously far-right wing global 1%-----speaking of morals and ethics, family and honor, duty and individual responsibility-----how do any of those survive when those leading global 1% banking have goals of eliminating all of the above?
SMART CITIES NO JOBS GLOBAL HUMAN CAPITAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM NO FAMILY DEPOPULATION OF EARTH NO CHILDREN CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY FOR ONLY THE GLOBAL 1% NO WAY FOR 99% OF US OR GLOBAL CITIZENS TO SURVIVE OR BE INDIVIDUALLY RESPONSIBLE.
Do citizens PLEDGE AN ALLEGIANCE to a ONE WORLD structure they were deliberately silenced and forced to adopt? Of course not as this article states there will be factions-----far more than a few as this article states who will not become ONE WORLD COGS.
Will Globalization Create a One-World Culture?
- Over a year ago
Article written by guest writer Rin Mitchell
What’s the Latest Development?
The extensive use of social networking sites and the internet is breaking down cultural barriers--allowing us to share our culture and knowledge with one another. Global brands like Starbucks that have started in one small town in the United States and now appear on the corners in countries around the world in Japan and Argentina. It is an idea that can be embraced that sitting in a café having a cup of coffee is something shared among different cultures. Cultures are becoming less closed off and repetitive in its evolution from one generation to the next. Animals begin again and relearn with each generation of their kind, whereas humans incorporate, add to, change and diversify our cultures as we move from one generation to the next. Times are changing and whether it be for a job, relationship or new experience--people continue to intermix culturally. It is a good thing because “cultural homogenization” makes us more accepting, increasing our "sense of togetherness via the sense of a shared culture." However, even with all the positives indicating the world could be headed towards a one world culture--there are other factors like demography and resources, which suggest the reality of such cultural unification is still centuries away.
What’s the Big Idea?
The question asked: why have humans had so many distinct cultures in the first place? People already know how to cooperate within their own cultures despite some of the social differences, so we are capable of forming into larger social groups of the modern world. But in terms of social groups, it comes down to a share of commonalities. There will be the need to be classified by economic and social levels for specific privileges. Should resources become scarce who would be entitled to what? Although globalization is taking place and our “capacity for culture” is increasing, there are still issues that would arise--causing smaller cultural and/or social groups to turn inwards and disengage from the whole--losing that sense of unification.
Here is a typical discussion in an internet chat room dominated by global 1% players simply assuming MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE ENERGY AND TECHNOLOGY GRID will continue to be installed---not one argument shouting out to STOP MOVING FORWARD even as what is not an official poll shows that 70% of people do not see a single world culture as possible. Most of those chats highlighted here and early are of course supporting it.
What global 1% and their LITERARY STARS work hard to do in Western nations is give the idea that MOVING FORWARD back to DARK AGES will look like the RENAISSANCE OR GREEK society when in fact ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE has a goal of KILLING Roman and Greek Western societal structures ---there will be no resemblance of US and certainly no US Constitution, US Rule of Law, Bill of Rights, or 99% WE THE PEOPLE as citizens charged with legislating what we want our communities and society to look like.
The goals of installing far-right wing, militaristic, authoritarian LIBERTARIAN MARXISM throughout Western nations is exactly that---to kill all of what global 99% immigrants as well as US citizens fight to achieve. ONE WORLD CULTURE will only happen if FORCED---and indeed FORCED ACCLIMATION ----not freedom of multi-culturalism is MOVING FORWARD.
Is a world with a single culture possible?
Is a world with a single culture possible?
33% Say Yes
67% Say No
Culture and Sub-Culture are NOT the same thing.
One of the largest arguments (that I've read) against this idea of a unified world culture is the idea that it means everyone across the world would act the same.
This idea is irrational.
Overall, American culture could be seen as an industrious, friendly, prideful, individualistic culture. Most people work, and many are proud of their jobs. They work hard so they can live comfortably, and enjoy their free time. Most free time is spent socializing in some form, with an emphasis on seeing new places and meeting new faces. All that being said, the idea of "being your own person" is incredible prevalent. In fact, from childhood, most of us are taught and expected to at least understand how to "go against the flow."
On a level below that, there are regional differences that would go more unnoticed if you were not knowledgeable in the culture. To us, a young man from rural Kansas and a young man from downtown New York City would seem different in almost uncountable ways, but to most non-Americans, they would be seen as far more similar.
And then, below even that, are sub-cultures. These are generally based around lifestyle choices: fashion of clothing, manner of communicating, free-time activities, and so on. While these can be more readily apparent than the regional differences, below the surface, many of these sub-cultures are based around the same American ideals of pride, community, and individuality.
While I doubt a unified world culture will ever be achieved in my lifetime, I feel it is our inevitable future as a race, especially as social networking, multiculturalism, and multilingualism advance.
Yes, yes it is.
Just as immigrants' descendants gradually adopt the culture of the nation to which their ancestors moved, it is possible that interaction between two cultures can result in a gradual exchanging of cultural traits, ultimately resulting in a merging of those cultures into one common culture. In the case of our world, this merging can be made possible by the nullification of both geographical and national boundaries. Seeing as advanced transportation has largely taken care of geographical boundaries, and seeing as communications technology has already started to cause national boundaries to appear null to the citizen with sufficient technology to overcome them, this process has already begun. At the current rate, however, it may very well take so long to complete that no one will actually notice the process. That said, it is certainly more feasible in a world where virtually no boundaries of any kind exist.
Of course it will...
When Geographical barriers fall, and since multilingualism is generally promoted, with the assistance of technology as well, it is inevitable that a single world culture will emerge. However this process is, in my opinion, too far to be completed in the 21rst century, or perhaps the 22nd. Although I believe it will eventually happen, however, it doesn't mean that I wish it also. It has its ups and downs and is a good topic for a next debate........
Yes and YES! AND YES!
In the human, everything is possible, because most of them what human create is not natural like banking, companies, and hobbies. If humans can do it so can we have only one world culture, and there is no excuse for "not possible to have a single culture". This is way too old and we need to take a look to the animals. The animals are not having a culture, they simply live the lives like other animals. Eating, hunting, finding food, sleeping and playing. But if that would be answered with "NO" it would be the most stupid thing that a human could ever have said, because their not being human and don't realize that everything what they create is possible. It is possible in the human life to change the world without any one having a university diploma. It is possible to stop economy and as well skipping days of work. Why don't we want to be simply humans and have a single culture, since we are humans all together in earth with a time of 24 hours and 365 days.
On some level we already share the same culture with every other human.
This is to say that there are similarities in all currently distinct cultures. The depth that we share similarities with other groups will meld closer together as we are able to be in contact with another and the longer we are in contact with another. If there is no language barrier and no geographical barrier then contact between groups will melt them together into one group eventually through generations. With technology spreading at an increasingly fast rate I predict that eventually there will be only one dominant culture.
Of course it is.
As many others have raised, if the world its technological progress keeps advancing the way it is (however, it is more likely to increase exponentially) it will be very easy for people to settle anywhere across the globe and to be connected to everyone else across the globe, at all times. A further integration of the world its cultures is inevitable and will likely result in one single world culture (the spread of Western culture around the world in the past age alone is phenomenal); naturally, people will always find ways to identify themselves with a certain group (we see this today even within Western culture: they are called sub-cultures) and it will take a long time for a single culture to establish across the globe. If space travel to other habitable planets becomes possible, there is the likelihood of cultures being limited to planets, but I predict that even those (if technology allows quick transportation) will eventually adhere the same, human culture.
Posted by: Vryth
Like Reply Challenge
Technology, Connections, and Influence
We have seen the world become so much more connected just over the last 10 years. For instance right now i can access a music video from Japan on my cellphone, a song from Spain on the radio, a movie from Bollywood on my laptop, and a television episode filmed in Italy on my tablet. I believe that this connection will increase to the point where the influence between different cultures will become so great that there is one single world culture.
A world with one culture is possible, and probably inevitable, due to the fact that everyone around the world is connected for the first time.
America is the perfect example of this. While there are obviously small cultural differences around the United States, there has been a clear mixture of what at one time was extreme diversity. Within a few generations of becoming Americans, most identify themselves as such, and no longer as Polish or German, for example. Additionally, with the title "American", many heritages mix together through marriage, becoming what we call the melting pot. Now that the world is coming together and people begin to move across the world for employment, I believe this phenomenon will occur worldwide.
Posted by: daveyxh
A world with a single culture is NOT possible.
There is no way in which the entire world could have one single culture. We're all different, from different parts of the earth, and all have different upbringings. It's hard enough to relate people within the US to each other. The only thing we have in common as people of the world is that we're alive.
Posted by: LorenaH
I believe a world with a single culture is possible but that it would be far into the future.
With modern technology the distance between different parts in the world has, in a sense, become much smaller. Using the internet, it's incredibly easy to talk to someone on the other side of the globe and learn about their customs. Many people also visit or move to other areas of the world. I live in Canada and my city is a melting pot of many different cultures. I believe that in a worldwide sense, these cultures will remain separate for a very long time but that gradually, they will blend together, especially as things such as interracial marriage become more common. If a single culture does happen though, I think it would be at least a couple hundred years in the future.
Posted by: emililuyx2
Any media supporting the idea that what MOVING FORWARD US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES brings is MULTI-CULTURALISM as this article does below pretending Presidential candidates in 2016 were actually supporting what their TALKING POINTS sold during these campaigns is a captured media outlet.
We want our new immigrant 99% citizens as well as our young adults to understand last century's fight for public policy voices for all population groups----99% of white citizens have no connection to a REAGAN/CLINTON/BUSH MOVING FORWARD. Only 5% white players sell these policies.
So, is MALCOLM X and his original intent for 99% of black US citizens racist-----was he a danger to our US ideal of assimilation to 300 years of continuous inclusion of 99% of WE THE PEOPLE as citizens with rights? We had to have SEPARATE BUT EQUAL to achieve the ability of any immigrant or citizen to choose to assimilate.
I liked what Woeser said towards this public policy of multi-culturalism vs assimilation------
'There’s nothing objectionable about couples from different backgrounds coming together naturally, she said. Woeser herself is married to a Han Chinese, dissident writer Wang Lixiong. But when the authorities use it as a tool and create policies to encourage it, she said, it feels wrong'.
Some citizens in Baltimore get tense when we say------most citizens in Baltimore black, white, or brown have no problem with separate communities of people sharing culture. Baltimore has more of a CLASS injustice in how it refuses to install EQUAL PROTECTION OPPORTUNITY AND ACCESS across all societal structures. A global 1% of OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE EUROPEAN capture does this. I see a majority of Baltimore 99% black, white, and brown citizens getting along, allowing economic space, simply wanting to be assured they can work, be housed, support a family.
IT IS THOSE DASTARDLY 5% POLS AND PLAYERS BLACK, WHITE, AND BROWN CITIZENS MAKING BALTIMORE A THIRD WORLD CITY STEEPED IN RACE AND CLASS INJUSTICE.
'In 2015 multiculturalism should be openly embraced in the United States, a country where many pride themselves on having the freedom to be who they are without persecution. Instead, there are many who still advocate intolerance, including several presidential candidates'.
10/01/2015 10:23 am ET Updated Dec 06, 2017 U.S. Multiculturalism or Cultural Assimilation?
By A. B. Wilkinson
AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall
In 2015 multiculturalism should be openly embraced in the United States, a country where many pride themselves on having the freedom to be who they are without persecution. Instead, there are many who still advocate intolerance, including several presidential candidates.
Republican presidential candidates have openly and routinely slandered Muslims and Latina/o immigrants. One has said that he would not feel comfortable putting “a Muslim in charge of this nation.” Another candidate has suggested the U.S. “should not have a multicultural society” when it comes to thinking about foreign immigration.
Words such as these send the message that if one follows certain religious and other cultural traditions, then they should not be considered equal in the United States. Similar messages further insinuate that everyone can find acceptance if they assimilate to some type of ideal Anglo-American culture.
This type of prejudice threatens the cultural heritage of millions of people in the United States and continues a long legacy of colonial thought stemming back several centuries. Assimilation efforts have changed over the years, yet they remain colonial, oppressive, and in 2015 these ideas go against the freedoms that are supposed to be at the core of what it means to be “American.”
“We should not have a multicultural society”
Last week a woman in Iowa asked Jeb Bush how he thought immigrants and refugees could best “become Americans.” Without hesitation he responded:
“We should not have a multicultural society. America is so much better than every other country because of the values that people share — it defines our national identity. Not race or ethnicity, not where you come from. When you create pockets of isolation — and in some cases the assimilation process is retarded because it’s slowed down — it’s wrong. It limits peoples’ aspirations.”
First, the U.S. has always been and will always be a multicultural society — one where people from many distinct ethnic backgrounds have come together and form a society as a whole. Many people (not just immigrants) do not believe they should have to fully assimilate, or give up their traditional culture or heritage from where their ancestors originated, just in order to become “American.”
Next, what are the values that Bush and others assume that immigrants lack? Most immigrants are familiar with extreme struggle in their home countries and commit themselves to hard work in this country. These immigrants also have extremely strong family values, especially those from various parts of Latin America.
In other words, how are U.S. values essentially any different or better than those found south of its border?
Memo to Jeb Bush
While Jeb Bush may mean well, he missteps when he opts for colorblind rhetoric and ignores discussing the importance of race and ethnicity. When Bush suggests that immigrants “create pockets of isolation” on their own, he also misses how social systems founded on race and class have essentially created internal colonies within U.S. borders.
Low-income people of color do not ghettoize themselves. Both historically and presently, certain institutions have funneled African Americans, Latina/os, and Native Americans into ghettos, barrios, and reservations.
Still, politicians and mass media often connect impoverished people in communities of color with an unwillingness to adopt some ideal type of respectable Anglo-American culture. They stereotype those who refuse to assimilate as culturally backward, inept, and void of the attributes needed to attain the middle-class “American Dream.”
In reality, inadequate schools, poor housing opportunities, lack of career options, and few viable paths to citizenship (for immigrants) all play a much larger role in limiting people’s opportunities and aspirations. In the past, many of these factors defined colonial structures.
Today’s penal system in the U.S. also mirrors old-school colonization — where from the fifteenth through twentieth centuries European empires often used strong-arm conquistadores or military personnel to subdue their colonial subjects in other parts of the world (Asia, Africa, Latin America, etc.).
Internal colonies in the U.S. today are also spaces where police target and brutalize young people of color. This is coupled with courts and legal systems that over-incarcerate Latina/os, Native Americans and African Americans at alarming rates.
Do they deserve such treatment simply because they reject cultural assimilation?
The myth of non-English speaking immigrants
Latina/os are no strangers to colonial thought and assimilation; their history is born out of it. When Christopher Columbus (Cristóbal Colón) and the Spanish first landed in the Caribbean islands in 1492, they misnamed the indigenous people Indios (Indians) and kidnapped seven local Taíno people in order to teach them Spanish. Then they attempted to convert all Indigenous peoples to the Christian faith under Catholicism.
Columbus and his men initiated a long and complex colonial history of merging cultures in Latin America, which resulted in a number of diverse mestizo/mixed identities under the umbrella term of Latino. Today in the U.S. many people want Latina/os to throw off their rich heritage and assimilate to Anglo-American culture, almost as a prerequisite for gaining social acceptance and U.S. citizenship.
Surprisingly, Republican presidential candidates have debated whether or not people who are bilingual should even speak Spanish. Some in Jeb Bush’s own party even called him out for publicly responding to questions in Spanish (which he speaks fluently).
Denouncing the Spanish language not only belittles many Latina/os, but it also further pushes the misconception that immigrant families refuse to learn English.
Even though the U.S. does not have an official language, immigrants today learn English much faster than they did in past generations — when various Europeans made up the largest immigrant groups. Today around 93 percent of U.S. residents speak at least some English, a number that is higher than many countries that have a mandated national language.
Jeb Bush has written about the assimilation of immigrants “into the American identity” and says that demonstrating a fluency in English and passing an exam “on basic American civics and history... should not be enough to earn citizenship.” (He also points out that one-third of U.S. citizens could not pass the citizenship exam.)
Certainly, any immigrant should be able to become a U.S. citizen without giving up their traditional heritage. Instead, many continue to advocate that Latina/os erase their cultures and replace them with the English language along with some type of ambiguous “American values.”
Riding the prejudice polls
Certain politicians have used undocumented Latina/Latino immigrants as a convenient scapegoat to caste blame on for a number of the country’s problems. Instead of providing real solutions to issues facing the nation, it’s easier to attack a vulnerable population, especially when they lack the power of citizenship and the right to vote. However, this tactic will prove increasingly difficult, as Latina/o citizens now make up a significant portion of the voting demographic.
Still, some Republicans continue to villainize Latina/os as well as Muslims and other people of color. This is perhaps intentional, since polls show that these negative sentiments resonate with a good segment of the GOP base.
Unfortunately, riding the prejudice polls to the Republican nomination for president also legitimizes bigotry nationwide.
In the days after Ben Carson stated, “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation,” he rose in the Republican primary polls. Even though the former neurosurgeon claims that understanding the “Constitution isn’t brain surgery,” Carson seems to have ignored Article VI, which says that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office... under the United States.”
Although Carson later attempted to clarify his comments, it’s clear that making inflammatory statements about Muslims or Latina/o immigrants creates media buzz that increases national exposure and boosts polling for Republican candidates; but at what overall cost?
Carson, Trump and others reinforce discrimination before mass public audiences, which normalize the stereotypes of Muslims as inherently “un-American” and Latina/os as “criminals, drug dealers, [and] rapists.” This Islamophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment strengthens negative stereotypes and furthers colonial assimilationist ideologies.
Who defines the ideal “American”?
No one likes to be told that their way of life is inferior to others because it makes them feel they are inadequate. Unfortunately, there are those who routinely uplift themselves by subordinating people of color, non-Christians, women, LGBTQ, and low-income peoples.
While we would like politicians to refrain from utilizing stereotypes to slander whole groups of people, we do not need to look to anyone on either side of the political spectrum to define who will be accepted as an “American.” This is something we as both individuals and a society can work together to define.
Each one of us has the ability to teach others, even if it’s through social media or a simple conversation. If we do not define U.S. society in the 21st century as not simply tolerant of other people, but accepting, then we will remain what the nation was before the Declaration of Independence: a bunch of colonists.
The article above highlights the TALKING POINTS for global 1% and their ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA. As this discussion of assimilation vs multi-cultural rages in national media allowing a hyper-ONE WORLD ONE CULTURE Jeb Bush to pretend he is right wing conservative things like cultural language, foods, music are sold as examples of keeping those cultures alive while MOVING FORWARD SMART CITIES tied to binary computer language and code all K-career are now forced to learn to the elimination of arts and humanities.........is doing the opposite.
Just the idea that a GOOGLE GLASSES would translate every interaction one has with someone speaking another language -----editing and placing whatever spin on that translation makes those two global citizens having those different languages BENIGN----having industrial cafeterias where US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE global corporate campuses force workers to live, eat, be schooled, dress, and not be paid a wage----is already creating KIOSKS inside these cafeterias with CULTURALLY CORRECT FOODS.
The goal of ONE WORLD ONE CULTURE is exactly what MOVING FORWARD Clinton/Bush/Obama has been ---a gradual change to government and societal structures forcing ACCLIMATION to a new ONE CULTURE.
THIS IS FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL 1% ACCLIMATION NOT REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE MULTI-CULTURALISM.
Next Google Glass Tricks Include Translating the World From Your Eyes
November 19, 2013 at 12:05 pm PT
Imagine you’re traveling in a country whose language you don’t speak. You look up at a sign — say, a caution marker, or a list of directions. Oh, also, you’re wearing Google Glass. You say, “Okay Glass, translate this.” The words on the sign transform into your home language, so when you look through Glass, you can read them.
That’s what the new Word Lens app for Google Glass does, and it’s kind of magical. Blobs of translated text appear on the wearer’s screen with perspective intact, the same background color, and a matched font. It looks as though the sign has been reprinted in your own language.
This works best with Helvetica and other plain, sans-serif fonts, according to the Word Lens team, whose company is named Quest Visual. Times New Roman is a challenge.
Word Lens had previously been available for iPhone and Android.
The Word Lens Glass app works in real time, and it also accesses local storage. A dictionary of about 10,000 words in each chosen language are stored locally on the device, so users can get their translations even when they travel internationally without a data plan. That’s in contrast to Google’s own Google Goggles app, which requires a Web connection.
The app was built with the new Glass Developer Kit, which was released as a sneak peek to developers today at a hackathon in San Francisco. Word Lens got early access along with four other apps: Allthecooks (hands-free recipes), Strava (it’s the first time the activity-tracking company has given live progress reports about how well its runners and cyclists are doing, out of concern that using a phone or headphones would be unsafe), Spellista by GLU (the first Glass game) and GolfSight by SkyDroid (it’s for golf).
The GDK is supposed to be a major improvement on the original Glass Mirror API, which mostly helped with notifications and sharing. By contrast, the new tools give developers access to hardware (camera, GPS, accelerometer, gyroscope, gestures) as well as offline and real-time capabilities.
More than 10,000 people have Glass today, a Google spokesman said. That’s not a big audience for an app developer. But developers at the event, including the Word Lens team, said they were appreciative that building for Glass with GDK is almost entirely the same as building for Android. They said they essentially ported over their Android apps and changed the user interface to be much, much simpler.
We will end the discussion of assimilation vs multi-culturalism corrupted these few decades by global 1% and look at the morals and ethics brought into play last week around Baltimore City Council considering a SUEZ GLOBAL WATER privatization knowing these US public water privatizations have been in place throughout CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA.
We will end by shouting very loudly to our new immigrant 99% ---all this love of global labor pool being brought to fill US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES----from both far-right CLINTON/OBAMA and far-right BUSH/SCOTT WALKER-----does not indicate political leadership working to create for immigrants our US quality of life, freedoms, liberty, justice, and pursuit of happiness. US national media as well as 5% player labor and justice organizations are in high-gear selling US Foreign Economic Zones as FAKE GARDEN OF EDENS.
'The Life and Adventures of Martin Chuzzlewit ... so Dickens changed the plot to send the title ... Martin buys a piece of land in a settlement called "Eden ... '
We introduced a few weeks ago CHARLES DICKENS' CHUZZLEWIT today referring to where our anti-hero young Chuzzlewit and his daring partner in traveling to the new world America ended while there. Wiley new Americans sensing these former foes as British royal connections fleeced them by selling the idea of AN EDEN IN AMERICA----a town called EDEN was that swampland filled with everything that would end one's life.
What do we see in media, real estate sales especially directed overseas at global labor pool 99% being recruited to a US city deemed Foreign Economic Zone?
COMMUNITIES NAMED 'EDEN' -----social benefit organizations tied to 5% player freemason/Greek businesses named 'EDEN'. Social groups and chat rooms tied to the word 'EDEN'.
KNOW WHAT? 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE BLACK, WHITE, AND BROWN CITIZENS ARE SICK AND TIRED OF THIS 5% POL AND PLAYER CORRUPTING OUR STRONG AMERICAN SENSE OF COMMUNITY, FAMILY, HONOR AND DUTY, INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY TIED TO MORALS AND ETHICS AND GOD'S NATURAL LAW.
'But the “nation of immigrants” pitch is also repeated by business-backed Republicans, who share an interest with Democrats in boosting the inflow of migrants.
“We’re a nation of immigrants,” Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said Sept. 17'.
No Assimilation Needed in U.S., Obama Tells Millions of Migrants
by Neil Munro18 Sep 2015
Foreigners who want to become U.S. citizens don’t have to change their attitudes or beliefs, President Barack Obama said in a video aimed at convincing migrants to pursue American citizenship.“It’s not about changing who you are, it’s about adding a new chapter to your journey… and to our journey as a nation of immigrants,” Obama narrates in his two-minute video urging almost 9 million resident migrants to sign up for citizenship so they can vote in 2016.
Obama’s deputies will award citizenship to 36,000 over the next few days.
But federal law — and reality — contradicts Obama’s progressive-style denial of Americans’ sophisticated, evolved and unique society, and contradicts his support for a chaotically diverse “nation of immigrants” devoid of any unique and shared loyalties and obligations.
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen,” says the first sentence of the citizenship oath.
Obama’s pitch to would-be citizens actually demands even less from immigrants than corporate recruitment videos demand from prospective employees, said Mark Krikorian, head of the Center for Immigration Studies.
The empty pitch “does reflect the washed-out understanding of citizenship we have now, where it is just a practical matter, a way of getting a more useful passport, rather than something akin to marriage or religious conversion,” he said.
For Obama and his allied progressives, for libertarians and business globalists, “there is no unique characteristic that binds Americans together,” Krikorian added.
Obama’s pitch also ignores the obligations of citizenship.
The citizenship oath makes some of those obligations crystal clear. The oath requires new citizens to be ready to fight for their new nation, according to the most recent version of the oath, set in law during 1952.
I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.
The benefits of citizenship, and a few costs, are described in a webpage linked to Obama’s new citizenship-promoting website, CommitToCitizeship.org.
Neither Obama’s speech, not the accompanying website, suggest that new citizens should be proud of their new nation’s culture and history, accomplishments and generosity.
“By becoming an American citizen, you’ll take an important towards securing those dreams for all of us, with a promise of better job opportunities, the rights and freedoms enjoyed by every Americans and with the chance to give back to the country you now call home,” he said.
Obama’s text about “rights and freedoms… [and] the chance to give back” is accompanied by pictures of voting and of government. That choice reflects the progressives’ belief that government — not family or civic society — is the only significant expression of common actions by Americans.
Obama does nothing to praise the native-born American people that created America’s culture, plus the modern world’s ideas, technologies, medicines, post-World War II peace and the worldwide marketplace that has lifted billions of people out of poverty.
The video is devoid of any images that suggest Americans’ accomplishments. Instead, the president praises immigrants. “The true strength of a nation lies not not in its might but in the courage and conviction of its people, our hopes, our dreams, our boundless determination to set down roots and build a better life, not just for ourselves but for our families, for our communities, for our children, for all of us,” he said.
His video shows images of lower-skilled tasks, such as construction, cooking and driving, along with multiple pictures of families and cityscapes. The only image of high-tech America is a brief video of an air-traffic control tower.
The Status of Liberty is repurposed into a summons for migrants. In fact, the status was designed, as a light to the world that illuminates the revolutionary political culture created by native-born Americans.
Obama even dismisses the existence of native-born Americans — and their hopes, dreams, preferences and beliefs — by calling America “ a nation of immigrants.”
American is not a nation of immigrants. Seven out of every eight people — or roughly 265 million — living in the United States were born and raised here.
But the “nation of immigrants” pitch is also repeated by business-backed Republicans, who share an interest with Democrats in boosting the inflow of migrants.
“We’re a nation of immigrants,” Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said Sept. 17.