The meaning of democracy - Page 3

How can culture govern when people are so afraid to share themselves with their neighbors? I live in America btw.

It seems that in this new age of connection and personal electronics, products of post-industrial America, that people have become introverted and disconnected from each other. Which probably makes it easier for their government to take advantage them. But the issue it seems is that people, myself included, don't really care to share themselves and actually prefer being able to create their own personal culture in their own homes. This idea rings as a sense of powerful freedom and liberty. The ability to create your own kingdom, with little effort.

The average American lives as well as small time kings from 1000 years ago. What an American can do with 40k a year is astounding and war and poverty almost never touch them. Does our comfort bring about arrogance and apathy towards the rest of the world? Ofcourse. How could it not? Especialy when T.V. and fast food keep us so ignorant. Especialy when our military keeps us so safe.

Btw, at the start of America's industrialization public school was unheard of. Because government had a stake in preparing its youthful citizens for the work place it got its hands on "education," and mass produced a training system for its people. You gotta understand, government doesn't take place over 20 or 30 years, but hundreds. It seems that its intent of training didn't end at industrialization. And rather than using the pursuit of food and shelter as its barganing chips, back then it was either factory jobs (security slavery) or a farm (risk freedom)

I should also say that the founding fathers were against industrialization and favored personal freedom over comfort. (they were rugged lol)

You made me think of many things and I want to encourage discussion instead of discourage it. Perhaps things will go better if you google "liberal education" and come back with another explanation of the past goal of education.

Keep in mind, democracy is self government, and that must begin with governing ones self. However, if the people are not united by principles, there is anarchy and uncontrolled anarchy destroys civilizations, so anarchy brings on the tyranny of authority over the people. Our banking system has proven this point and has brought upon it, tough regulations, because of its failure to regulate itself. In general, the US has become shockingly immoral, and its future is in question.

In the time of our forefathers, literate meant literate in Greek and Roman classics, and their excitement was about creating a virtuous republic. Consider our national symbols, the Statue of Liberty, Lady of Justice, and Spirit of American, the 3 aspects of Athena. There is a mural of gods at our Capital Building and they carry a message to us from our forefathers. Our education was modeled after Athens education for well rounded individual growth, until we adopted the German model.

Thomas Jefferson wrote of "the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence". We need to know he was quoting the Roman Statesman, Cicero, and that later, Lincoln quoted Perciles of Athens, "government of the people, by the people, for the people".

In 1899 James Williams published "TALKS TO TEACHERS ON PSYCHOLOGY, AND TO STUDENTS ON SOME OF LIFE'S IDEALS".
In this book he writes of education in the US, England and Germany. Because we adopted German education for technology in 1958, we might want to know the differences in education and think about the cultural impact of the change, and how this impacts our understanding of democracy.

I will be very pleased if people here are interested in discussing the meaning of democracy, but this may be difficult considering the change in education. So far, you have all of been talking politics, not the philosophy behind the meaning behind democracy.

Democracy without rules is a form of disasterous tyranny by the majority and or those bought off by influence.

I know nothing of this germanic education you speak of, what I do know is that unless it addresses the Rockefeller founded system of education it is irrelevant.

This is the system in place meant to manipulate and undermind actual education while instituting indoctrication in the form of submission in its place.

I believe this was instituted around the time of this germanic model you speak of, to which I apologize for being ignorant of.

Ironwood, are you a Christian conservative opposed to progress? There is no way the US would be the world leader that it has become without the education for progress. Are you sure you want us to be as we were in the 1930's before Roosevelt and the New Deal? If you can argue your case, we will have a very interesting discussion in deed.

I think Thomas Jefferson would have strongly favored the progressive education lead by John Dewey and supported by industrial philanthropist. Are you aware that your argument is Christian, and opposes progress as much as conservative Muslims have opposed progress? Thomas Jefferson and Christians did not see things the same way, and I am equally opposed to the God of Abraham religions, and stand strongly in favor literacy of Greek and Roman classics that promote the advancement of the human potential.

You really got at the heart of the argument, and this is very pleasing to me. We might, of course, join China where fear of change held back progress, and still is a dominant factor in politics. This would be better than war with China, right? How quickly do you think we can learn Chinese?

Hilariously assumptive and completely off base.

No, I am none of your labels.

If I had the ability I would simply ask your personal positions and chosen labels and wait for a reply, but alas, I cannot.

I agree partially to what you say, but I would add that America would not be the super power it was recently, but is no longer and is declining, if it weren't for it being the new world hub and militaristic arm of the cabal of international bankers that run this world.

Yes, plenty of honest and brilliant enginuity went into making America what it is, but it was bought and sold from its inception, it still is run under generally unknown british maritime laws, let alone ruled by our debt system enforced nowadays by our central banks and corrupt government officials who forget they are representatives because the people are so decadent, lazy, fearful, and willfully and even beligerantly ignorant.

If you are an advocate of the false left right paradigm as you assume I likely am, then you are a walking travesty.

If you are unaware of the self admission of the carnagie, ford, and rockefeller foundations intentions and roles over our government and indeed our education system, as exposed in the Congressional Reece committee, then you are simply as ignorant as most, not your fault, as it too was buried as deep as possible.

This system, on both primary mainstream sides is corrupt from its core, and no continuation of it is acceptable.

Complete overhauling reform is necessary to set things right.

This country is as affluent as it is on the backs of all the struggling and intentionally repressed third world and their resources, period. This system is evil by every conceivable definition.

If your advocating the leftist continuation of it, then you too are part of the problem and nowhere near any form of a solution.

I won't assume to know your position as of yet and would love elaboration and clarification.

Smedly Darlington Bulter is my American hero mam, as he was one of the earliest and loudest exposers of this hoax of a system we live in. Again, further verified by the Congressional McCormick Dixteen commitee if you are not aware.

Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Jesse Ventura, Cynthia McKinney, Dennis Kucinich are the current political figures that I have some degree of faith in and agreement with, for the most part, the important parts.

What I said about democracy still stands, if you allow 51 percent of the population the power to enslave the other 49, thats a go fuck yourself system. Which is why we are a republic with god given inalienable rights.

And no, I ascribe and believe in no organized religion for their cultish indoctrination and suppression of human potential, thought, and will.

I look forward to your insight and perspective.

quote:

---

You really got at the heart of the argument, and this is very pleasing to me. We might, of course, join China where fear of change held back progress, and still is a dominant factor in politics.

---

Fear of change and personal responsibility have choked actual progress in this country for some time now, not to mention we have been propping China up to be our ruler in the near future.

I wonder with your use of the words progression and change if you are an Obama fan.

Since I'm still left waiting for a reply, I'm forced to speculate or pontificate on my own.

But if you are a fan, I'd love to know what change you are happy with that his administration has provided.

quote:

---

There is no way the US would be the world leader that it has become without the education for progress. Are you sure you want us to be as we were in the 1930's before Roosevelt and the New Deal? If you can argue your case, we will have a very interesting discussion in deed.

---

As my above post would suggest, I would argue that the education we have been given has led us to be the most abominable force of tyranny and death and destruction the world has ever known.

If any founding father was to advocate an education system that supresses critical thinking and imposes indoctination, memorization, and demanding belief in their "facts" without question, I would kindly tell them where they could stick it.

And on the topic of education in America, I'm hoping you are aware that we have become the laughing stock of the world at this point, yes?

America's so called democracy, which is a total and utter sham that allows no voice to the people past what they nearly violently unite on, has led us on the path of creating a third world economy in this so called world leader you spoke of.

The foundation for which is equally laid at the feet of the parties which espouse so frequently words like progress and change.

I appreciate your challenge to present my arguement and desire greatly your elaboration and clarification so that I may be better able to do so as well.

If you are not a Christian conservative, why are you using their arguments to make a point?

We have agreements, and if you could find a copy of Monroe's "Text Book in the History of Education", you would realize your error. He explains the Christian conflict with Greeks and Romans. Christians consider the Greek and Roman classics to be pagan. In the day of our forefathers, literate meant literate in the Greek and Roman classics. Perhaps the first book written on the history of the US, with a forward from several of the founding fathers, it is said, they were not just protestants, but were protesting protestantism. The religious conflicts at the beginning of our nation were intense.

To understand democracy, it is necessary to be literate in Greek and Roman classics, and many Christians considered such an education pagan! Yet we modeled our education after Athens, education for well rounded personal growth, and this education had nothing to do with vocational training or industry. It was about making us a strong and united Republic, as Thomas Jefferson invisioned this need for education.

When we mobilized for the first world war, Industry, Education and National Defense sat on the same board for the first time. Industry wanted to close the schools, claiming the war caused a labor shortage, and that they were not getting their monies worth from education, because they still had to train employees.

Teachers argued an institution good for making citizens is good for making patriotic citizens. The teachers won, because our system of public schools provided the best institution for mobilizing us for war. Had Industry won, child labor law, keeping children out of the factories during school hours, would have ended and we would have returned to using child labor, and trapping our young in ignorance and poverty.

To appease industry, vocational training was added to education for citizenship. But the change that really put conservative Christians up in arms was the advances in the sciences, and this advancement in sciences was made mandatory by world war. Now we are back to the original conflict between the pagans and Christians.

Check your arguments again. The first one is conservative Christian arguments, opposing the increase of science in education. The second one is tied up with the conservative Christian war on the those godless communist. The commission was part of the cold war communist scare in 1952. Rockefeller died in 1937. That the foundation he started became more profit oriented, is not surprising. The same has happened to Milton Hershey's foundation and town. It is just terrible what happens to these foundations when the men die! But really, how well do you know the agenda of the those who made the arguments you are using?

Cswriter- Hey, I've noticed in your posts that you keep trying to use labels and groups of people to push your ideas closer towards being accepted as correct or justified. From my experience, usually when people do that it has something to do with them not being independent of their own views. I am enjoying this discussion, but think you should try going at this in a more independent sense.

This is you and Ironwood, not your possee vs his possee.

Well, honestly I was hoping for more to work with, but alas, we take what we can get.

Wraith hit a nail on the head and nearly stole some thunder lol.

Why am I using this or that labels arguements? For one, I'm not, secondly, you only assume so because you are trapped in your knowledge and understading due to an over reliance on data that is systematic of the problems to which I speak.

All sides of your imaginary battle, real as it is and was, are going to have half truths at the very least to be sure, or there wouldn't have been a lasting arguement, your unfortunately limited vision has you focused on irrelevant details and minutia that indeed could fill volumes but amound to little more distraction.

Basically you have tried to intellectualize an old school fox new vs. cnn bullshit fest.

Whether you realize it or like it or not, you have been reduced to an unwitting spin doctor and a tool of mass distraction.

I love how you tell me my arguements are this or that, but don't explain how or why that is so.

To understand democracy you only need a dictionary, its a pretty simple concept, yes, it gets complicated in practice but again, your convoluted premise trails of wildly in to an unecessary left feild.

You think industry lost? Then you don't understand the impact of the military industrial complex, you don't understand how these "non profit" organizations were used.

Rockefeller died in 37', whoopdie shit, families like that don't die with one person. This again just speaks to your lack of vision.

You have the audacity to question my knowledge of their agenda after I gave you the perfect avenue to make yourself aware if you were not. Did you bother to check? I doubt it, your words do not support such a case. The congressional investigations I mentioned are your avenue.

Now I have had to summarize the findings numerous times, which gets old, but don't ultimately mind because you show how important it is to discemenate the information as often and in as many places as possible.

So, how well do I know their agenda? Apparently far better than yourself. Do you know why? No? It is because it is from their own words. Google the Reece commitee. There is even video of dying testimony of lead investigators who chronicle the whole thing.

They were given access to the minutes of the Carnagie foundations own meetings, in their own words.

The basic gist is that they wished to use their monetary influence like a massive lobyist firm to control the masses.

They asked the question of what is the most efficient way to control the opinion and will of the people, they found the answer to be war.

So they intended to create perpetual states of war to influence the masses and make a sytem of perpetual wealth and power consolodation.

Among their practical plans were also to control the education system. Given your penchant for citing historical arguements you should be disturbed to find that they chose to outright change history, not a new concept, as history is written by the victors and all that.

Their means were to by off historians, that didn't work according to them, so they took the approach of luring fitting candidates who supported their views or were more easily bought off through their grant programs, if you teach what we want we will give you money, its the same system that corrupts our politics and sciences to this very day.

Their main goal with the education system, which they lost the battle of according to you, was to breed out the concepts of individual power and responsibility by creating dependence upon the state. To discourage critical thinking by forcing monotany and redundancy and repetition, by breaking up classes and forcing too little information in too many directions and choosing memorization and test protocols that were meant to only see if you are willing to fall in line or be punished.

The other main purpouse of the public school system, as well as their backing of the women's liberation movement, was to break up the family, to take children and their learning and influence out of the home and care of the family, for the purpouse of indoctrination, alienation, and the ability to turn children against parents.

Women's lib by the way was an ingenious campaign designed to tax the other half of the population, and again, further break up the family. As admitted by a not dead Rockefeller.

You would do well to to invest in critical thinking. If you are completely dependent on mainstream historians and aren't looking into the behind the scenes information, then you are going to be lost and a well honed tool of propoganda and perpetuation of the problems that plague us.

A woman tasked with reading the minutes of the Carnagie foundation literally went insane due to the sheer scope and depth of conspiracy she was witness to. Which is a key to keeping it in the realm of seeming absurdity and plausible deniability.

This is all information readily available to you, but not through our education system or media.

I find it quite disheartening that you are so stuck on labels and apparently need them to shape your so called debate. Its like you can't see the forest for the trees, nor even the trees themselves unless they properly labeled so as to fit into your perceivable mental framework.

These are very important topics, and for those like myself who want to be able to have some reliance and respect for our elders and their wisdom, I beg of you to look outside of your trappings, to think outside of your box, to judge less the information regardless of its source to which you hold so much bias.

That is something I learned long ago, the reason I can take information from sources that I view negatively is because a fact is a fact, regardless of who is saying it or trying to manipulate or spin it for their own purpouses.

Hopefully you will have a better understanding of my position, if you can fathom it due to its lack of label, and hopefully you will have a better response in the future. But I appreciate you taking the time one way or another, it is increasingly rare to be challenged at all on this forum and you are a very welcome breath of fresh air on that count.

So teach me and or be prepared to learn.

The point is, democracy is meant to be a direct power of the people it governs. When financial OR cultural giants use their over sized sway to gain footing on personal agenda BOTH of them are taking freedom from the people.

It sounds like you're saying, cswriter, that forced legaslation is ok, as long as its heart is in the right place. Thats not democracy, thats socialism.

Btw, your views seem almost identical to pre-industrial Victorian womens lib. Who considered themselves mothers of the country. They had kind of "Government knows best" attitude, remnesent of Orwell's 1982.

Are you saying that the heart of democracy lies in parenting its citizens?

Not to mislead, education is definetly the answer, I just don't understand what education your talking about.

How much does christianity really I have to do with education today.

btw My partner is an education major and for long time I've considered it, so I'd love to hear your direct views on how education stops democracy today. I find that its still the same training ground its always been, it just trains for a different kind of market.

Decius, arrogant and condescending to the end eh?

What misdirection? And how is she unable to expound upon her points and add information?

Chritianity and its attempt to monopolize on indoctrination is an irrelevant situation untill the root concerns are addressed.

It doesn't matter what form or system the education is modeled after if it is inherently currupted and manipulated.

Democracy is doomed to fail without an informed and engaged populous, duh, we know that, so the issue would be why are the people not properly informed or engaged.

So if there is any misdirection its in focusing on distraction. I have no problem with learning more and hearing history, skewed or not. But that does not make it the primary concern or appropriate direction as you so unhumbly suggest.

The meanining of democracy is to empower the people, which is not happening, and its not just because Christians want you to believe only what they do. That is extremely narrow minded and ultimately irrelevant.

Oh poppycock! Education is like a genie in a bottle. The defined purpose is the wish and the students are the genie. My grandmother devoted her life to defending democracy in the classroom, and I was in school when the National Defense Education Act was passed, and I have dealt with the social changes. Many of those changes are horrifying and I would really like to get on to more productive discussion.

Yesterday, I clarified the changes in education resulted from WWI and WII in more detail, but was times out and lost everything. I will gladly give you all the detail you want if you start writing like you want information, instead of like you want to prove an error that lacks information.

Here is the main change that is most distressing! "liberal education develops a sense of right, duty and honor; and more and more in the modern world, large business rests on rectitude and honor as well as on good judgment." Charles W. Eliot. Our liberty depended on this education and we replaced it with Germany's model of education for technology for military and industrial purpose. Now we are so corrupt our banking system failed in such a major way, it brought down banks around the world. Those who brought this upon us, had no sense of right, duty and honor. Knowledge of Athens and Rome would greatly improve your understanding of this.

What is happening at the government is equally horrifying, because we now live under intense bureaucratic controls, that were impossible before the change in education, because people would not have tolerated them! This fulfills Tocqueville's prediction for Christian democracies, and it behooves you to read "Democracy in America" by Tocqueville, and to pay attention to what I am saying, because I assure you, I am far from ignorant on this subject, but have the personal library needed to back up my arguments and access to government documents at the local university. We could be having a very meaningful discussion if that is what others wanted to make this discussion.

I am providing information and you are not taking advantage of it. Look up liberal education and Tocqueville then get back to me.

awakendwraith, thank you! Yes, our government has spun completely out of control and many books have been written about this subject. One of the most important would be "Big Government" explaining how Hoover (republican president before Roosevelt) and Roosevelt (democrat president), developed big government in response to the great depression. Following this praise of big government is the warnings about giving government these new powers. Then WWII increased again the extension of government power, and books warned of exactly what you mention!

A better understanding of the history of fascism would help here. It began in Italy as a workers movement and soon was dominated by business, serving businesses not the people. If we had listened to Deming, we would not be in this mess, but would have replaced the autocratic model of industry with the democratic model. Then our democracy would have become stronger, instead of consumed by fascism.

We seriously need to discuss the ramifications of adopting the German model of bureaucracy. This is Prussian military bureaucracy applied to citizens. Can I share with you what a teacher said at the 1917 National Education Association, when speaking of the enemy? "Whatever their efficiency, such great organizations are so impersonal that they bear down on the individual lives of the people like a hydraulic press whose action is completely effective in crushing out individual liberty and power". I studied Public Policy and Administration at the university level and would be glad to give more detailed information about this change in the organization of our government that has shifted power from the people to the government.

At this same 1917 convention a military officer argued in favor of imitating Germany. We understood the importance of the education we had to defending our democracy and did not adopt the German model for education that goes with the bureaucratic model, until WWII. Which brings us to the Bush family bragging about the US being the New World Order and our need to engage in wars, even as we go bankrupt largely because of debt assumed because of war.

Understand, until the military technology of the second world war, it was believed the oceans protected the US from war. Yes, we engaged in Europe's war but that was a choice made for economic reasons, not a fight for our lives because we were under attack. WWII and Japan attacking us with airoplanes was a total shock, because we were so unprepared for the military technology Germany and Japan. We were so unprepared for war, technologically and psychologically. Air warfare and the ability to drop atomic bombs, changed all that, and we went from relying on patriotism for our defense to relying on military technology. These high tech wars, do not require our sons and daughters as past wars did, but our industry and our money. Our superior military force is also a very expensive military force. Up until this time, we demobilized after every war. However, following WWII, Eisenhower embedded the Military Industrial Complex in our society. When I first started writing of this, there was no information on the Internet about it, but today, you can get Eisenhower's explanation of the Military Industrial Complex and how it will radically change our lives by googling for it.

Don't waste your hypocritical snobbery on me.

I never said you don't have a good and proper model for education. Now did I? No, I did not. Knock it off.

And quit acting like you are the only one with any form of valuable education to dissemenate, I welcome all information you have to offer, what is your problem with mine?

Again, it is not my information anyway, I didn't participate in the Reece committee, nor did I read their internal documents, a researcher did and I'm just passing it on, just like you.

You are not going to have much success implementing a good education system in a corrupt society, do you dissagree? There is a reason it was changed in the first place and reasons why it was never fixed, and reasons why any fixes will be resisted.

Good god, there is a contextual difference between our points, there appears to be no arguement, not uncommon around here.

I apologize if I came across as though any information you have or wish to share has no value, that is not my position. Like I said, I'm worried about fixing the problem, I'm personally not overly concerned about the details of what the better system is, just that it is put in place and the hurdles of corruption are made perfectly clear for the awareness of those who are indeed not aware.

Now, if you wish to continue your notion that anything I have said is poppycock, unless you can prove this, you can kindly go fuck yourself. Again, I'm just relaying information from behind the scenes that most people aren't aware of, I'm betting you are dismissing it without even verifying its existance let alone vetting it, which is standard hypocricy and indeed blatant belligerant ignorance. Another problem I'm trying to address.

Now, what error am I trying to prove that lacks information that I have kindly offered reference to regardless of your apparent claim to the contrary?

So far you are only making my case in a sanitized mainstream fashion. Am I disputing your claims of facts? No, I'm giving more information, actually referencing insider claims of intentions and agendas that, is all. If you are not aware of them, I suggest you look into it.

So I will ask you outright since you don't actually address anything I say but merely make sweeping statements of dismissal, no wonder Decius likes the way you talk.

Are you aware of the Reece committee and its findings? Are you aware of the McCormick Dixteen committee and its findings? Do you know who Smedly Darlington Bulter is? Do you think I made them up?

What information of yours am I not taking advantage of, I am quite familiar with your concepts and in agreement with them, why would I need to research further detail, your logic is faulty here.

What again exactly do you think is poppycock? What is this undefined error that I want to prove without any information?

Of course America is being dumbed down, no dissagreement, of course the government beuracracy and economic system is corrupt and run afoul, no dissagreement, and of course it is because the masses are intentionally and even willfully kept ignorant, distracted, and afraid, why am I having to repeat myself to help people understand the lack of arguement?

But do you honestly think there are no motives shaping these events? You think the tyrannical brand of globilization and perpetual war, beurocracy, famine, ignorance, and general consolodation of wealth and power is happening by accident?

Is this what you are referring to as my error? Is this what you take issue with? What? Please explain yourself before making wild accusations or sweeping dismissals. If you feel something in my point is lacking information, how about you tell me what the hell you are talking about and ask for some information? There's an idea.

Productive conversation indeed. Nice dodge there. How about you engage in a conversation first then we can decide how productive it is.

You took issue with my position correct? Well how about explaining yourself and what you take issue with, please and thank you.

I think you have mistaken my passive style of writing, and efforts to avoid offending you as snobbery. May be you and I should agree to ignore each other, considering you are getting nothing from the information I am providing.

You begin with no understanding of liberal education, nor the historic events that resulted in changes in our education, and put yourself in a corner that you can not get out of. You didn't even google liberal education before continuing your argument. Your mistakes are not my problem, and you should not be blaming me for them.