The meaning of democracy - Page 4

Wow really. Your ranking up on the recent list of exceptionally special people I'm suddenly running into.

You can't offend me, you annoy the crap out of me when you avoid actually conversing instead of lecturing however.

I don't ignore people on a public debate forum, maybe that's how you work, and if so, you will fit in here. And actually you are already ignoring my questions, and not asking me any, which makes you pointless.

You have no knowledge of what I do or do not get from your provided information, and you won't tell me what you think I don't get. So that I can agree or dissagree or inquire further.

I'm citing direct insider confessions of historic events that resulted in changes in our education system. I am even agreeing with you and taking your word on your details of the changes that were made and the primary reason it was allowed to happen.

My points and questions have no need for me to google liberal education, and I don't just do what people tell me, especially when they refuse to actually participate in conversation. If you gave me a reason to even feel like doing so would even have anything to do with what I'm talking about, then I probably would. But you see, you have not.

And since you can't and won't answer simple yes or no questions or elaborate on the supposed significance or relevance of your supposed point, that I am saying is not contextually relevant to what I speak of, while chastising me for not looking something up while hypocritically not looking up what I reference, all while I am expressing agreement and interest in your position, not your data yet, as your data is irrelevant to me untill I can be assured you even have a position I wish to address and untill I even know you understand my own, why would I bother?

Do you understand the difference, why is this so difficult for you? You were the one challenging my statement, and all I said is that a democracy must have some rules to keep a majority from tyrannizing a minority. What in god's name does that have to do with liberal education?

And so far all you have done, when even slightly bothering to address my words was mislabel them. And when I correct you on my position you baselessly claim I am mistaken, and now are even telling me I am blaming you for my mistake, which again you have not defined or clarified. You realise this is beyond absurd, yes?

And again, maybe repitition will help, if you simply tell me what your point is in reference to my own, or tell me what you think I'm mistaken about, perhaps then I will have a desire to google your terms.

Because right now I'm not sure you are competent enough to hold a conversation with even if you choose to bother, seriously. And this is something I would like to be mistaken about.

I know what I am referencing is documented, if you have a problem with the information, take it up with them, if you have questions or disputes, I'd love to hear them. Perhaps I can elaborate or you could even correct whatever mysterious mistakes you don't speak of.

I have not demanded you research anything, I have simply asked if you are aware of the information, I even kindly offered a summary explanation to help you not have to look anything up, you have not been so kind.

Passive style of writing and attempts to avoid offending are not snobbish to me, complete, unwarranted, unexplained, or reasoned dismissal of historical facts and total avoidance of answering direct questions and requests for elaboration and explanation while contemptuously condescending an actual given position, something you have not offered, however is.

Do you see the difference?

I am not fond of talking to myself or to brick walls, but sometimes I'm in such awe that I am unable to stop myself. Plus the subject matter to which I speak, which we may never know if it has any relevance to whatever position you are supposedly "defending?", is of great importance to me and so I make sure I understand people's position when they challenge the information, or even do whatever it is that you are doing.

I sincerely hope you bother to attempt to engage in actual dialogue rather than lecture.

I currently have no interest in the details of liberal education and thus far have no dispute to them or desire to not have them established in the education system.

You are challenging something about my offered information that I am presenting and however am indeed quite curious as to what you are taking issue with, please clarify.

Notice how when you did actually ask me a direct question, about me being sure I am aware of the agenda of the organizations I spoke of, I gave a direct answer? I would appreciate if you would share the same curtousy, is that so much to ask? Or even argue the information provided so as to correct me, that is the point of debates and conversations of this nature, yes?

There is nothing unreasonable about my position or requests, but your dismissal and claimed but undefined mistakes that you are now trying to not even defend or elaborate on, is quite unreasonable.

Again, I very much hope you decide to engage in discourse.

Due to continued awe of this situation and great sadness and dissappointment with your refusal to talk.

I have now googled Liberal education.

The history that you referenced is mentioned as a generalized unknown. Yes, christians stifled it in medievil times and its modern decline in america is "often attributed" to the mobilization efforts for WWII.

This in no way is either definitive nor on conflict with the information I provided.

In fact it would correlate rather well with it. As the heads of international and central banks and corporatists who lead the military industrial complex are the same people who run the non profit organizations and seed the positions of influence within the government and are even the institutors of germanic education system you refer to, as well as being the very founders of the public education system and the grant system.

All I have done is elaborated on their motive, and mind you, though it is public information, it is something they publicly deny and attempt to keep as secret as possible, even after being exposed in a congressional investigations and brought on charges of high treason before the investigation was forced to shut down by the very same powers in question.

So, so far I have no problem with your information, and I was in perfect understanding of it through basic inference before my google search, so now I ask again, what is your problem with mine?

Where is your dispute? And again I will ask, are you familiar with the details of the Reece committees findings? The source of the verified and documented historical fact I referenced when speaking of the motive and agenda behind the change in the education system as described in the very words of the people responsible for modeling and instituting the modern education system.

Or do my direct and referenced questions, after having even accomodated your request for a google search, still not meet your qualifications for an answer?

And after this google search I am seeing no evidence of any mistakes or corners. That have anything to do with me anyway.

And for the sake of this one way conversation, I will attempt to speculate on the possibility that entire dispute you have and mistake I have supposedly made, is likely based on the notion that all your formal education and personal research on this topic has not lead you to believe or even be aware of the possibility, let alone documented fact of a conspiracy to manipulate the education system.

If so, did it ever occur to you that such a conspiracy might attempt to be hidden and even lied about? Or are nefariouis acts theft and enslavement by people in power who want to keep it and gain ever more while hiding these realities to avoid revolt concepts that are just beyond your capability to fathom?

Regardless, you can even watch videos to reference the information I have cited, if you like, google Norman Dodd and Reece Committee.

You can even watch or research Charlotte Iserbyt who was the Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Educational Improvement in the first Reagan administration who is a whistle blower of in reference to the intentional agenda of corruption of the education system for the purpose of dumbing down the world.

Or John Taylor Gatto, a retired american school teacher of 29 !/2 years saying the same thing.

I apologize for being unable to link again due to technical restraints.

Cs, Do the conversation you started a favor. You aren't in need of talking to me, its about the information. Your requests and challenges were met, this information is important, just answer the questions and help others interested understand if you are learning or have something worth while to teach.

A case has been clearly made challenging your claims of mistaken poppycock.

If you can't handle a challenge unless its only you giving, I don't recommend a debate forum for you.

Bad, bad words!!! for the second time I have lost over an hours work on a post, by being timed out. I am so pissed by loosing the work I put into post, that I seriously need to walk my dog, and to consider if I even want to return to a forum designed for quick replies rather than thoughtful replies that take time. Perhaps there is a good reason, but I don't have a clue what it would be.

If I do come back, I will start a thread "social engineering programs" for the discussion you want.

Hate when that happens.

Don't think its the site though, I've spent over an hour making posts before and have never been "timed out" but talk to decius about it if you think it is something with the site, he can fix it.

But a habit of cut n paste before post could help for the mean time. But I hope you persevere, am interested in your information.

Ironwood, I addressed what I understand is your question in a thread titled "social engineering".

We need to get this one back on track and hopefully others will return to it.

The "Democracy Series" of text books printed in the 1940's and used in grades 1 through 6 defines democracy like this:

"Democracy is a way of life and social organization which above all others is sensitive to the dignity and worth of the individual human personality, affirming the fundamental moral and political equality of all men and recognizing no barriers of race, religion, or circumstance." (General Report of the Seminar on "What is Democracy?" Congress on Education for Democracy, August, 1939).

Note the purpose of education before the US entered WWI of WWII was mobilizing the nation for war. This means, defining democracy and comparing it to the enemy so everyone knows what they are fighting for and what they are fighting against. I feel like one of the luckiest people, because I have this series of text books, as absolute prove of how the US was mobilized for the second world war, against Germany, long before declaring war with Germany, and also a copy of the 1917 National Education Association Conference, detailing how important our school system was to mobilizing us for the first world war.

Some might call this propaganda, but really, democracy is an ideology and therefore, it can not be manifest unless the people understand the ideology and agree that is what they want. A big problem for democracy in the US is the power of religion, and not all Christians what democracy. This is as much a problem in the US as it would be in any Muslim country.

Oh, one more thing, soon after the second world war President Eisenhower, praised the Germans for their contribution to democracy and there is excellent reason for this. Can you all deal with Eisenhower praising the Germans for their contribution to democracy, only a few years after defeating Germany in war? Why would he do that? Why would the US imitate Germany?

It would seem the claims of propaganda would be in reference to propgandizing a mobilization for war.

Which is still an important issue in reference to democracy. Because again, as many have noted a properly informed public is essential, not one manipulated by war propaganda, one of the biggest issues we suffer today in fact.

Are you questioning if public education was used to mobilize us for the first and second world wars? I can quote from books if you like? It was the focus of the 1917 National Education Conference. Pick a page number and I will tell you want was written on that page.

We were feeding the allies with our wheat, so the schools taught women how to substitute corn meal for wheat. They also promoted growing victory gardens and recycling. We paid for our wars by selling war bonds, and schools were very much a part of selling war bonds. They organized social functions to keep spirits high. Women got together and knit scarfs and socks for soldiers. Teachers were advised to teach the females to imitate Spartan women, and send their men to war without tears or protest. This is when the push for more scientific education became strong, because we need that science for war.

These moments of intense patriotism are nothing compared to focusing the whole of education on military and industrial technology, which we have done since 1958. This is how Germany became a military might, and when my friends and I deal with young receptionist, a cold chill goes up our spine, because they are so following orders, and so not connecting with us as human beings. They really become extensions of the machines (life defined by the job). Very efficient but also dehumanizing, and we think of Germans cooperating with orders to kill Jews and wonder how far are we from that?

Last year I was fired from a job, for being too friendly. I had to be transferred to a different department and my clients complained strongly. My government employer could not tolerate this control problem, so I was fired and the training was changed to stress the importance of not becoming friends with clients, and a friend told me my former supervisor was very distressed by clients objection objections to the change. The very opposite of what we were when we entered the first world war.

I was working for an organization taking advantage of women of as care givers, with a training film featuring clients who said, "having a Senior Companion is like having family". The organization started back in the day, when women stayed home to take care of everyone. Forty years late, we are to be as robots following orders, but not humans engaged in real relationships, and the rules were ridiculous! We were to meet human needs, but the client was not the person who defined these needs. Do you understand what a huge moral change has occurred? They took the human meaning out of the work we were doing. Can we be more dehumanizing than to take the human meaning out of working with the elderly?

Many years ago, the state took my grandchildren, and I learned more about tyranny than I knew there is to learn. One way to effect equality, is to train humans to not be personal. I have a teacher training book that explains the benefits of not being personal, and treating all children the same. So we give all the decision making power of what happens to a child or family, to a person who is trained to be non emotional and impersonal. Now what are the moral controls? Do you care to define a police state? How about explaining what happened in Germany?

No, and I don't see where you got that. I was speaking of propagandizing, quite clearly.

Regardless, I was again referencing a point to gain insight into your opinionated position on various facts and fact claims.

Again, propagada tends to be highly biased and often false. Some people, like myself, are concerned about being lied into a war.

Some don't care as long as the believe the war is just, which again comes back to the base point of mine dealing with the realities behind why these wars took place to begin with. And no, I don't just mean what an approved textbook says was the case either.

I like your attitude and enthusiasm, but I would appreciate a bit more effort on your listening and ability to form direct responses to direct questions.

You don't see where I got what?

The only question you have asked is what I know of the Reece committee and that is not the subject of this thread. Start a thread for discussing the Reese Committee, or a thread about industry influence on government, if that is what you want to discuss. I can use my books to argue the threat of big business to our democracy very well, but that is not the subject of this thread. This thread is about the meaning of democracy, and we understand the meaning of democracy by studying Greek and Roman classics. We stopped doing this in 1958 and derailed our democracy.

I was horrified by the re election of Bush after he invaded a country that had not attacked us. I am sickened by the reality he used the Christian right to get elected and these are people who study the bible, and nothing else. All they knew of Iraqis is they are not Christians. They knew nothing of the reality of oil and industrial economies, or of the Baghdad Railroad, or the history of world wars. You seriously are not getting what I am saying. Education for technology has specialized people and their knowledge of the world is pathetic!!! You just are not getting what I am saying.

I am not arguing in favor of schools mobilizing us for war. Which by the way is no longer necessary, because it doesn't take a year to mobilize for wars, and it does not take public approval to engage in a war in 4 hours, and to conduct that war for many years. If a the people decide a President entered us a bad war, the worst that can happen is he will loose the next election. So what. Stupid ass idiots agreed to giving the President even more power to engage us in war, not even understanding our own history and why we spent very little on military spending, until Eisenhower turned us into an Industrial Complex.

Few of my books are approved text books. Your opinion of me is really funny. I buy books written when history was made, so my information is not biased, by today's political agenda. The reason for keeping some college text, is to prove things like, we adopted the German model of bureaucracy. Why are you not understanding I am saying this crushes individual liberty and power? If you would pick on the information I am providing, this discussion could move forward instead go no where.

That is nowhere near the only question I've asked you, but I have no trouble believing its the only one that's permeated your myopic vision.

The meaning of democracy is not contingent upon what you study, the inception of democracy, the effects of democracy, and indeed the state of democracy to be sure.

My point there is is that your point is hypocritical. Your greek classics have nothing more to do with the meaning or democracy than the rece committee, but everything to do with past and present states of democracy.

If you want to be a purest, which given your sermons wouldn't surprise me, this thread would be limited to simply defining democracy.

But, like most hypocritical purests, your fundamentalism only applies when it suits your desires.

You can argue against the threat of big industry against democracy huh? You are hilarious.

Do you even know what fascicm is? Or was that not in your greek books so it is unknown or irrelevant?

I have no failure in getting what you are saying ma'am, that pleasure is all yours.

Yes, their education is a problem, but did you not just hear yourself, what does big oil have to do with democracy? Didn't you just say that isn't an issue?

It does take public approval, if we stood together. And you seem to underestimate or not even account for the education system that is the media.

Not biased by todays agenda, good, doesn't mean they are not biased or have all the necessary and pertinent insider information and testimony of HIDDEN agendas.

I understand very well what you are saying it crushes, and for the god only knows how many'th time, I agree. Why don't you understand that?

The discussion will only move forward when you engage in discussion.

Please rewrite this, avoiding any mention of me. You might have something of value to say, but I am not reading through the attacks on me that you seem to think are good arguments of the subject, to see if you had said actually said anything about the subject.

Im not rewriting anything, im not wasting any more energy on you than I feel like untill you even participate. Stop being a drama queen and get on with it.

It is not for me that you attempt to think through the subject, but for yourself. You are coping out to blame me for want you can't do.

My god woman, you are rediculous, I understand you words and agree with your basic premise, it is you avoiding listening and learning, quit this hypocritical nonsense seriously.

Do you think you have nothing to learn?

I want very badly to be able to progress this dialogue, but I can't force you to participate. I have been participating and you keep acting like im not.

I can't even address what you may not know and elaborate on my points of where I agree and don't because you wont answer questions.

Do you realize how you are disrupting the debate? Please stop it. Stop trying to tell me what I am and am not doing and just answer the questions, ask questions, but don't just lecture, this isn't a lecture forum.

Either answer questions, ask them, or stop blaming others for your obstruction.