Home | Underground History of American Education | History Tour | Bookstore
Newsletter / Discussion Board | Multimedia | Film: 4th Purpose | Retreat | Odysseus Group
About Us | Contact us | Links | Discussion Forum Archive
Return to Website

The Odysseus Group's Education Debate & Discussion Forum

This forum has been created for you, so feel free to use it often to share your ideas, insights, and experiences from which we all can learn. Please note that we will remove postings if they: a) are not germane to the subject of education, b) are advertisements or sales pitches, c) contain profanity, obscenity, or comments that are insulting to readers.

The Odysseus Group's Education Debate & Discussion Forum
Start a New Topic 
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Re: Who's talking about messing with Israel?

I can't think of anything that is more off base Scripturally than attacking, and not loving, enemies. That is the foundation of Christianity, along with the saving sacrifice of Christ, the Son of God.

Attacking enemies of Israel is fundamentally Judaism, Old Covenant. Doing it because you think that God will curse His children (and ALL believers are His children, not just Jews-American or otherwise-, not just those who live in the State of Israel) isn't saying much for Gods love for the Gentiles.

I see no reason why Americans should spill their blood for a state that has attacked the USS Liberty, killing American soldiers (even though LBJ participated), whose lobbyists do their best to subvert what is best for OUR country in favor of what benefits the state of Israel, etc.

America is decaying and suffering the consequences of falling away from God, not because we haven't sent enough young folks to die for "Israel".

Re: Who's talking about messing with Israel?

Dave
JS,

I believe that you are confusing American Jewry with Israel. They are not the same.

As for "messing with Israel," God makes it clear in scripture (Gen. 12:3) that he will bless them that bless his people, and curse those that curse them. That implies more than just "leaving them alone."

Obama is putting America into the situation of "cursing" Israel.

I can't say it any better than Farah. Whether one believes that Israel is God's chosen people, or not, is totally irrelevant. God believes that they are, and he will judge any nation that acts against his people.

It's as simple as that.

Folks who think the U.S. and geographical Israel are one and the same are wrong.


I'm not sure what you mean by that. The only folks I know of who would make a statement like that are the dominionist theology people, and they are way off base scripturally.

Dave


Wow, so this god caused hurricane Katrina because some american supposedly had the nerve to f**&ck with Isreal? Sounds like a **** good bodyguard. I'm part jewish, can I get in on this? I'll never need to worry about going homeless, now I can just squat in somebody elses house, and if they don't clear out when I say so god will turn them into a pile of brimstone. Again, can I get in on this?

Re: Who's talking about messing with Israel?

I think I understand what Dave means. Scripture is an account of the progression of God's covenants with His people, and Israel are His people. And early on God protected Israel and "smited" her enemies. But Christ made a New covenant, brought non-Hebrews into His saving grace and taught us to love our enemies, to return love when treated with violence. The best recent example I can think of is the Amish community whose daughters were murdered and maimed by the crazy man who held them hostage in their school a few years ago. I believe I read that the Amish attended the mans funeral and visited his family. Their example of true Christian love in response to violence was humbling and powerful.

God doesn't need to unleash wrath upon us, simply falling away from His law has resulted in dysfunction and chaos, lawlessness and bondage.

Re: Who's talking about messing with Israel?

js
I think I understand what Dave means. Scripture is an account of the progression of God's covenants with His people, and Israel are His people. And early on God protected Israel and "smited" her enemies. But Christ made a New covenant, brought non-Hebrews into His saving grace and taught us to love our enemies, to return love when treated with violence. The best recent example I can think of is the Amish community whose daughters were murdered and maimed by the crazy man who held them hostage in their school a few years ago. I believe I read that the Amish attended the mans funeral and visited his family. Their example of true Christian love in response to violence was humbling and powerful.

God doesn't need to unleash wrath upon us, simply falling away from His law has resulted in dysfunction and chaos, lawlessness and bondage.


Everything you said here is true, and well-said by the way. With one exception.

The "progression of covenants" as you called it is not linear -- one ends, another begins, it ends, then there's another one. In truth, the covenants overlap each other, some are temporary, others are permanent.

It so happens that God's covenant with Israel is a permanent one. The Book of Revelation, Daniel, and many other books in God's word tell about the fulfillment of that covenant in the end times.

In fact, the Bible from beginning to end is nothing but a story of God's plan for Israel. We, as gentiles, get to ride in on the coattails of God's chosen people, but we in no way supplant them in God's plan.

JS, you and I obviously disagree in this major doctrinal issue, and it would take a lot more time than I am willing to take right now to prove that God's covenant with Israel still stands. All I can do is recommend that you do a critical study of Dominionist and Covenant theologies so you can learn where they diverge from God's word in the Bible.

Dave

Re: Who's talking about messing with Israel?

So Gentiles who are believers, Gods adopted children, are second class and only created to be of use to "Israel"? God certainly has the right to do so, and I would not question it if I thought He did. His ways are not my ways.

I believe God's covenant with Israel is permanent as well. I just believe that the Gentiles became part of it, that those who believe and accept Christs sacrifice on their behalf (and he said He came to save ALL men), love and follow Him were entered into that New Covenant. What good is Christs New Covenant if American Christians view it as their jihad to smite the enemies of Israel and to ignore the sins of Israel against the direct teaching and example of Christ?

Thanks for taking the time to respond, Dave. I know you're busy and I discuss religion with you with trepidation. But this thing with Israel and the US fighting their wars I can't reconcile with Christs teaching. I would never interfere (mess)with them, of course. But becoming their lapdogs and ignoring Christ can't be righteous.

Re: Who's talking about messing with Israel?

js
So Gentiles who are believers, Gods adopted children, are second class and only created to be of use to "Israel"? God certainly has the right to do so, and I would not question it if I thought He did. His ways are not my ways.

I believe God's covenant with Israel is permanent as well. I just believe that the Gentiles became part of it, that those who believe and accept Christs sacrifice on their behalf (and he said He came to save ALL men), love and follow Him were entered into that New Covenant. What good is Christs New Covenant if American Christians view it as their jihad to smite the enemies of Israel and to ignore the sins of Israel against the direct teaching and example of Christ?


Again, I agree with most of what you posted here.

However:

You said: "So Gentiles who are believers, God's adopted children, are second class and only created to be of use to Israel?"

No. Gentiles are included in the promise when God told Abraham that he will "multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens." We are the seed, as Christians, because of the imputation of Christ, not by birth or nationality as the Jews are.

There is no implying that Gentiles are second class or created to be stooges of Israel.

I certainly do not want to get into a major discussion about wars in the Middle East, but I'll just say that I believe that America's involvement there has a whole lot less to do with a Biblical mandate, and a whole lot more to do with the fact that the Muslims brought the war to us by their cold-blood murder of thousands of people on our shores.

Secondarily, that Israel is America's best (only) ally in the Middle East, and that the Muslim nations surrounding Israel, including also much of the rest of the world's nations, have sworn to wipe Israel from the face of the earth, gives us pretty good justification for coming to their defense when necessary.

Dave

Re: Who's talking about messing with Israel?

>>>>and a whole lot more to do with the fact that the Muslims brought the war to us by their cold-blood murder of thousands of people on our shores.<<<<

But we don't know that. All we know is an official story that does not answer many. many questions and inconsistencies (and there atre entire websites dedicated to those questions that are dismissed as "conspiracy sites"...still not answering the questions). The best way to view 9/11 is the old "who benefits" question, review the Joint Chiefs "Operation Northwoods" scenario and then a lot makes sense. If Muslims did do it then they were certainly ALLOWED to do it as our jets "stood down".

>>>>>Secondarily, that Israel is America's best (only) ally in the Middle East,<<<<

With all due respect, they aren't much of an ally. Ask the dead from the Liberty. And Christian persecution in Israel is common. The Zionist controlled US media TELLS us they are our ally and that is supposed to be that.

>>>>>> and that the Muslim nations surrounding Israel, including also much of the rest of the world's nations, have sworn to wipe Israel from the face of the earth, gives us pretty good justification for coming to their defense when necessary.<<<<

No, it doesn't. The Israelis have wiped plenty of Muslims off the face of the earth. If Israel wants to establish a state and force Muslims off their property then that is THEIR war, not ours. And the Muslim nations have been antagonized by the establishment of the state so it is not surprising that there is ill will on both sides. But this is not our fight. We don't have to "come to their defense", they have proven they can attack the mightiest state in the world and get away with it, killing U.S. sailors. Let them fight their own wars. Let the American Jews who support the state go their and defend it and run it instead of demanding the US keep it going and defend it. There seem to be a lot of lefty Jews in the US who would never support the same societal egalitarianism and multiculturalism in Israel that they demand and promote in the US via the media. Is it an accident that these philosophies are destroying the US?

Re: Who's talking about messing with Israel?

JS,

As much as I tend to take the side against our current United States government on most issues these days, the preposterous claim that Americans were behind the 9/11 tragedy doesn't carry much water with me.

I guess I can't help but believe that the Muslims are fully capable of devising and carrying out atrocities on their very own.

Personally, I wish the "truthers" would spend their time and energy instead exposing the truth about Obama's ineligibility to hold the office of the President of the United States.

A whole lot more could be accomplished by removing that poseur from office than is gained by concocting weird conspiracies about agencies of the United States being responsible for 9/11.

Having said that, however, I do believe personally that the leftist bunch currently in charge of our country is also fully capable of devising and carrying out the kind of tragedy that was 9/11. But, they weren't in charge in 2001, so the point is moot.

In fact, I fully expect that before the 2012 election rolls around Obama's handlers will create a "false flag" incident on a par with 9/11.

But, that's them. There's no way you could persuade me that Bush's crowd is the same as Obama's crowd in that regard.

Dave

Re: Who's talking about messing with Israel?

>>>>As much as I tend to take the side against our current United States government on most issues these days, the preposterous claim that Americans were behind the 9/11 tragedy doesn't carry much water with me.<<<<

Preposterous? When the nearly exact scenario was suggested by our military in “Operation Northwoods” years before? When the collapse of the towers in their own footprint was the first time in history that has happened to a steel structured skyscraper, and it happened twice and only after a few hours? Building 7 collapsing in exactly the same manner although it was never hit? The eyewitness reports of explosions? The removal of bomb sniffing dogs 2 weeks prior to the attack? The mysterious absence of our vaunted military, allowing even the Pentagon to be attacked??? The lack of wreckage at the Pentagon site, the damage inconsistent with an airliner hitting it (or the crash site in PA, for that matter), the rapid destruction of evidence and confiscation of film from private security cameras of adjacent businesses? Why footage of the WTC rubble showed steel beams sliced diagonally, exactly as is done by demolitionists to facilitate buildings sliding downward into their own footprint? When it was lyingly used to excuse attacking a country that the administration had been salivating to attack? These questions are not preposterous.

>>>>I guess I can't help but believe that the Muslims are fully capable of devising and carrying out atrocities on their very own.<<<<<

I’m quite certain they can, as well. The question is, did they? And why was there such a belated response? I just want to know where were the scrambled fighters for the first hour or so, why weren’t warnings of this happening taken seriously enough to save the public although Condi Rice was warning her buddies to not fly?

Personally, I wish the "truthers" would spend their time and energy instead exposing the truth about Obama's ineligibility to hold the office of the President of the United States.

Do you realize how ironic it is for a “birther” to be calling those who question the official story of 9/11 “truthers”? I’m a “birther” AND a “truther”, as if calling someone those names eliminate the need to answer the questions.

>>>>A whole lot more could be accomplished by removing that poseur from office than is gained by concocting weird conspiracies about agencies of the United States being responsible for 9/11.<<<<

Concocting?? Come ON, Dave. Can you be this naïve? Or is it simply a refusal to consider the complicity of the military in this false flag op? I can’t see much difference between the Marxist Usurper and W., he’s just bailing out his backers and moving us further into the Total state, just as every Prez. has done. I can’t see that idiot Biden would be an improvement. I don’t believe Obama was really even elected by the people. How’s THAT for a conspiracy? If they could pull off 9/11 and get most to accept that lie, lying about and rigging an election is small potatoes. Besides, the official 9/11 story is one of conspiracy. Just different conspirators, Muslims instead of our own rulers. Agencies of the U.S. are up to no good all the time. “Absolute power corrupts absolutely“.

>>>>Having said that, however, I do believe personally that the leftist bunch currently in charge of our country is also fully capable of devising and carrying out the kind of tragedy that was 9/11. But, they weren't in charge in 2001, so the point is moot.<<<<

So you view the Republicans as above attacking the US to achieve support for war? I don’t. W. did not roll back any of the leftist nonsense, neither did the Republicans when they had a majority in Congress. They are the same. The Neocon advisors to Bush were originally Trotskyites. There is no conservative other than Ron Paul in the Republican Party. Now watch them run a RINO detested by the conservatives in order to insure the Obammunists “re-election”….unless Ron Paul ruins their party.

>>>>In fact, I fully expect that before the 2012 election rolls around Obama's handlers will create a "false flag" incident on a par with 9/11.<<<<

But the sainted Republicans would NEVER do that, huh?

>>>>>But, that's them. There's no way you could persuade me that Bush's crowd is the same as Obama's crowd in that regard.<<<<

What is the difference between them? One is in bed with corporations and oil, the other with corporations and unions. I’m not seeing it. W. even admitted there were no WMDs, they “outed” Valerie Plame for her husbands role in exposing the lies. They are just as devious as the Marxists in charge now.

Re: Who's talking about messing with Israel?

JS,
As I listen to your theories a couple of well established policies come to mind.
The first is Occam's Razor. The truth is that the simplist explanation is likely to be right. We have the names and assignments of the Muslims that did the deed. We can track their back trail on the day of the attack. We know they boarded the planes. And on and on and on.
It may be the first time a building collapsed in exactly that fashion but any jack leg engineer with dirty hands from being in the shop so much can explain that by the plane load of fuel hitting it near the top. The collapse cascaded straight down to the ground. The more familiar toppling of a tree or a tall building occurs because they are destroyed from near ground level. Secondly, it is a well known fact that although the collapse appeared to be straight down there was considerable splashing side-ways.
Why don't you try to convince the Muslims that we will approve of a Mosque at ground zero as soon as a cathedral is completed in downtown Mecca?
Ron

How easy it is, Ron, for the oligarchy to fool you
Re: How easy it is, Ron, for the oligarchy to fool you

Louise,
How did they fool me? I know that is another question that you can't answer.
Ron

Re: How easy it is, Ron, for the oligarchy to fool you

You actually believe that invading Iraq and Afghanistan is defeating your imaginary caliphate.

Meantime, the United States does billion dollar arms deals with Saudi, one of the most repressive regimes on the planet. Hey, at least it's not China, right?

Take heart. George W. Bush looked kind of cute prancing around DC holding hands with Saudi royalty a few years back.

Re: How easy it is, Ron, for the oligarchy to fool you

Louise,
"You actually believe that invading Iraq and Afghanistan is defeating your imaginary caliphate."
And you have swallowed the PC line that it doesn't defeat OBL's (and others) dream of a caliphate hook, line and sinker.
You go through the public schools believing all you were taught. Then you go to college and believe the words of the anti-American left wing instructors get their wisdom directly from the collectivist liberal version of God. But, Louise my gullible friend, you never ever look at the evidence. It is sufficient to hate America.
You have no idea why OBL might want the hundreds of billions of dollars per year in petroleum revenue. You woke up in a brand new world this morning as you did yesterday and your PC masters haven't gotten around to teaching you how to finance an army.
You read, HECK, I believe you indicated that you typed the manuscript, UHAE but you refused to look at the evidence. You don't know that the liberal wings of the Republican and Democrat parties grew out of the machinations of the same oligarchs that designed the modern public schools. To reason that out you have to understand that 2 plus 2 equals 4 and you have proudly asserted that you are non-mathematical. You despise those that can count.
Ron

And then is heard no more: it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing

Keep making things up as you go along, Ron. I never said I typed any ms. You're so full of BS.

And because I disagree with you, you attribute it to public school and "PC Masters."

It is you, Ron, who are in the dark and understand little if anything of what Gatto reveals in Underground.

The only argument you've presented here, in your usual fashion, is more and more and more insults. Bully for you, bully boy!

Don't you wish

Louise,
"The only argument you've presented here, in your usual fashion, is more and more and more insults. Bully for you, bully boy!"
Right. You say that and then in another breath you list all the stuff I try to explain. So, which is it O constistant one? Do I bully or do I teach?
To me you are the quintessential public school graduate. I say that because you seem interested in those subjects the oligarchy set our schools up to teach but disinterested outside that narrow range of subjects. Fred Taylor, Warren Buffet, et al are totally off your radar.
Ron

How interesting to see you confronted with some blind beliefs

that are just as irrational as some of your own.

Re: How interesting to see you confronted with some blind beliefs

Which beleifs of mine are irrational? Please explain how they are irrational.

Re: How interesting to see you confronted with some blind beliefs

This site, on education, is ridiculous!

Just about all of your beliefs that you so fervently believe are irrational. I think you should try to figure out and explain to yourself how they are irrational. It would be a good exercise for you in critical thinking.

But they AREN'T irrational

You simply decree that they are and then decline to explain how they are irrational.

And even if it were true, I don't insist YOU believe as I do. I am perfectly willing for you to believe in the nobility of the state. ALL I am saying is you nor anyone else has the right to force it on those who do not consent to it.

Dave, you are a dupe of religious and

government propaganda.

Re: Dave, you are a dupe of religious and

Louise,
"Dave, you are a dupe of religious and . . . government propaganda."
Please inform us exactly what religious and government propaganda has duped Dave? Do you know or are you just generalizing?
We know from past experience that Communist China, Soviet Russia and Nazis Germany all persecuted Christians as well as all other religions because in a collectivist government there was no room for any God but the State. Is your position influenced by your collectivist beliefs?
Ron

So utterly ridiculous, especially on a site that claims to be about education

Dave believes that God sent tornadoes to Joplin, MO, because Barack Obama urged Israel's Bibi to return to pre-1967 borders.

How can people believe stuff like this? To what would you attribute the earthquake and tsunamis in Japan? Bad luck? Or did they say something about Israel to incur God's wrath?

I don't know how you believe such preposterous things.

But maybe I should write to Dave and offer him some kind of gift to take the edge off my criticism. Then we could all share private jokes about it.

Louise, you didn't answer my question.

Louise all I can see is that you seem to be the one that started the flame war -- by asserting the superiority of your person.
You also accused me of agreeing with JS and Percy with zero evidence.
Why do your torture yourself with this stuff. Exactly what is the basis of your hatred of God and his followers?
Ron

Re: Louise, you didn't answer my question.

Nor do I have to answer your question.

I never said I hated "God and his followers." You're the one who threw that in. Why, I don't know.

Nor can you answer my two questions, Louise. You will expose yourself

Louise,
You can't answer my two questions. You will expose yourself.
You began by using a series of aliases to hide your identity and allow you to change identities when you could no longer maintain your position. We caught on to that childish game. Now you have to stick to one alias and your true position is becoming obvious. You are a collectivist and not a home schooler ar all. So try to answer if you can or try to avoid answering if you are that arrogant.
Ron

I'm arrogant? That's comical coming from you.

Call me a "collectivist" if it makes you feel better. I'd rather be a collectivist than a Milton Friedman or Ayn Rand aficionado.

The purpose of aliases was not because I could not maintain a position. Sometimes the nom de plume went with the post. I realize that's probably too complex for you to fathom. So be it. Another purpose was to try to exercise my right to speak here without being called names like "commie," etc., whatever names the peanut gallery had in store on any given day.

not a home schooler ar all.


And I suppose you're a homeschooler? No, I don't think so. All you do here is fight about the Civil War, recommend people read the Federalist Papers and try to give tips on Warren Buffett's advice. That is what you recently told me you like to do in your spare time, brush up on Warren Buffett's investment strategies.

You don't even recognize the ways in which the Patriot Act violates the Constitution that you pretend to love so much. Your final word on it, as I recall, was that the Court had not ruled it unconstitutional. It's nice you have so much faith in the Court.

Well, I've served my purpose here for a time. I've let you and your cohorts get their jollies through ad hominem attacks, personal insults and so on. Where would this education forum be without them? All in the name of "truth," of course.

Sorry to say, Ron, you'll have to settle for attempting to bully someone else here now. Perhaps bring up the Frankfurt School. Perhaps mention the imaginary caliphate you believe is so important to defeat. Perhaps mention Jonah Goldberg's book again and tell everyone how liberals are fascists.

All the same old routines. Funny thing is, you're all for the oligarchy when you want to be, on all the occasions when you swallow their propaganda whole.

I also suspect that it's too late for any kind of education to save you from the oligarchy now.

You are afraid to answer, aren't you?

Louise,
Believe me I do not like to bully. As to your being a collectivist, you are. As to Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand, I have read both of them and even looked them up on Youtube.com. They are very interesting. But am I an afficienado? No way. I like and respect them, Friedman more than Rand, but I don't follow them.
In the first place. Economics it seems to me is a subject where the basic parameters have been well established. Capitalism is the superior moral and ethical position. It has the side benefit of being far superior economically also.
Liberalism is the product of self appointed elites working for their own self aggrandisement. Morally and ethically it is bankrupt.
Tell me can you name me one communist country that was communist as opposed to being a dictatorship? I can't name one off hand.

"The purpose of aliases was not because I could not maintain a position"
So you say. Then you turn right around and say,
"Another purpose was to try to exercise my right to speak here without being called names like "commie," etc., whatever names the peanut gallery had in store on any given day."
In other words when you couldn't convince us of your collectivist position under one alias you quickly made up another.
For anyone that notices your personal policy reflects the position of socialist/communist groups as general. Almost all of them eventually collapse. When the collapse comes they shut down, disclaim the old ism, and come back with a new name and terminology. As Rush Limbaugh says you are the people that never dares tell the truth about yourself.
Ron

I am not here to answer your half-baked questions, Mr. Schoolmaster

Rush Limbaugh, wow, that settles everything, doesn't it? Who do you like better, Rush or John Taylor Gatto?

Capitalism is fine. But that's not what we have.

What we have is corporate capitalism and all the wars and profiteering and "social programs" that you so despise. It's a package deal. You know, just to keep the lid on things. Apparently you missed that point that Gatto emphasizes repeatedly in Underground.

Keep fighting the Joe McCarthy fight against "commies." It suits you so well.

Can't you simply answer my questions??

Louise,
"Rush Limbaugh, wow, that settles everything, doesn't it? Who do you like better, Rush or John Taylor Gatto?"
Tell me what is wrong with Rush Limbaugh? Mr. Gatto told us two things basicall:
1. Who the little man behind the curtain was in re our public schools. That turned out to be a very extensive project. As I assimilated what he told me I found it all hung together.
2. Mr. Gatto also go me started on understanding the take over of our political scene by the same folks that took over our public schools.
Rush Limbaugh is totally different. He keeps us up on the events of the day from a political perspective. Before Mr. Limbaugh we were constantly attacked with collectivist liberal thought. The collective liberal message was so pervasive that we were all what Andrew Breitbart calls "default liberals.' We had never heard the classical liberal message at all. Further we had never heard any competent criticism of the collectivist liberal position.
For example, you bring up the collectivist liberal criticism of Joe McCarthy. Anyone that knows anything about Joe McCarthy knows his main target was not the communists. Joe McDarthy was a politician and his target was a political target. He thought the Democrat Party had been criminally derelict in performing their duty to protect this country against subversion. Naturally, the Dems wanted to switch the subject given that they had been seriously derelict. With the assistance of their friends in the Main Stream Media, Academia and Hollywood they have largely managed to do so. I understand Ann Coulter has done a masterful job of exposing what truly happened.
Actually it is not necessary to read Miss Coulter. Many others came to the same conclusion.
AS an example, the writer Robert A. Heinlein was a dedicated Socialist until late in his career. The communist used such strong arm and un-ethical tactics in taking over American socialist organizations that he hated them with a passion for the rest of his life. They, the communists, did the same with a young member of the Democrat party named Ronald Reagan.
But, keep talking. As you talk you reveal both who your sources are and who they are not. In both cases you mark yourself as a collectivist liberal.

"Capitalism is fine. But that's not what we have . . . What we have is corporate capitalism"
No, Capitalism is Capitalism. There is no other kind. What we have is an increasingly collectivist country operated by the same oligarchy that took over our public schools.
As to capitalism being fine. At every opportunity you mark yourself as a collectivist. That urge to make a profit that you find in yourself is not capitalism it is personal greed. In that you are peat out of the same bog with the oligarchs, ACORN, the communist country masters and all other aparatchiks.
You also seem to pooh-pooh the part of the communist party that Joe McCarthy was supposedly persecuting. That is natural. No one has more interest in minimizing the threat of both the International Communist Party and the American Communist Party than those two parties themselves. Yet if we consult the Venona Papers, the records of the Soviets themselves that we opened when the Soviet collapsed and the many books written by ex-members of the Communist Party of the USA we find that McCarthy if anything was too modest in his claims.
Folks, please note that it was Louise that introduced this line of discussion.
Ron

Re: Can't you simply answer my questions??

Ron,

I agree with your statement that McCarthy was, if anything, understating the extent of the Communist infiltration of our government through their willing dupes, the Hollywood elite and the Democrats.

I'd always felt that McCarthy was getting a bum deal by the media, since I tend to believe the opposite of whatever the media is hyping at any given time. If the media was vilifying McCarthy, then I figured he had to be a true American hero.

Then, I read Witness by Whittaker Chambers. What an eyeopener!!!

Anyone who has the opinion that there was no Communist infiltration needing to be ferreted out by men like McCarthy, and who hasn't read Witness, is merely just ignorant.

But anyone who has read Witness and still believes that the United States didn't have a "communist" problem is just plain stupid, and is likely an Obama voter -- but then I'm being redundant.

The thing I remember thinking as I was reading Witness was how disappointing it was that America didn't learn its lesson back then, and now we have basically the same problem of Communist infiltration in our government today.

The only difference between then and now is that Communist infiltration back then was aberrant and illegal. And today it is mainstream, and part of our government culture.

Where is a McCarthy when we desperately need him now?

Dave

A summary

Dave,
"The only difference between then and now is that Communist infiltration back then was aberrant and illegal. And today it is mainstream, and part of our government culture."
Yes, in today's Drudge Report you will find the following headline: "Docs Show FCC Coordinated 'Net Neutrality' Effort with Left-Wing Group..."
If you read the article you will learn that the groups referred to are a Marxist group and an alleged George Soros funded group.
In fact let me refer you to a 3 step process:
First, read Mr. Gatto's book UHAE. If you do so you will read a blow by blow account of how the oligarchy took over the public school system. Please notice that the oligarchy's mechanism of choice was to get hired guns out of academia to do the actual work. Today the Academicians are lionized but I think you will find they were glorified hired hands. They were never part of the oligarchy.
Listen to Dr. Stephen Davies, Ph.d., History, in his two videos Decline & Triumph of Classical Liberalism. Dr. Davies makes the point that until about 1870 the Classical Liberalism of our founders was the dominant American political philosophy. Then during La Belle Epoch (LBE here-after) there was a radical sea change and by the end of LBE the collectivist liberal philosophy was dominant and still growing in influence. He leaves open the question of how the collectivist liberals gained the upper hand. You will have to table that question but note and hang on to as much as you can of how and where the collectivist liberal strength came from -- mostly from academia.
Now for the coup de grace. It turns out that Andrew Carnegie was a very good writer and liked to write essays on subjects that he considered important. He wrote an essay called Gospel of Wealth. That essay and others were bound and published as Gospel of Wealth. If you read the Introduction to the book version you will find enough explanation to put the rest of the story together.
The LBE coming after the Civil War led to almost a euphoria among what we now call the oligarchy and others. They were millionaires, the world was brand new, eugenics was the rage and their thoughts turned to utopia. Just as Mr. Gatto writes they saw themselves as the most successful people in the US and not only entitled to lead but as having a duty to do so. Again (see Davies) they turned to academia and communications.
You notice I use the phrase "collectivist liberals." They infected both major parties. In the Republican party you can see the RINOs.
Dave, I have beat this horse to death. But, I wanted to lay out the full story for you to the best of my ability.
I had criticized Mr. Gatto for not going far enough. It seemed apparent to me that the oligarchy would not have stopped with the public schools. They didn't stop there. You will learn from Davies that after Grover Cleveland there was a sea change in the Democrat Party. Collectivist liberalism took over the Democrat and Republican Parites. There was for a long time a remnant of the classical Democrat Party left alive. After WW2 a conservative movement got underway in the Republican Party although progress has been very slow.
I will be very interested in your reaction. Please let me know what you think. GRIN
Ron

Re: A summary

Hi Ron,

Thanks for the interesting summary of how we got to where we are now.

I might add that I have the answer to your question:

"Then during La Belle Epoch (LBE here-after) there was a radical sea change and by the end of LBE the collectivist liberal philosophy was dominant and still growing in influence."

In my considered opinion the radical sea change was brought about by a change in the role that the news media thought they should play -- or not play anymore -- in protecting our country from government tyranny.

This change was also a cultural-social change as well. Did you know, for example, that in the early days of the New York Times they were adamantly pro life?

Early journalism, going all the way back to Ben Franklin's day, believed that an unchecked government was the enemy. It was an enemy that lived in the dark, but one that could be beaten by being exposed to the light.

So the media took on the important job of being the "watchdog" against the government, and thus also the protector of the Constitution.

What happened to change that ties in with your summary history. Newspapers got big. Very big. And very powerful. Their owners could change the future merely by a shift in editorial policy.

Power and money corrupts. Absolutely, without fail.

These powerful newspaper owners had collectivist leanings. Like begets like, and before you know it, you've got newsrooms that are 90+ percent leftist. Showing bias toward unions, abortion, feminism, public education -- basically all the ills of our society.

It's gotten so bad in the past 50+ years that they have not only thrown objectivity out the window, but they are actually operating on an agenda to advocate and promote a socialist "utopia."

That's why if you get your news exclusively from mainstream media newspapers, radio and television news, you are getting nothing even remotely resembling the truth.

Think of the major "gates" that have been trumpeted by the media as big investigative journalism successes. Virtually all of them were hyped up against Republican administrations.

Whereas, your Clinton and Obama administration abominations are largely given a "bye" by the media. Can you imagine even the least little thing that Obama has done in the past two years not being major, major news if it had been done by a Republican president? It's all in the media's agenda.

So, then you have millions of people watching their MSNBC, their CBS and ABC news, for example, who have no clue how ignorant they are that they are being led by a complicit media down the road to socialism.

In my opinion, that explains how a total fraud like Obama, who hates this country, hates the freedoms it represents, and who is sworn to destroy this country, can get so many ignorant people voting to help him do it.

I believe that the media's role in the tragic failing of our country is so important I'd say that it couldn't have happened without their actual, complicit advocacy and cooperation.

Dave

Re: A summary summarized

Dave,
I didn't ignore your reply. Instead you gave me enough to thank about that I had to think for awhile to get my thoughts straight.
Actually Mr. Gatto gave us the answer when he explained that our oligarchy was no a conspiracy. The Oligarchy was simply a group of people who were either associates or at a similar level in society. They found themselves in agreement with one another and with the times they were living in. You might like to see the Introduction to the hardback version of Andrew Carnegy's Gospel of Wealth.
William Randolph Hearst and Joesph Pulitzer were just two more members of that loosely associated group of individuals we call the oligarchy.
Ron

Re: So utterly ridiculous, especially on a site that claims to be about education

Reffington
Dave believes that God sent tornadoes to Joplin, MO, because Barack Obama urged Israel's Bibi to return to pre-1967 borders.


Louise, to clarify, I don't know for a fact that the increase in "natural" disasters all around the world these days is the result of God's judgment. All I know is what God says in his word about signs of the coming end times. There are just too many signs to ignore, too many prophecies being fulfilled, too many nations being positioned exactly as God said they would be in His word.

If you don't like it, or if it offends you to hear that then I can't help you. But, your disbelief doesn't change how things are going to be by even a single molecule.

Reffington
But maybe I should write to Dave and offer him some kind of gift to take the edge off my criticism. Then we could all share private jokes about it.


Hey, I'm game. Give it a whack!

Dave

Re: So utterly ridiculous, especially on a site that claims to be about education

I have no idea how you believe what you do, but at least you're a good sport.


Home | Underground History of American Education | History Tour | Bookstore
Newsletter / Discussion Board | Multimedia | Film: 4th Purpose | Retreat | Odysseus Group
About Us | Contact us | Links

© 2000-2001 The Odysseus Group
Suite 3W  295 East 8th Street  NY, NY 10009
Phone Toll Free: 888 211-7164   Fax: 212 529-3555
E-mail:info@johntaylorgatto.com

Site design by Exploded View