The problem with education is not what is being taught but how it is being taught.
Fifteen years ago, in a conversation with UC Berkeley's Dr. Stephen Hinshaw, he said, "The cause of the symptoms of ADHD is the system of public education."
Looking at that statement in the context of this discussion, we could say that that those children are less tolerant of the socialist methodology and the reason they must be medicated is to gain their compliance.
Normal people are more easily indoctrinated. In another conversation with City of Hope's Dr. David Comings, he said, "Most prisoners are adults with ADHD."
So we can assert there is a massive socialist indoctrination underway, including public education, the war on drugs, the so-called criminal justice system, and the prison system. These elements form the backbone of government socialism and drive every aspect of our lives.
________________________________
From: John Bechtol <javlin@...>
To: "lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com" <lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com>; "drmedelstein.threeminutetherapy@..." <drmedelstein.threeminutetherapy@...>; "bayareapatriots2@yahoogroups.com" <bayareapatriots2@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 2, 2013 8:30 AM
Subject: [BAP2] Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Democracy, power, money, socialism, etc.
Michael,
With nearly every passing day, I see more of how we have been trained to be good socialists and cannot see outside the blinders.
Learning is something that humans do, naturally. Our system of education has subverted this natural inclination and used it to serve socialism. I have always wondered how people knew so much, who were children before 1910. It's because their education served learning.
But for a century, learning has been sacrificed by education in the service of socialism. It takes years upon years of persistent training to strip children of their humanity and make them into socialists. This didn't happen those children but\ today's generations had no contact with them and have no clue as to the difference.
This is why even those who yearn for liberty, are completely incapable of seeing the avenues for its realization. They don't know what they don't know. And the only thing they do know, is how to be a socialist. That's why every effort still produces less liberty.
Regaining liberty will require people to rediscover their humanity.
By the way, google Christian socialism and democratic socialism to see how this dovetailed in America, with the Fabian socialists in Europe, and the push for a global police-state.
Pretty interesting.
John
________________________________
From: Dr. Michael Edelstein <drmedelstein.threeminutetherapy@...>
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, February 2, 2013 5:14 AM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Democracy, power, money, socialism, etc.
John,
Your analogy with democracy and fire raises questions.
I can think of good fire does. Can you think of good democracy does?
Warm regards, Michael
Amen, Starchild!
Marcy
John,
My thought is that if people get used to hearing "democracy is bad" in forums like this and start to internalize the meme and spread it elsewhere, it can be harmful taken out of the context in which we are discussing it here. As bad as tyranny can be *with* democracy, it tends to be worse *without* democracy. If we support individual rights, this means we seek a fully bottom-up society (one in which all power stems from individuals, and is only concentrated when they choose to voluntarily cooperate with each other). By favoring systems which are more bottom-up over those which are more top-down (e.g. democracy vis-a-vis dictatorship, individual rights vis-a-vis democracy), we help move society in the direction of this vision. So I'm certainly not suggesting unqualified support for democracy, but I think supporting it has its place in the present circumstances.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
I didn't figure that would be necessary on this list.
I'm not speaking against democracy any more than I speak against
fire.
And democracy/republic IS the force of tyranny most dangerous to us since it has the force of arms and it has a monopoly of power over us and our property..
We can do democracy at the yacht club, until the cows come home, with nothing worse than the usual aggravation. And when it goes to hell as they always do, a few people get together and straighten it out.
This is the most important distinction we must make if we expect to have liberty.
From: Starchild
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Democracy, power, money, socialism, etc.
Certainly. But let's not just speak against democracy without making it clear that the alternative we favor is something more like republicanism, lest we
aid and abet the forces of tyranny that are already subverting democratic practices in the U.S.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Be that as it may, the majority will still concentrate power in a manner unfavorable to the minority. These are the conditions we face today.
From: Starchild
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 5:10 PM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Democracy, power, money, socialism, etc.
John,
I think a universal free society *is* in the best interests of the
majority. Of course there's no guarantee that the majority will always recognize this, but I'm not cynical enough about humanity to presume the majority will always choose wrongly against its own best interests. I think history is slowly, in fits and starts, moving in the right direction, and people are becoming more appreciative of liberty and individual rights. I think that democracy has in most cases meant less concentration of power with a minority than the systems it has replaced.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Starchild,
A universal free society is not in the best interests of the majority so democracy will always concentrate power unfavorably to a minority.
------------------------------
When power is dispersed or decentralized, then liberty is likewise dispersed (broadly possessed by the many). When power is concentrated, then liberty is only possessed by those in whom the power is concentrated. Thus concentrations of power are inimical to a free society. Money is a form of power, but not the purest or most concentrated form.
In countries today which lack democracy, power tends to be *more* concentrated in the hands of a few than in countries where democratic elections take place. Thus it would not be a good idea to simply "stop doing democracy" unless the alternative were a system in which power was equally or more decentralized.
When socialism takes place on a voluntary basis (such as within families or small groups which exist largely on a basis of 'from each according to his ability, to each
according to his need'), I do not see this as a problem. Socialism becomes a serious problem when people try to force it on others via government.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Michael,
Liberty is a partner of power and money.
I'm optimistic because achieving liberty is not a democratic process.
It is an enterprise process.
Socialism is a democratic process. No matter how much democracy you do, you still get more socialism. An analogous statements would say, "You can't get sober no matter how much you drink"
The first step to achieving liberty is to stop doing democracy. Then after the socialist fog clears, there is a whole new landscape.
It looks like the venture capital start-up landscape, where the new product is liberty. It doesn't matter how many people are unconscious from the socialist "Kool-Aide", they will
not produce the product and they will not wake-up until there is liberty in the "punch bowl".
John
From: Dr. Michael Edelstein drmedelstein.threeminutetherapy@...>
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 8:02 AM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] [BAP2] Interesting Colorado Sheriff's Position on Gun Control
John,
How are you defining "liberty?"
What makes you optimistic about achieving liberty?
Warm regards, Michael
Michael,
Yes, thank you for noticing. It is very true and there is an entirely different conversation. It as different as the conversation of the sports-casters and the conversation on the field. One conversation advances the ball.
You
and I are in that conversation. We stay in that conversation while more join. It requires discipline.
As well as there was always relativity, for Einstein to demonstrate, there is also a plan to coordinate the necessary power to achieve liberty. The conversation is about executing that plan.
I'm using the years between 1768 and 1774 as a model and the Superbowl's 2 minute warning as a metaphor for the time-line and the stakes.
People who disagree with the conditions I outlined below cannot win. Victory will be achieved by the few who do.
John
From: Dr. Michael Edelstein drmedelstein.threeminutetherapy@...>
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Cc: "bayareapatriots2@yahoogroups.com" bayareapatriots2@...@yahoogroups.com" Freed-M@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: [BAP2] Interesting Colorado Sheriff's Position on Gun Control
John,
You make an excellent point.
Unfortunately, I'm at a loss in coming up with a magic bullet (so to speak!). What do you suggest in starting the conversation?
Warm regards, Michael
Nina,
Thomas Paine makes a good point. And if liberty cannot be achieved in one generation, it cannot be achieved at all. Every plan will fail, that requires more than a few years to
execute. There is no such thing as preparing the next generation to achieve liberty. They can only be prepared for the liberty or the servitude they will inherit. They and their children are faced with the same reality as we are. How can they do what we can't?
Many ignorant or insane people believe that it will be from less liberty that more liberty will be built.
Three thousand years of history should be enough evidence to demonstrate the fallacy of that concept. Liberty is capital. Capitalism doesn't work that way. The less capital you have, the less you will get. That means we must use brilliantly, the little capital we have left. `
We need a conversation about how to use the gun-rights issue to gain liberty. Digging-in on the second amendment is not enough. The enemy is already far past the front lines and negotiating the terms of disarmament.
The real issue, is the excessive armaments of the police-state, its
over-reach, and its astronomical cost. The regime has gone way past the quartering of soldiers, to buying homes for them in our neighborhoods with our money.