One of the mantras of REAL left social progressives surrounding US PUBLIC SCHOOLS is-----the goal of educating students to be CITIZENS-----LEADERS-----TO HOLD POWER ACCOUNTABLE TO THE US CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS and EQUAL PROTECTION of our US 99% under law. We were not taught to be DOCILE OBEDIENT WORKFORCE-----we were taught to be productive CITIZENS having equal ability to participate in a domestic economy and the ability to ACCUMULATE FAMILY WEALTH.
'During the 10 years from 1846 to 1856, 3.1 million immigrants arrive a number equal to one eighth of the entire U.S. population. Owners of industry needed a docile, obedient workforce and look to public schools to provide it'.
New York Public School Society formed by wealthy businessmen to provide education for poor children. Schools are run on the "Lancasterian" model, in which one "master" can teach hundreds of students in a single room. The master gives a rote lesson to the older students, who then pass it down to the younger students. These schools emphasize discipline and obedience qualities that factory owners want in their workers'.
If we allow that far-right wing global banking 1% myth-making article tell us the history of US PUBLIC EDUCATION it would seem LOCKEAN EDUCATION PHILOSOPHY never existed.
Below we see two education models the timeline tells us was a great influence on US PUBLIC EDUCATION. Both these models are tied to OLD WORLD KINGS education philosophies--------and as we see HORACE MANN was the earliest global banking 5% freemason to use education as a business -----not as PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE REAL MOTIVATION BEHIND US PUBLIC EDUCATION WAS LOCKEAN-------NOT HOBBIAN -----WHERE MAN IS INTERESTED IN THE GOOD OF SOCIETY ----NOT ONLY HIMSELF.
This is what we call REAL LEFT social progressive education-------educating students for COMMON GOOD and civil society----what we got during REAGAN/CLINTON was a HOBBES education teaching students to CARE ONLY FOR THEMSELVES.
The Lancasterian Monitorial System of Education
of Joseph Lancaster
Qui docet, discit
He who teaches, learns
Joseph Lancaster (1778-1838) led a movement to establish schools that used what he called the Monitorial System, sometimes called the "Lancasterian" or "Lancastrian" System, in which more advanced students taught less advanced ones, enabling a small number of adult masters to educate large numbers of students at low cost in basic and often advanced skills. From about 1798 to 1830 it was highly influential, but was displaced by the "modern" system of grouping students into age groups taught using the lecture method, led by such educators as Horace Mann, and later inspired by the assembly-line methods of Frederick Taylor, although Lancaster's methods continue to be used and rediscovered today. Problems with the "modern" methods and the effects of the use of them are encouraging concerned persons to re-examine such earlier methods as those of Lancaster and adapt them to the current educational environment. Some of the documents which discuss the method and its use are now presented here.
So, NOWHERE does this article on HISTORY OF US EDUCATION mention our REAL left social progressive LOCKEAN education being the model for our US public schools.
Horace Mann Educators Corporation - Official Site
Auto insurance, home and property insurance, life insurance, and retirement annuities for teachers and educators from Horace Mann.
" The Father of American Education"," Horace Mann, was born in Franklin, Massachusetts, in 1796. Mann's schooling consisted only of brief and erratic periods of eight to ten weeks a year. Mann educated himself by reading ponderous volumes from the Franklin Town Library. This self education, combined with the fruits of a brief period of study with an intinerant school master, was sufficient to gain him admission to the sophomore class of Brown University in 1816" (4, Cremin). He went on to study law at Litchfield Law School and finally received admission to the bar in 1823 (15, Filler). In the year 1827 Mann won a seat in the state legislature and in 1833 ran for State Senate and won." Throughout these years Horace Mann maintained a thriving law practice, first in Dedham and later in Boston" (5, Cremin).
What was installed in US PRIVATE schools becoming today's global banking hedge fund former IVY LEAGUES-----was HOBBES education philosophy-----HOBBES SAYS THE DESIRE FOR POWER ----THE MAN IS A WOLF TO HIS FELLOW MAN.
Our US public schools were built on LOCKEAN civil society teaching students to care about the success of community and the importance of US RULE OF LAW in civil societies-----
'Unlike Hobbes, Locke sees that man is not only interested in self survival, but also the survival of his society because of these governing laws'.
'Hobbes establishes a science that explains humanity at a physics like level of motion. In fact, this motion in humanity leads to "a perpetual and restless desire for power after power, that ceases only in death"(Deutsch, p. 235). Hobbes argues that so strong is this desire for power that "man is a wolf to his fellow man," and that the true state of nature for man is at war (Deutsch, p. 237-238)'.
These few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA took our US left social progressive PUBLIC SCHOOLS and made them HOBBES BE A LONE WOLF schools. THE ME GENERATION lost our REAL left social progressive LOCKEAN civil society PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
The myth-making article on HISTORY OF AMERICAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS has us believe JEFFERSON was motivated by sifting a few geniuses from all that US 99% WE THE PEOPLE rabble.
THAT IS LYING----MYTH-MAKING PROPAGANDA ------as we see below it was LOCKEAN PHILOSOPHY of COMMON GOOD which motivated our FOUNDING FATHERS like JEFFERSON. Our LOCKEAN PUBLIC EDUCATION model enshrined our US CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AS CITIZENS------the HOBBES model tied those attending PRIVATE US IVY LEAGUE schools with being LONE WOLVES.
Finally, of the two, John Locke could be considered as an honorary founding father of the United States.
As seen in his ideas being used by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence and by the principles of separating powers included in the Constitution, his contributions justify placing him in that group of great men. There are two things he would be opposed to in the Constitution however. One being the lack of recognition of or allowing for rebellion in the event of a tyrannical government and second in the limitations of power upon the executive, especially since that individual would not be a monarch. Locke was in favor of monarchy when balance with a law making legislature like the Parliament. It seems that Hobbes opposition to revolution has lived on in the exclusion of this right from the founding document of the United States. Whatever the views that one has on Hobbes or Locke, it is important to see that both have had a profound influence on modern politics, human rights and specifically in the formation of the United States of America.
So, if you are reading or being taught with THIS TIMELINE-------far-right wing global banking 1% myth-making and propaganda-----you are not attending a REAL US PUBLIC SCHOOL.
'Historical Timeline of Public Education in the US
On November 6, 2013
Applied Research Center (ARC) was rebranded as Race Forward: The Center for Racial Justice Innovation'.
Sadly, all of today's far-right wing global banking 5% freemason/Greek players were attached to HOBBES EDUCATION PHILOSOPHY-------not caring about sacking and looting CIVIL SOCIETIES.
Locke on Morality and Liberty
By: John Zvesper
Posted: July 14, 2014
This article appeared in: Volume IV, No. 1 - Spring 1985
A review of Locke's Education for Liberty, by Nathan Tarcov
The greatest weaknesses of twentieth-century liberalism stem from liberals' failure to maintain their ability to make moral judgments. Moral relativism has transformed sane liberals into manic depressives, who alternate between theoretically unfounded activism and practically impotent wishy-washiness, between the attempt to have morality without judgment and the attempt to have judgment without morality.
Liberals have forgotten how to make liberal principles and strong moral positions mutually supporting. They have forgotten that the liberal attempt to put some distance between moral education and political power is based on the same premise as the attempt to separate church and state: that this separation is the best way of ensuring that both religion and politics-and both morality and politics-survive and flourish. They have forgotten that this liberal separation of state and society is not absolute. Not only is political power still derived from (and therefore bound to be colored by) society; less obviously, society, economy, morality, and religion still need political regulation, albeit now for the purpose of keeping them healthy and limited by the recognition of individual liberty, rather than (as before) healthy and neglectful of individual liberty. Liberal politics demands delicate moral and political judgment, not political indifference to morality or thoughtless moralism.
Because of its loss of memory and confidence, liberalism in our day tends either to be reduced to a simplistic libertarianism, or to be perverted into a radical neglect of liberty or of liberal morality. Liberal politics loses its way. The practical result of this liberal disorientation is illustrated by an episode that was reported last May. The city of Indianapolis passed an ordinance that outlawed pornography, defined as the violation of women's civil rights by the depiction of women as "objects for domination, conquest, violation, exploitation, possession, or use. . . ." Civil libertarians immediately challenged the constitutionality of the law. Opposing their challenge was an alliance of radical feminists (including an older if not wiser Linda Lovelace-Marchiano) and Moral Majoritarians. The three factions in this dispute were fragments or perversions of a wise, Lockean liberalism, which would teach the civil libertarians and the Moral Majority how liberty and morality need to be combined, and would teach the feminists how much that combination can support their cause.
Professor Tarcov's book is an excellent reminder and analysis of that wise liberalism. He gives us a fuller version of what in a previously published sketch he called "a 'non-Lockean' Locke."1 He states his thesis and his intention in the "Conclusion" of his book:
To understand [Locke's] view of human life as an entirely degraded one, bereft of any dignity, is to do an injustice not only to Locke but to liberalism and ourselves. . . . finding nothing decent or inspiring in the interpretations of Locke that are offered to them, students of our political culture have gone off seeking ‘non-Lockean' elements in our heritage. They should discover, instead, the ‘non-Lockean' elements in Locke. (p. 210)
This "non-Lockean" Locke is primarily a non-Hobbesian Locke. Many scholars have recognized that Locke protests too much his innocence of the Hobbesian way of thinking about politics. Locke and modern liberalism do owe much to Hobbes's thinking. But they do not owe it everything. Leo Strauss once suggested that Hobbes could be seen as playing Sherlock Holmes to Machiavelli's Professor Moriarty;2 perhaps Locke should be seen as Dr. Watson or Sir Arthur himself, more concerned with educating citizens in liberal habits of civility than with instructing good or evil princes in the more troubling exceptions to the rules. Hobbes's premises and questions are often the same as Locke's, but his conclusions and answers are remarkably different.
Hobbes preaches despotism, however tempered by a prudent latitudinarianism; Locke preaches liberal politics, however qualified by recognition of the need for "executive prerogative." Hobbes's atomistic individualism requires a leviathan state that dominates the family, educational establishments, and other social institutions; Locke's position is so opposite that Professor Tarcov is able to suggest that "the fundamental separation of powers" in Locke's doctrines is between political power and the power of education, which he entrusts exclusively to the private sphere. By emphasizing the similarities between Hobbes and Locke without also appreciating their great differences, one risks mistaking the character of liberalism.
In his first (and longest) chapter, Professor Tarcov contrasts Locke's liberalism with Sir Robert Filmer's patriarchalism and Thomas Hobbes's illiberal individualism. He shows how Locke's reinterpretation of the family was fully as individualistic (and anti-patriarchalist) as Hobbes's, without being as corrosive. Liberal political thinkers are often accused of being historically and sociologically unrealistic in their assumption that individual human beings-classless, raceless, sexless, parentless, and childless-are the units of political society. At the same time, many critics accuse liberals of abandoning their individualism and accepting sexist and patriarchalist assumptions when they discuss conjugal and parental relations. One of the most valuable services of this chapter is its carefully argued response to both of these accusations. One can quarrel with certain details of Professor Tarcov's argument. For example, he seems too concerned to explain away Locke's recognition of the natural tenderness that parents feel for their children (pp. 67-70); this recognition does not threaten the integrity of Locke's individualism as much as Professor Tarcov fears it does, because Locke recognizes this tenderness not as the motive for parents to undertake the government, nourishment, and education of children, but only as a force that tempers parents' government of children, once undertaken (Second Treatise, §63, 67, 170). Furthermore, while Professor Tarcov notes Locke's openness to the natural legality of polyandry and other unconventional family forms (pp. 75, 209), he overlooks Locke's argument that durable unions of one man and one woman greatly encourage a liberal society's industriousness, "which uncertain mixture, or easie and frequent Solutions of Conjugal Society would mightily disturb" (Second Treatise, §80; see also First Treatise, §59). Locke makes the family serve the end of industriousness, which is, in turn, a means to the comfortable security of individuals. However, these quarrels are meant only to improve Professor Tarcov's argument that Locke (like Hobbes) is individualistic but (unlike Hobbes) is not atomistic. Locke's thinking can be historically and sociologically plausible at the same time that it is politically liberal, because he understands both political society and the politically independent family as results of individualism rightly understood. The logic of liberalism is not opposed to families and other subpolitical, "intermediate" associations.
Locke also tries to understand morality as a product of individualism. He discusses the moral virtues in Some Thoughts Concerning Education, which he first published in 1693, four years after his Two Treatises of Government. The rest of Professor Tarcov's book (chapters 2-4) is an enlightening commentary on Locke's Thoughts. He helpfully points out the division of this work into three main parts, which first treat the establishment and methods of exercising parents' tutorial authority, then move up to the proper employment of that authority in the cultivation of certain virtues, and finally descend to more particular consideration of the several parts of education. He summarizes Locke's liberal virtues as "self-denial, civility, liberality, justice, courage, hardiness, humanity, industry, the avoidance of waste, and truthfulness" (p. 182). Locke clearly does not favor "a mean-spirited, selfish materialism" (p. 210). But from merely listing the Lockean virtues, even without going through Professor Tarcov's detailed analysis, it is equally clear that he does favor materialism and does not seek to cultivate aristocratic virtues. (This is related to Locke's "philistine attitude toward poetry, music, and painting": pp. 204-205, 247 n.87.) He seeks rather to form "men of business and affairs," "fit and courageous, able to be soldiers if necessary," but much more importantly, "willing and able to concern themselves with their estates, perhaps even with trade, and to be active and informed in public affairs." Such men would be "in temper neither slavish nor tyrannical but free men, independent and self-reliant," but also "acutely sensitive to praise and blame, to the power of public opinion" (p. 5). Professor Tarcov's conclusion quoted above is carefully stated: Locke's view of human life is not "anentirely degraded one, bereft of any dignity" (my emphasis).
The deepest question raised by this book is the adequacy of liberal morality for human happiness. Granting that liberals both need and can justify moral virtues, do they not need (and can they justify) higher moral virtues than those put forward by Locke? Locke's "education for liberty" may avoid political domination of the formation of souls, but it still seeks to structure human choices, and that being so, does it not risk stifling some of the better parts of human nature? Professor Tarcov's account of Locke's educational thought ends with an outline of a way of defending Locke's "bourgeois or middle-class morality" against the Rousseauian critique that is still so appealing-today:
[Locke] may offend our moral taste by seeming to slight imagination, passion, and sexuality in favor of reason, self-expression in favor of self-denial, beauty in favor of utility. Our egalitarian but affluent society seems to yearn for some of the aristocratic ethos Locke had to criticize to make us possible. His emphasis on the harsh virtues of self-denial, courage, hardiness, and industry may offend our easygoing self-gratification, but these virtues may still be necessary to the individual liberty and comfort that we join with him in valuing. Locke saw that we have to be willing to deny our desires, face our fears, endure our pains, and take pains in labor in order to preserve our equal liberty and avoid being either tyrants or slaves. . . . For Locke, passion and imagination make us subject to the authority of others, exploited by their ambition and covetousness. (pp. 210-11)
This is a beautiful statement of a useful strategy for sensible liberals. Such a strategy can reveal both the dignity of liberal virtues and the low "effectual truth" of the "higher" virtues of Rousseau, Marx, and other radical critics of liberalism. But even thus fortified, Lockean liberalism faces a weakness (if not such a widely appealing challenge) on its right flank. There is a gap in Locke's educational system. He writes at length about the way to transform children into liberal citizens (and in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding he addresses the philosophers), but he leaves much to individual tempers and circumstances. He composes reflections on education for the English gentry of his day, and leaves other liberals in other times and places prudently to determine their own appropriate educational scheme. Locke may be a moral liberal but he is also a merely liberal moralist, whose morality is not an end in itself but a means to liberty. There is therefore an indeterminacy and open-endedness in Lockean morality, which makes it theoretically unsatisfactory, even if no less tenable and useful in practice.
The heart of this problem is made clear in Professor Tarcov's analysis of the low and narrow psychological foundation of Locke's political and moral thought. He avoids "the vexed question of the rational foundation of morality in Locke's writings" (p. 77), but boldly lays bare its psychological foundation. For Locke, the "basic human desire" is not for sensual pleasure but for a more willful and less determinate end: "liberty," which means having one's own way, or being treated as a rational being (p. 133). "This indefiniteness of human desire is related to Locke's minimization of human nature ..." (p. 115). In this light, Locke's frequent recognition of the rationality of human beings looks less like an idealistic statement about human nature than a realistic acceptance of the fact that human beings will insist on being treated as rational creatures, whether they are or not (Thoughts, §41). Perhaps no less than for radical critics of Lockean liberalism, for Locke himself human nature is too indefinite to make the perfection of human nature the end of education, even of education safely separated from politics.
Even if we "begin"3 with Professor Tarcov's more than commonly appreciative version of Locke's thinking, we end by wondering whether we do, after all, still need to seek "non-Lockean elements in our heritage" and in our own lives.
Here we see global banking 1% HOLLYWOOD/TV creating FADS over this battle of HOBBES VS LOCKEAN PUBLIC EDUCATION-----CALVIN AND HOBBES is of course those freemason STARS. STAR WARS=====YODA is HOBBES. Here we see a musical group calling itself DJ YODA======being a HOBBES WOLF 5% freemason/Greek player selling the idea that immigrants are ruining our US communities when of course it is global banking 1% US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES bringing ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE -----3000BC HINDI-BRAHMIN which is ruining our US communities by killing CIVIL SOCIETY.
'Disney Illustrator Combines Star Wars And Calvin & Hobbes ...
Brian Kesinger is a visual artist who has worked for Walt Disney Studios for over 16 years, but his work outside of the movie business gets fans going just as'
IF OUR US 99% WE THE PEOPLE DID NOT KNOW ALL THIS BACK IN 1980S--90S-------IT IS BECAUSE THEY ATTENDED A CORPORATE/FAKE RELIGIOUS FREEMASON SCHOOL AND NOT A REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE US PUBLIC K-UNIVERSITY.
DJ Yoda featuring Scroobius Pip
- Sega RIP
DJ Yoda takes it back with Sega RIP featuring Scroobius Pip from the brand new album Chop Suey released November 5th. Buy Chop Suey from iTunes…
'He said that there is no society that is not afraid continuously to the danger of a violent death. He argues that without a state with government, man’s life would be poor, brutal, brief and unpleasant'.
As our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE stop MOVING FORWARD to rebuild our strong 20th century civil society and its US PUBLIC K-UNIVERSITY----we have to ask----why did our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE allow our LOCKEAN civil society PUBLIC EDUCATION be taken to HOBBES these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA?
Our US PUBLIC SCHOOL system was designed to balance and hold accountable what we knew were HOBBES global banking 1% US IVY LEAGUES -----we simply needed to work as hard as HOBBES WOLVES------
Our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE didn't know back in 1980s that wolves were taking our US public schools using FAKE RELIGIOUS schools as privatization----they were busy shouting global banking 1% talking points-----SCHOOLS NOT BOMBS----while REAL left social academics steeped in LOCKEAN public education were shouting
STOP USING PUBLIC SCHOOL FUNDS TO BUILD HOBBES PRIVATE SCHOOLS.
If we notice the beginning of this VIDEO ---the global banking 5% freemason/Greek player flashes his SIGNS letting us know this VIDEO will be FAKE NEWS-----but the comparisons explain our destruction as a civil society.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke: Two Philosophers Compared
http://www.tomrichey.net/euro Timestamps: 02:11 - Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan) 09:33 - John Locke…
So, what is the difference between a far-right wing global banking 5% freemason/Greek HOBBES player who DOES NOT CARE WHAT MOVING FORWARD brings----and a REAL left social progressive LOCKEAN public schools who teach us CITIZENSHIP is tied to building and maintaining CIVIL SOCIETIES for equal protection? The US is a BANANA REPUBLIC because we allowed our US public schools to be taken by HOBBES.
'Irish Catholics in New York City struggle for local neighborhood control of schools as a way of preventing their children from being force-fed a Protestant curriculum'.
Here is the POPULATION TENSION global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS have been using for several centuries. We taken LOTS of time educating how all our Western religions have been corrupted-----how OLD WORLD KINGS have a goal of killing Western religions---Protestant/Jewish/Catholic/Muslim------in MOVING FORWARD 3000BC HINDI-BRAHMIN. These few decades of PRIVATIZING our US public schools to what we know are FAKE RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS-----is just that. They are NOT CATHOLIC -----as global hedge fund corporation JOHNS HOPKINS knows. Johns Hopkins is a great big HOBBES WOLF------no morals, ethics, no RULE OF LAW----certainly no GOD'S NATURAL LAW.
Our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE are being made to think all this MOVING FORWARD killing of our US PUBLIC SCHOOLS is tied to religious tensions.
The ONLY connection is -----OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS pretended to be religious using CATHOLIC structures which were never meant to be our early Christian religions. Well, now those pre-Christian NERO/CATO/SENECA tired of PRETENDING to be CHRISTIAN CATHOLICS are using these tensions to privatize our US public schools .
There IS no CATHOLIC SCHOOL ADVANTAGE-------as CATHOLIC SCHOOLS are going under the bus in MOVING FORWARD-----and have always been tied to MYTH-MAKING AND PROPAGANDA never holding power accountable.
Global banking 1% FAKE RELIGIOUS FREEMASONRY is the opposite of our Catholic/Protestant religion. So, what has been called CATHOLIC SCHOOLS just as those called BAPTIST schools were never religious schools ---they were HOBBES graduating those dastardly 5% freemason/Greek players black, white, and brown players.
We would NEVER believe a global hedge fund corporation ----our former US IVY LEAGUE DATA or academic writing because they are HOBBES.
Erin Baynham | June 19, 2014
Is the “Catholic School Effect” Real?
New Research Challenges the Catholic Primary School Advantage
By Mai Miksic
One of the most important decisions parents can make is where to send their children to school. The increased availability of education tax credit scholarships and school vouchers have given parents other options beyond public schools, and many families opt for religious institutions. Parents choose Catholic schools for a number of personal reasons, but one of them is the belief that their children will receive a stronger academic education than in public schools. Catholic primary school children might score higher on tests, on average, than do their peers in the public sector, but the main question is whether such higher scores are a result of the so-called “school effect” (factors that are intrinsic to the schools themselves), or, rather, to other factors such as parent income, parent education, and the selection process itself. Disentangling the factors proves a difficult task.
Comparing Apples to Oranges: Catholic and Public School Students
The hard truth is that the majority of the research touted by Catholic organizations about their academic advantage is not based on methodologically rigorous research. When a new research study (Elder & Jepsen, 2014) reported results that showed no Catholic school advantage, the National Catholic Educational Association was quick to point to the average National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and SAT scores showing that Catholic schools had higher scores than public schools. But a mere comparison of average test scores is not sufficient to prove the Catholic school advantage.
Elder and Jepsen’s (2014) research study is not perfect – indeed, no study is. It did, however, provide an important look at outcomes and selection bias by employing a novel, and more rigorous, methodology than other studies have used in the past. Scholars could now apply this process in different settings, such as high schools, since it is possible that Catholic education might make a more significant difference during secondary school.
This study cannot, of course, answer the policy question of whether parents should have access to Catholic schools, or whether any given child might benefit from enrolling in one. The study cannot speak to a possible Catholic high school effect, either. The study does call for more qualifications and for more research about the effects of Catholic schooling upon academic outcomes.
One thing is clear, though: when the National Catholic Educational Association promotes its status as a producer of academically strong institutions, it should stop relying on and reporting average test scores and graduation rates. Instead, the NCEA and other Catholic organizations should emphasize more rigorous research studies and use them to improve Catholic schools. Research methodologies are constantly evolving, providing Catholic schools opportunities to use them to their advantage. There is no lack of rigorous research (using methods other than propensity score matching) indicating a possible Catholic school advantage (Altonji, Elder, & Taber, 2005; Chen & Pong, 2012; Evans & Schwab, 1995). The credibility of Catholic networks would improve if they consistently affirmed strong research and stopped demeaning careful researchers such as Elder and Jepsen.
Our US history moving from the WILD WEST of 1700-1800s to what was the end of MANIFEST DESTINY on North American continent------if our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE watched THE RIFLEMAN-----we saw those members of SCHOOL BOARDS being our local business people. What happened as the WILD WEST developed? Professionals moved into THE RIFLEMAN'S towns and those professionals were indeed SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS.
What is the difference between our last century's PROFESSIONALS as SCHOOL BOARD members and these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA global corporate PROFESSIONAL members? All last century our college educated citizens graduated steeped in LOCKEAN REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE education working to build STRONG public schools.
Today, we have GLOBAL CORPORATE PROFESSIONALS tied to being 5% freemason/Greek HOBBES WOLF players having no connection to working for communities, civil society or building schools for STRONG PUBLIC EDUCATION----
Size of school boards in the country's 28 biggest cities is cut in half. Most local district (or "ward") based positions are eliminated, in favor of city-wide elections. This means that local immigrant communities lose control of their local schools. Makeup of school boards changes from small local businessmen and some wage earners to professionals (like doctors and lawyers), big businessmen and other members of the richest classes'.
So, were our 1900s SCHOOL BOARDS filled with members of the RICHEST CLASSES? For goodness sake---NO. BIG BUSINESSMEN would cringe at having to sit in a local PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARD meeting.
So, here in Baltimore today our Baltimore SCHOOL BOARD is filled with global banking 5% freemason/Greek players WHO DON'T CARE ----HOBBES WOLVES working for what is a global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS ----KNIGHTS OF MALTA DEEP, DEEP, REALLY DEEP STATE global corporation.
No bigger HOBBES WOLF----than GLOBAL UNDERARMOUR environmental devastation, enslavement in overseas FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES, continuous wars global private military corporation partner. This is why BALTIMORE is the source of FALSE FLAG FAKE NEWS media------
Under Armour and #WeWill
May 30, 2018 ARCHDIOCESE OF BALTIMORE
Blog, Boots Laced
A while back, leaders of Under Armour announced their #WeWill campaign. Dedicated to expanding their impact beyond sports, they ventured into the world of social good, to “invest in America’s youth, so that they can succeed in the classroom and on the field.”
First of all, good for them. Lots of our local youth here in Baltimore have already benefited from their investment, including the now world-famous Cardinal Shehan choir.
What’s most interesting about this for me though, is that the “We Will” campaign is the second step for Under Armour after their “I Will” campaign.
There’s something deeply American and deeply religious about this movement from the individual to the communal. If there was ever a culture built with an eye for the individual it is ours. One of the cornerstones of the movement toward “missionary discipleship” expressed by Archbishop William E. Lori in his pastoral letter, “A Light Brightly Visible,” and in the now-prolific work of Sherry Weddell is the resolution that discipleship is not an inherited right but a call for the person.
Yet we’re also a culture where young people give up whole weeks of their lives and even pay money to serve the poor and vulnerable. As a former colleague from Germany used to tell me, that is a distinctively American phenomenon. Increasingly though our young people and the adults in their lives are finding less and less time to invest in what Robert Putnam termed way back in 2000 as “social capital.” Young people are more and more connected to the communities from which they come and in which they live. Additionally they are increasingly skeptical that the institutions in these communities have their best in mind. I don’t need to remind you that though Roman Catholic followers of Jesus would imagine ourselves and our Church in many ways, many people put us squarely in that “institution” category.
As Church we’ve been reluctant to embrace a turn toward the individual and there are some very good and theological reasons we’re skeptical. But if our brother in Christ, Kevin Plank, and the good people at Under Armour can do both well, we can too.
In many ways it’s as simple as being able to name at least three young people in your church with whom you have a connection and whom God is therefore calling you to invest in. I had a good mentor who used to say “Don’t just say you love ‘the poor,’ name them.”
We can’t just say, “we love the young church.” We have to name them. Jazmine, Michael, Shantay, Jose and all those other young people in your church require adults who can call them by name. That’s how “we will” be the Church that, with all due respect to our friends at Under Armour, offers a deeper investment in their lives, an eternal one.
Here we are today watching this same old global banking 1% HOLLYWOOD FAD trying to tell us our US public education was a struggle between CALVIN AND HOBBES. The AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT and AGE OF REASON was driven by HUMANISTS------yes, HUMANISTS believed in MORALS AND ETHICS -------and LOCKEAN education is steeped in HUMANIST belief in a moral and ethical society. Whatever LOCKE'S religious beliefs----our US PUBLIC SCHOOLS were not built on RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. Ergo, no battles between CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANTS.
Our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE and new to US immigrants must break away from all these FAKE NEWS REVISIONS of our American PUBLIC EDUCATION as we rebuild our US 20th century PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEMS.
Calvin and Hobbes: The Movie (Trailer) | Gritty Reboots
Subscribe for more Gritty Reboots! Follow us on Twitter: [https://twitter.com/Cinesaurus] Like us on…
So, indeed----the difference between LOCKEAN CIVIL SOCIETY based upon humanist morals and ethics was the driver of US PUBLIC EDUCATION. The question below is the difference between being a REAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC ------and being a nation captured these few decades by global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA-----now morphing into far-right wing, authoritarian, militaristic, extreme wealth extreme poverty LIBERTARIAN MARXISM-----HOBBES
or LOCKEAN political debate and discussion allowing all 99% WE THE PEOPLE a voice in our PEOPLE'S GOVERNMENT.
Our US PUBLIC SCHOOLS were steeped in HOLDING POWER ACCOUNTABLE-------THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF CITIZENSHIP------THE NEED FOR CIVIL SOCIETY.
'The Age of Enlightenment was led by the idea of Humanism. Humanism promoted the idea of doubting traditional teachings and coming up with new ideas. As a result of this, the Scientific Revolution followed which changed what the people thought about nature'.
US PUBLIC SCHOOLS were steeped in AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT HUMANISM------which was not tied to a RELIGION
Should We Be Governed by Persuasion or by Force?
By José Azel On Jan 18, 2018
Margaret Thatcher, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, noted that “Europe was created by history. America was created by philosophy.” And indeed, we are all a product of the intellectual activity and history of our communities. It is a history that informs who we are, and which we carry everywhere as our intellectual backpack (I say intellectual backpack to avoid the negative connotations associated with “intellectual baggage”). We are a slice of the communities we come from.
If we had been colonized by the French or the Spanish, our diets, our language, and our ways of living would be different, as well our ways of governing. It would be a different United States of America. The United States is a nation of immigrants, and immigrants bring with them learned conceptions of society and government which frame their approach to life in their new country setting.
In the United States our backpack of philosophical tradition begins with the Puritans arrival in New England imbued with their Calvinist doctrine. This religious doctrine is later informed by the natural philosophy of the 18th-century’s Enlightenment. It is from this tradition that the Founding Fathers derived their notions of the relationship between the state and the individual which form the cornerstone of American political philosophy.
Our intellectual history conditions the way in which we look at the world. In the United States, it is an intellectual history of classical liberalism as a political philosophy. That is to say, our intellectual backpack holds concepts such as the primacy of the individual, consent of the governed, rational self-interest, individual rights flowing from nature and not government, limited government, and equality.
Our intellectual backpack of liberalism is filled with the ideas of English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) commonly referred to as the “Father of Liberalism.” Locke’s concepts of republicanism and liberal theory permeate our Founding Documents.
In contrast, the intellectual backpacks of the Spanish and Portuguese colonizers of Latin America are more closely associated with the ideas of another 17th-century English philosopher: Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). Unlike Locke, Hobbes argues for unlimited government, and the absolute authority of the sovereign. For Hobbes, citizens’ value order and security above all, thus he develops his version of social contract theory in which we give up our rights to the state in exchange for the order and security that the state can provide To this day, Locke is relatively unknown in Latin America.
To put it differently, the two intellectual backpacks may be thought of as representative of Plato’s two modes of subduing others: persuasion and force. The Lockean model of government relies on persuasion to obtain the consent of the governed, and to function within the scope of a limited government. The Hobbesian model relies on force to articulate the absolute power of the Leviathan.
There is much more to the story, of course, but ideas and actions live together and these two entirely different sets of ideas have influenced the structures of government in our continent — Lockean persuasion in the United States, Hobbesian force in Latin America. As to the role of the government in society, these two conceptions are ideologically asymmetrical.
Centuries have passed but, what we see unconsciously present in the intellectual backpack of present day Latin Americans, is essentially the Hobbesian notion of unlimited government. It is an idea of a social contract that favors collectivism over the primacy of individual rights. This is perhaps easiest to discern by examining the general expectations that Latin Americans have of the role of government in society.
Events do not take place in an intellectual vacuum. Over time, we carry our Lockean and Hobbesian intellectual backpacks into the more moderate forms of limited and unlimited government represented in the American political system. But also over time, our Lockean intellectual heritage of limited government becomes more and more diluted, not by immigration, but by our failure to articulate and teach Lockean concepts of persuasion over force.
We are, and must continue to be, a welcoming nation. And consequently, we must find ways to refill our intellectual backpacks with the Lockean philosophy of limited government lest we find ourselves governed by force.