'Stephen Schwartz | Yahoo Entertainment
Yahoo Entertainment is your source for the latest TV, movies, music, and celebrity news, including interviews, trailers, photos, and first looks'.
Steven R. Swartz named COO of Hearst Corporation
Published 5:30 am, Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Below we see the reason global 1% created a website called YAHOO! It is tied to OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1% FREEMASONRY and SWIFT'S GULLIVER'S TRAVELS. We mean that JONATHAN SWIFT as in TAYLOR SWIFT.
As we see the definition relates to information aimed at what is that 99% of boorish louts. If we are reading YAHOO NEWS for our information we are taking a walk back to the DARK AGES when 99% of people were SERFS ------not reading news from after the AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT ---AGE OF MAN where all 99% of people fought a revolution just so they were EQUAL UNDER LAW-----to be a CITIZEN one has to have access to REAL INFORMATION.
IT SEEMS HEARST CORPORATION AS ASSOCIATED PRESS WANT TO CREATE NEWS FOR YAHOOS.
This ties to the fact 99% of WE THE PEOPLE are allowing all our information to come from SEARCH ENGINES like YAHOO. COMMONER CORE is of course dismantled strong US public K-12 brought down to being NEWS FOR YAHOOS.
Definition of yahoo
1 capitalized : a member of a race of brutes in Swift's Gulliver's Travels who have the form and all the vices of humans
[influenced by 2yahoo]
: a boorish, crass, or stupid person
noun, plural Yahoos.
(in Swift's Gulliver's Travels) one of a race of brutes, having the form and all the vices of humans, who are subject to the Houyhnhnms.
(lowercase) an uncultivated or boorish person; lout; philistine; yokel.
(lowercase) a coarse or brutish person.
Origin of Yahoo
coined by Swift in Gulliver's Travels (1726)
Political education in US always had citizens educating broadly-----because to understand public policy we must know the 5Ws. It is especially tied to US journalism------our US media used to have reporters and journalists as in UMBERTO ECO's NUMERO ZERO not having done the job unless they included the 5Ws.
What global 1% banking are selling in FAKE NEWS is that our US public education system was first designed to educate students for INDUSTRY and second that our public school system is tied to a religion----PROTESTANT.
Our US public education system was brought from the AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT -----I AM MAN Europe and is a product of expanding REAL education to all people-----so they can be CITIZENS AND LEADERS. In the DARK AGES of OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1% only those rich received the education that US PUBLIC SCHOOLS brings to all 99% of WE THE PEOPLE because we are CITIZENS.
These concepts are tied to both EDUCATION AND OUR PUBLIC K-UNIVERSITY and our US journalism and media.
During CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA who are those BOORISH LOUTS--------hating civility and education====all of what was the strongest in world history public education and journalism for 99% of WE THE PEOPLE has been under attack.
The 5Ws are the standards for strong US journalism------and none of today's consolidated media outlets have any of these 5Ws.
The 5 W’s (and How) are even more important to business than to journalism
April 27, 2011 by Steve Buttry
Update: Lots of people are finding this post through Google searches for “the 5 W’s.” If you’re interested in something on the 5 W’s of journalism, you might try my post, The 5 W’s (and How) of writing for the Web.
Jay Rosen wrote a thoughtful blog post, What I think I know about journalism, that summarized succinctly many things Jay has been writing and saying about journalism into four clear principles. He inspired me to do the same with my thoughts about the news business. So this is what I think I know about the business of journalism.
Every journalist learned quickly in our first journalism class or newsroom lesson about the “5 W’s“: Who? What? When? Where? Why? How? (How gets lumped in with the 5 W’s like Penn State in the Big Ten, a joke I’ll have to modify or abandon soon.) We have to answer those questions (some of them multiple times) in every story, or the story is somehow inadequate. The same questions are essential to survival and prosperity in the business of journalism:
You need to understand your community – your users and your potential users – to succeed as a news organization. Know their demographics, their interests, their life circumstances. The better you know who they are, the better you can deliver value for them and the better you can serve businesses that want to connect with your users.
What makes you different? To people who might be interested in your content, or to businesses interested in connecting with your audience, you need to stand out from the crowd of alternatives. The more you seem like just another news source or just another advertising vehicle, the less time, attention and money you will command.
Timeliness has economic value in digital journalism. A news organization that is reliably first and reliably accurate will build an audience that will be valuable to business customers. I worry when I hear and read journalists saying they would rather be last with the news and get it right than be first and wrong. If you use that to emphasize the importance of accuracy, we agree. But if you use that to excuse being slow, I believe you are heading for failure. When news happens matters, and when people learn about the news matters. The news organization that can get the news right and get it first is on its way to success. Similarly, when provides excellent opportunities in digital commerce. A news organization that gets frequent attention as a timely source of news can deliver time-sensitive ads, coupons, deals and other commercial opportunities that will be valuable for consumers and businesses.
Location is going to be increasingly important: What news (or background or coupon) is helpful to me right where I am this moment? Your mobile device knows where you are, and the companies that deliver news, information and commercial opportunities relevant to your location in a welcome and useful way will prosper.
You need to understand (and be able to explain) why someone would use your product or service and why a business would pay for any services you offer. You have to understand what Clayton Christensen calls the job that you are doing for a business or a user.
How you deliver the news matters. In their days, newspapers and television were critical ways of delivering news and advertising. But today digital platforms – especially and increasingly mobile – have leapt past legacy media in people’s daily lives. Consider the contrast between these two reports I read yesterday:
Rick Edmonds’ gloomy assessment of first-quarter performance by newspaper companies and Danny Sullivan’s report on a Google survey about how people use mobile devices (summarized in the video below; this post continues below the video).
Here we have another term tied to journalism------having its beginning in the intrigues of an OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1% FREEMASONRY-----creating FAKE NEWS to hide the agenda of extreme wealth and extreme power.
PROPAGANDA has always been a tool used by the rich and powerful. When someone says our education on public policy is propaganda-----well, we are not a source of wealth, power, or political intrigue.
PROPAGANDA wants nothing to do with those 5Ws tied to strong, democratic, free press journalism. When we educate we educate broadly-----using the 5Ws in discussing public policy----this is REAL LEFT social progressive journalism if it is tied to PUBLIC INTEREST. It becomes propaganda when tied to corporate and wealth interests.
- 1mass noun Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.
‘he was charged with distributing enemy propaganda’
- 1.1 The dissemination of propaganda as a political strategy.
‘the party's leaders believed that a long period of education and propaganda would be necessary’
- 1.1 The dissemination of propaganda as a political strategy.
- 2A committee of cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church responsible for foreign missions, founded in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV.
When today's media headlines are filled with articles calling ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE for only the global 1% killing all world religions a HOLY WAR........they are twisting the meaning of HOLY WAR from what is indeed religious to the opposite----a WAR AGAINST ALL THAT IS HOLY. It is propaganda for a global 1% having a goal of KILLING ALL THAT IS HOLY to print those goals of global 1% banking to be a HOLY WAR.
The 5Ws and these policies tied to what is REAL religious thought is not only about religion=====as our articles show the 99% of WE THE PEOPLE cannot have businesses or do business when these OLD WORLD SECRET SOCIETIES constantly create crony, corrupt economies filled with FAKE NEWS PROPAGANDA.
KILLING ALL THAT IS HOLY becomes a HOLY WAR.
Does the Bible say anything about holy war?
Subscribe to our Question of the Week:
Question: "Does the Bible say anything about holy war?"
Answer: The concept of “holy war” is most commonly expressed as a war justified on the grounds of religious differences. As typically understood, this concept is neither taught nor encouraged by the Bible. The ancient Israelites were never given a broad mandate to wage war on behalf of their faith, though they were given a specific time, place, and that which they were instructed to conquer. Jesus Christ explicitly contradicted the holy war concept through both His teachings and His example. The concept of “just war,” meaning justifiable war waged by a legitimate government, is not the same as a “holy war.”
Critics sometimes claim that holy war is encouraged in the Old Testament. However, the nation of Israel was given a mandate only to conquer the land of Canaan (Numbers 34:2). This command was for a specific place, time, and people, not an endorsement of religious warfare. Nor was the conquest of Canaan made on the basis of religion, in and of itself. On the contrary, God repeatedly stated that this conquest was due to the wickedness of the Canaanites, not the merit of Israel (Deuteronomy 9:4–6). Historically, this is exactly how the nation of Israel interpreted these commands. No attempts were made to conquer other lands or to expand that territory through combat.
Christians are strictly forbidden from using violence in an attempt to spread their faith. Christ directly told His disciples not to use violence to further His ministry (Matthew 26:52–54). He lived out a philosophy of peacemaking and taught others to do the same (Matthew 5:9–10). When arrested and facing death, Jesus clearly said that His kingdom was not earthly, so His disciples would not fight to protect Him (John 18:36). Christians expect persecution, not conquest, since Christ experienced the same (John 15:18–21). The example of the earliest believers was that of civil disobedience (Acts 5:25–29) and submission (Romans 13:4–5), never armed revolution or conquest. In fact, for the first three centuries of its existence, Christianity was effectively illegal, yet it spread throughout the Roman Empire.
The occurrence of “holy war,” historically speaking, is rare. Secular historians note that more than 90 percent of the wars fought in human history had no religious motivation. The remaining 7 percent of conflicts account for about 2 percent of all deaths in war. Islam accounts for more than half of these religious wars, despite existing for only about 1/3 of human history; in Islam’s first three centuries, its growth was fueled by armed conquest. If there’s any reason the concept of “holy war” exists, it’s fair to say that reason is Islam.
It’s also worth noting that atheistic regimes have resulted in untold millions of deaths, just in the last 100 years alone. Religious belief, historically, hasn’t been a major cause of conflict, while non-belief has enabled some of history’s worst atrocities.
The Bible maintains a strict emphasis on God’s righteousness and mankind’s fallibility. Jesus preached a message of peace and lived it out perfectly. His earliest followers did the same, and every attempt to justify “holy war” by nominal Christianity was met with opposition and dissent from within the church. Historically and theologically, “holy war” has never been a part of biblical Christianity.
Here is UK in Thatcher/Blair era redefining what CITIZENSHIP education has as a goal.......it uses the same language as several centuries of REAL 99% public education but what is MOVING FORWARD with RACE TO THE TOP and UK has installed the corporate structures to its public school system -------is bring the ideals of citizenship back to being only the rich education as citizens and 99% of WE THE PEOPLE educated as DARK AGES TRADE GUILD information only.
"Citizenship education is essential for preparing young people for our shared democratic life." Democratic Life coalition, 2010'
The UK has dismantled what was a very strong British Broadcast Corporation as a public media funded world news BBC of course was that global 1% news outlet as ASSOCIATED PRESS but it did open discussion for REAL journalism bringing the questions of WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WHY, AND HOW to a broad journalist system. We open that door by reading articles telling us we are heading for END TIMES with world-wide HOLY WAR -----knowing that is FAKE NEWS----but this acts as a stimulus for REAL JOURNALISM.
Today's citizenship information is directed to our new global labor pool 99% coming to America, UK, or Europe ----they have no idea the capture of all information structures MOVING FORWARD these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA making it impossible for them to actually BE CITIZENS OR LEADERS.
What is citizenship education?
Citizenship is a statutory subject on the National Curriculum in secondary schools in England. It has been there since 2002.
At the Citizenship Foundation, we want young people to leave education with a grasp of the political, legal and economic functions of adult society, and with the social and moral awareness to thrive in it.
"Citizenship education is essential for preparing young people for our shared democratic life." Democratic Life coalition, 2010
"It's the job of the education system to prepare our young people for the challenges and opportunities of a changing world." Rekha Bhakoo CBE, Headteacher, Newton Farm School (Top Performing Primary School in England, 2011)
"Citizenship is more than a subject. If taught well and tailored to local needs, its skills and values will enhance democratic life for all of us, both rights and responsibilities, begninning in school and radiating out." Bernard Crick, National Curriculum Citizenship, 1999
But we don't just want schools and colleges to teach citizenship: we also want them to demonstrate citizenship through the way they operate.
Why teach citizenship?
For a start, the UK Government recommended citizenship education for implementing its anti-extremist Prevent Duty that became a legal requirement in schools on 1 July 2015.
And citizenship education is an ideal tool for exploring British values, also required by the UK Government.
Citizenship education is also important because it builds character and develops the soft skills that employers are crying out for, such as communication, initiative, social interaction and teamwork.
As well as the statutory citizenship curriculum, elements of citizenship education appear in many subjects - such as English, history and maths - as well as in a school's SMSC outcomes (see doingsmsc.org.uk).
But citizenship education is more than that.Democracies need active, informed and responsible citizens; citizens who are willing and able to take responsibility for themselves and their communities and contribute to the political process.
Democracies depend upon citizens who, among other things, are:
aware of their rights and responsibilities as citizens;
informed about the social and political world;
concerned about the welfare of others;
articulate in their opinions and arguments;
capable of having an influence on the world;
active in their communities;
responsible in how they act as citizens.
These capacities do not develop unaided. They have to be learnt. While a certain amount of citizenship may be picked up through ordinary experience in the home or at work, it can never in itself be sufficient to equip citizens for the sort of active role required of them in today's complex and diverse society.
If citizens are to become genuinely involved in public life and affairs, a more explicit approach to citizenship education is required.
This approach should be:
Inclusive: An entitlement for all young people regardless of their ability or background;
Pervasive: Not limited to schools but an integral part of all education for young people;
Lifelong: Continuing throughout life.
And, as Democratic Life points out, citizenship is the only subject in the national curriculum that teaches about the way democracy, politics, the economy and the law work.
Citizenship issues are:
real: actually affect people's lives;
topical: current today;
sometimes sensitive: can affect people at a personal level, especially when family or friends are involved;
often controversial: people disagree and hold strong opinions about them;
ultimately moral: relate to what people think is right or wrong, good or bad, important or unimportant in society.
How does it benefit young people?
It helps them to develop self-confidence and successfully deal with significant life changes and challenges such as bullying and discrimination;
It gives them a voice: in the life of their schools, in their communities and in society at large;
It enables them to make a positive contribution by developing the expertise and experience needed to claim their rights and understand their responsibilities and preparing them for the challenges and opportunities of adult and working life.
Who else does it benefit?
"Citizenship is becoming a cornerstone subject in our education system, and rightly so. It is a gateway to a more inclusive society." Stephen Twigg, former Education Minister
Citizenship also brings benefits for schools, other educational organisations and for society at large.
For schools and other educational organisations, it helps to produce motivated and responsible learners, who relate positively to each other, to staff and to the surrounding community. For society it helps to create an active and responsible citizenry, willing to participate in the life of the nation and the wider world and play its part in the democratic process.
What are its essential elements?
Citizenship education involves a wide range of different elements of learning, including:
Knowledge and understanding: About topics such as: laws and rules, the democratic process, the media, human rights, diversity, money and the economy, sustainable development and world as a global community; and about concepts such as democracy, justice, equality, freedom, authority and the rule of law;
Skills and aptitudes: Critical thinking, analysing information, expressing opinions, taking part in discussions and debates, negotiating, conflict resolution and participating in community action;
Values and dispositions: Respect for justice, democracy and the rule of law, openness, tolerance, courage to defend a point of view and a willingness to: listen to, work with and stand up for others.
The most effective form of learning in citizenship education is:
active: emphasises learning by doing;
interactive: uses discussion and debate;
relevant: focuses on real-life issues facing young people and society;
critical: encourages young people to think for themselves;
collaborative: employs group work and co-operative learning;
participative: gives young people a say in their own learning.
This text is based on Chapter One of the CPD handbook Making Sense of Citizenship.
If any US citizen feels afraid to discuss openly freemasonry and Greeks and the influence they have had over centuries overseas and here in US----then they are NOT CITIZENS---they are not creating US FREE PRESS JOURNALISM. At a time when CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA has filled our US government with 5% freemason/Greeks lying, cheating, stealing, no morals or ethics fleecing America of tens of trillions of dollars handing it to OLD WORLD GLOBAL 1%-----everyone tied to journalism should be educating about freemasonry and how it works to kill freedom, liberty, justice, pursuit of happiness, and US sovereignty.
Here is the next problem tied to journalism----those 5Ws any reporter and news journal swears to-------those 5% to the 1% players always seem to think THEY KNOW where to get REAL NEWS no doubt they are thinking that freemason or Greek group is providing them REAL NEWS.
KNOW WHAT? OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE CATHOLIC AND JEWISH FREEMASONRY FOR ONLY THE GLOBAL 1% has that INNER CIRCLE of those global 1% who create that news distributed to those 5% thinking they are INFORMED CITIZENS.
- Those 5% to the 1% black, brown, and white freemason/Greeks are about the most uninformed of even our 99% of WE THE PEOPLE. The only way a global 1% can keep a 5% doing anything they are told is to keep making them feel they are BROTHERS-----INSIDERS----WINNERS.
YET, WE BEING THE 99% KNOW THE BIGGEST LOSERS ARE THOSE 5% ------educating broadly and free press only works if one keeps an OPEN MIND.
Definition of open-minded: receptive to arguments or ideas
-- open-mindedly adverb
-- open-mindedness noun
NEW! Time TravelerFirst Known Use: 1748
The 5Ws of free press must include OPEN MIND. This term was coined in those revolutionary times when 99% of citizens became I AM MAN with EQUAL PROTECTION AND RIGHTS under law. So, we moved from DARK AGES where 99% of people had no thoughts or information----we entered into broad civil society needing for 99% of citizens to open there minds to all beliefs. This has been FREE PRESS PUBLIC EDUCATION CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION for several hundreds of years. Our freemason/Greeks are tied so tightly to PLEDGING for global 1% ----they do not look broadly.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
The Degrees of Freemasonry
“Although the brotherhood of Masonry appears to be relatively new, it is in reality the oldest continuous network on the planet, dating back many thousands of years, beginning when stones were first dressed. Masonry today has a generally sinister reputation, because the people suspect that this powerful brotherhood has been manipulating and exploiting them. However, the average Mason has never been ‘in the know’ and is, therefore, merely a member of a social club. Nevertheless, the higher-ups have indeed had their hand in creation on this planet on a large scale for a long time … The Masons are there, perpetually hidden behind the scenes, leaving clues to their existence as a brotherhood, some of which are evident yet still not seen. For example, the biblical Nimrod, the king who built the tower of Babel, is considered the first Mason.” -Acharya S., “The Christ Conspiracy” (238-9)
Freemasonry is a secret fraternal order that has existed for hundreds, arguably thousands, of years and is now operating in most every country in the world. Masonry promotes itself as a philanthropic club for men of morals and they perpetuate this image through members of the first three “Blue degrees.” 97% of all Masons fall into this category and they are often upstanding citizens, pillars of the community who truly are charitable and benevolent. However, the higher degrees, the inner-circle of World Freemasonry, use the society’s global influence to advance their control.
“The ongoing connective tissue between the modern and ancient secret societies has been Freemasonry, which existed as a formidable force long before certain lodges became ‘Illuminized.’ During the late Middle Ages when any opposition to the Holy Roman Universal (Catholic) church was forced deep underground, among the only organized groups able to move freely throughout Europe were the guilds of stone masons, who maintained meeting halls or "lodges" in every major city. The masons, who traced their own secret knowledge of architecture and building back to Egypt and beyond, were essential in the construction of Europe's churches and cathedrals. They were the direct descendants of early guilds of masons which existed both in Egypt and Greece and utilized esoteric construction techniques in their craft. These techniques had been passed down through the sects and mystery schools and some continue to confound modern builders.” –Jim Marrs, Rule by Secrecy (242-3)
Freemasonry evolved over the last thousand years from the Knights Templar, and before that traces its roots to ancient Egypt, the Egyptian Mystery Religion and Esoteric Schools. Some believe the original Masons were the builders of the Pyramids or that they hold the secrets of those early master Masons. Freemasonry is not, however, merely a builders and stone-workers guild. Right from the first degree initiates take blood-oaths, perform occult rituals, and begin learning about a number of arcane subjects delving deeper as they rise in degrees. Some of the subjects studied/practiced include: Astrology, Consciousness, Magic, Tarot, Kabbalah, the Tree of Life, Sacred Geometry, Divination, Scrying, Theosophy, Numerology, Symbology, Alchemy, Hermeticism, the Chakra system, Auras/Energy bodies, Astral Projection/OBEs, Kundalini Yoga, Geomancy, Masonic/Occult History and Philosophy, Metaphysics, Epistemology, Secret Handshakes and Gestures.
Masons rise in degrees through a process of rituals and initiations. They read books like Machiavelli’s “The Prince” and Albert Pike’s “Morals and Dogma” then write essays detailing whether they agree philosophically with people like Pike, Hegel, Machiavelli and others. These essays are then sent in to the Headquarters of International Freemasonry and reviewed by top-level Masons. If the initiate agrees that the few should control the many, and that secret society rule is virtuous, etc. then he is congratulated and promoted through higher degrees. If the initiate disagrees that the few should control the many, and holds a genuinely moral position, then he is congratulated and promoted within his existing branch, never to rise above the Blue degrees. Every Mason will disagree with this however, because most Blue Lodge Masons genuinely do not know, and high-ranking Masons are sworn to secrecy.
"The Blue Degrees are but the outer court or portico of the Temple. Parts of the symbols are displayed there to the initiate, but he is intentionally misled by false interpretations. It is not intended that he shall understand them, but it is intended that he shall imagine that he understands them. Their true implication is reserved for Adepts, the Princes of Masonry.” –Albert Pike (Sovereign Grand Commander of the Supreme Council of the 33rd degree and Supreme Pontiff of Universal Freemasonry) “Morals and Dogma”
"Freemasonry is a fraternity within a fraternity - an outer organization concealing an inner brotherhood of the elect. ... It is necessary to establish the existence of these two separate yet interdependent orders, the one visible and the other invisible. The visible society is a splendid camaraderie of 'free and accepted' men enjoined to devote themselves to ethical, educational, fraternal, patriotic, and humanitarian concerns. The invisible society is a secret and most august fraternity whose members are dedicated to the service of a mysterious Arcanum arcandrum [a sacred secret]. Those brethren who have essayed to write the history of their craft have not included in their disquisitions [a formal discourse or treatise] the story of that truly secret inner society which is to the body Freemasonic what the heart is to the body human. In each generation only a few are accepted into the inner sanctuary of the work ... the great initiate-philosophers of Freemasonry are ... masters of that secret doctrine which forms the invisible foundation of every great theological and rational institution." -33rd Degree Mason Manly P. Hall, “Lectures on Ancient Philosophy”
The process from a 1st to 33rd degree Freemason may take 10, 20, 30 or more years but is not based on time. The way initiates rise degrees is through invitation by members of a higher degree. This is the nature of all secret societies; the only way to get ahead is by appeasing those ahead of you. It is through this boot-licking pyramid structure that the few bloodline elite at the top control the many at the bottom. Then by issuing lords, knights, and vassals of various degrees along the way to do their bidding, the royals essentially control all facets of this world-wide Brotherhood.
"The initiated brother realizes that his so-called symbols and rituals are merely blinds, fabricated by the wise to perpetuate ideas incomprehensible to the average individual. He also realizes that few Masons of today know or appreciate the mystic meaning concealed within these rituals." -33rd degree Mason Manly P. Hall, “The Lost Keys of Freemasonry”
“The invitation-only thirty-third degree … is the highest publicly known degree. The vast majority of members look upon their affiliation with Freemasonry as little different from joining the Lion's Club, the Optimists, or the chamber of commerce. And from their standpoint, this is true. Even Masonic literature makes clear that only those initiates who progress beyond thirty-third-degree status are educated in the group's true goals and secrets. This hierarchy is readily admitted by Masonic authors. ‘There has always existed an external, elementary, popular doctrine which has served for the instruction of the masses who are insufficiently prepared for deeper teaching,’ wrote Mason Wilmshurst. ‘There has been an interior, advanced doctrine, a more secret knowledge, which has been reserved for riper minds and into which only proficient and properly prepared candidates, who voluntarily sought to participate in it, were initiated.’” -Jim Marrs, “Rule by Secrecy” (247-8)
The highest known formal degree of Masonry is the 33rd degree. This title has been held by many world leaders and important names in modern history. The following US presidents are/were known to be Masons, many of them 33rd degree: Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Polk, Buchanan, Johnson, Garfield, McKinley, Roosevelt, Taft, Harding, Roosevelt, Truman, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, both Bush’s and Obama.
All the following people are/were also Masons, most of them 33rd degree: Buzz Aldrin, John Glenn, Yasser Arafat, Tony Blair, John Wilkes Booth, James Cameron, Winston Churchill, Walt Disney, Bob Dole, Frederick Engel, Newt Gingrich, Mikhail Gorbachev, Al Gore, Billy Graham, Richard Holbrooke, J. Edgar Hoover, Colonel Mandell House, Saddam Hussein, Burl Ives, Jesse James, Jesse Jackson, Henry Kissinger, Vladimir Lenin, Robert McNamara, Karl Marx, Lord Alfred Milner, Benjamin Netanyahu, Albert Pike, Prince Philip, Colin Powell, Cecil Rhodes, James Rothschild, Charles Taze Russell, Joseph Stalin, Strom Thurmond, Leon Trotsky, Paul Warburg, H.G. Wells and thousands more.
“When we examine the historical record of the world's most despicable mass murderers and revolutionaries, we find that almost all of them were members of Freemasonry and other secret societies of the Illuminati: Robespierre was a Freemason; Weishaupt was a Freemason; Napoleon was a Freemason; Lenin was a Freemason; Stalin was a Freemason; Mussolini was a Freemason; Truman and Roosevelt were Freemasons; Ariel Sharon is a Freemason; Bill Clinton is a Freemason; Fidel Castro is a Freemason.” -Texe Marrs, “Codex Magica” (43-4)
________________________________________________We will discuss free press in US which expanded last century as 99% of WE THE PEOPLE gained rights as citizens ----but is it tied to LIBERALISM----PROGRESSIVISM------are these terms tied to OPEN-MINDED.
No global 1% literary STAR addresses this more then ---THE IDIOT by Dostoevsky. THE IDIOT sounds much like a YAHOO------and offers a vital discussion of free speech, free press, 5Ws ---------in the early 1800s Russia when liberal, progressive open mindedness hit conservative extreme wealth extreme poverty class structures.
Hmmm, OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE AND KINGS AND QUEENS IVY LEAGUE HARVARD not the source of VERITAS as this captured graduate might make us think......the IVY LEAGUES are the source of propaganda-----to the 99%.
'Mark Sherman Ph.D.
Mark Sherman, Ph.D.
Mark Sherman is a professor emeritus of psychology at the State University of New York at New Paltz. After receiving his Ph.D. in psychology at Harvard'
Remember, our OLD WORLD IVY LEAGUES have never left that stance from DARK AGES-----where only the global 1% receive REAL information while distributing FAKE NEWS or propaganda to 99% of people called HUMAN CAPITAL.
Mark Sherman Ph.D. Real Men Don't Write Blogs
Does Liberal Truly Mean Open-Minded?
Groupthink can be harmful, regardless of how right you usually are.
Posted Mar 10, 2011
"Social Scientists See Bias Within" is the intriguing title of a story that appeared on thefront page of the Science section of the New York Times on Feb. 8 . The article, by John Tierney, focuses on a speech by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, in which he pointed out to those at the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology that this organization, which has long been interested in biases concerning such issues as race, gender, and sexual orientation, has failed to detect a bias within its own ranks (and, by extension, the ranks of the social sciences, in general), namely, one favoring liberals over conservatives.
The piece elicited more than 500 comments, many of which said that the preponderance of liberals in the social sciences made sense. For one thing, a hallmark of any science is a search for evidence, and as one commenter wrote, "their (conservatives) absence highlights how far to the right the contemporary conservative movement has traveled and how out of sync it is with evidence-based reality." I would agree: Among those who believe strongly in "evidence-based realities," such as evolution and climate change, liberals certainly outnumber conservatives. It's one of the reasons I am a lifelong liberal.
Another is the linkage of liberals with trying to help the downtrodden. In this regard, one of the comments was "Liberals' life of the minds are always exciting; they are thinking of ways to improve things, to right injustices, to make life better, to extend human liberty...We need conservatives to keep things more or less predictable and consistent, but our ability to grow and improve ourselves come from the liberals' not the conservatives' ideas."
So if, like me, you are a strong believer in both science and social change, it is more than reasonable to be a liberal. But to a good academic, the science - data, evidence, and, when possible, experimentation -- should come first. And science goes hand in hand with a larger concept: Truth. It is no accident that Harvard University's motto is "Veritas."
Granted, what we see as truth can change, especially in the social sciences. And that is one of the things that make the enterprise exciting. But a problem for me, as a liberal, is that some possible truths -- as supported by whatever data we have -- are not always what we liberals would like them to be. Yet, one of the definitions of "liberal," but not of "conservative," is "open-minded." If you Google "liberal means open-minded," you get more than 5000 hits. Googling "conservative means open-minded" yields exactly one.
Paradoxically, anyone who spends any time at a college or university will see that that this definition often gets lost in groupthink. Again, to quote a commenter on that Times piece, "What the author describes is an example of groupthink-- a group that adapts a set of shared assumptions, and exhibits hostility to those who do not share them. The damage is that concepts which conflict with the groupthink are dismissed out of hand, without any real attempt to analyze, evaluate, or test them."
The article mentions Larry Summers and the attacks he sustained for suggesting, in January 2005, that just as there appear to be more males at the extreme low end of the curve in abilities, such as science and math (and cognitive functioning in general), so, too, one might entertain the possibility that there are more males at the high end as well (as at the very top of the science and engineering professoriate). Keep in mind that he was talking about "people who are 3 ½ to 4 standard deviations above the mean, the one in 5,000 or one in 10,000 class." He also suggested that perhaps more men than women were willing to give themselves over to the intense work and hours needed to fully employ one's genius on behalf of science and engineering.
However, his even speculating on this led to a liberal feeding frenzy, which probably contributed to his resigning as president of Harvard a year later.
But shouldn't liberals, whose defining characteristics include open-mindedness, have recognized that Summers could have been, wasn't necessarily, but could have been right?
Incidentally, some nine years before the remarks he made that helped destroy his Harvard presidency, Summers said something that everyone seems to have forgotten about. This was cited by then First Lady Hillary Clinton in a commencement address in 1997: "Every study that has recently been done about developing economies has demonstrated, as Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers has eloquently written, that investment in the education of girls may well be the highest return investment available in the developing world. That message is getting through now."
This reminds me of a serious problem in the developed world that liberals - including those in academia - have all but ignored: the way boys and young men have fallen behind their female counterparts.
Certainly there is little question that today, as in 1997, girls and women are discriminated against in much of the developing world. But it is very different in the developed world, including our country, where girls and young women are excelling. Boys and young men are clearly not showing the drive and ambition of their sisters, especially when it comes to education. Young males are not doing as well as females in school, at virtually all levels, and across the races and ethnicities.
Liberals have never tried to help with this, in spite of their tendency to help those who are struggling. The idea that males, of any age, could need our society's attention appears to be anathema to liberal thinking. They will acknowledge that young minority males might be having special problems, and, yes, their situation is acute and serious. But pretty much across the board, boys and young men of all races and ethnicities are not fulfilling their potential as compared with girls and young women. However, if a five-year-old white boy is struggling in school, along with many of his peers, or if parent after parent of sons in their 20s and 30s report that their sons are unmotivated, that is just not something that liberals seem ready to attend to. I strongly believe that the focus of attention on girls (of all races and ethnicities) but not boys (of any race or ethnicity) over the last two decades -- starting with programs such as "Take Our Daughters to Work Day" -- is a contributing factor to the dire straits that so many young minority men find themselves in.
So if you are a liberal, and I have always been one, why can't you see the problems of boys as an issue that needs attention? Is there something in the liberal mold that says young males cannot get special attention? Is it so absolute?
What Jonathan Haidt said at that conference in San Antonio did get a good response from the people there, and it did make the newspapers, but the comments that came flooding in mostly took issue with what he said. However, groupthink is groupthink, no matter what form it takes. The truth has a hard time getting its full hearing no matter what, but when those people who are most committed to science as well as helping those in need put ideology ahead of possible truths, and won't even entertain a viewpoint that doesn't fit with their politics, we all suffer.
One of the things that drew me into college teaching was the freedom I felt in the classroom as an undergraduate in the early 1960s. I loved it. I loved the idea that in a college class, you could say almost anything. I had never been in any environment where I had ever felt such freedom of expression. As someone who always thought for myself and who always questioned ideology of any kind, the idea of a job where you could speak your mind, and encourage others to do the same, was just what I wanted.
Granted, necessary changes had to come to a system dominated by white males. But by the early 1980s, an often aggressive political correctness began to take hold on campus. Fear began to dominate; for instance, by the early 1990s I heard male professors refer to female babies and three-year-olds as women, so worried were they about inappropriately using the word "girl."
I learned. I learned that college was nothing like what I had experienced. But I didn't realize how bad it was until the day a student in a general psychology class asked a question about human aggression and the extent to which it might be innate, and I found myself saying, "I'd really like to answer that, but this being a college classroom, I don't think I can."
I didn't say it with irony. It came out of my mouth before I even thought about it. But when I heard myself say it, I realized that I couldn't keep teaching much longer.