| One of the best articles ever....
|
Posted on 02/24/2005 1:22:16 PM PST by Alex Marko
This is a great article! A keeper. Thanks for posting it.
That's the question, really. The best answer I can come up with is that it naturally fits their own (self serving) worldview.
That is, for the types that advocate such ideals, they envision equality - that is, most people are at a basic level of sustenance, education, profession, finance. They take it completely for granted that they are better than that and somehow deserve a higher standard of living than most of these equal people.
So for them, even if they can't come to terms with it, equality means that most people get a fairly equal standard of living (a fairly low one), but that they somehow deserve more (even though they are architects and advocates of such an egalitarian vision).
As to what drives this, I can only speculate. Academics are notably leftist, for example, and I have always felt (based on my experience in college and grad school) that they feel themselves as more intelligent than most people, and therefore more deserving, and they are unable to cope with the fact that 'lesser people' in their minds might enjoy a more successful income, a better lifestyle, have more attractive spouses, better homes, or simply have a brighter outlook on life.
For me, this isn't a matter of intelligence - it's a matter of maturity. That is to say, most of us have come to terms with the fact that some people do better than others for a variety of reasons. It doesn't compromise our ability to do well in our lives, for example, to know that someone else is doing much better.
Their failure is primarily one of maturity. "It's not fair...." has been quietly accepted by the majority of folks for thousands of years. Our best and brightest, it consistently appears, are unable or unwilling to cope with that truth.
But of course ;) BTTT
"How in the hell do you plan to bring about a revolution involving the overthrow of the government, removal (murder) of the "upper classes" (varying definitions), and making sure no one's being "insincere" (read: not properly following the dogma) without guns, comrade? With gentle persuasion?"
Through the educational system.
This article hits the spot on so many points.
Even here in the U.S., there is a desire, mostly by leftists, to keep poor people poor. Blacks are the hardest hit by this effort, but no one of any race is spared. Growing up in such an environment is like trying to learn to swim with concrete blocks tied to one's feet--you're so busy trying not to drown that it's nearly impossible to get ahead. The pressure to remain poor is multifaceted, pressing from every direction.
It sounds like the British system is even worse.
If Cal is number one, that doesn't say much for American education. (P.S. I'm a Cal grad and can recall the acrid smell of teargas as it roiled across the campus in 65.) You are right, a check of those arrested in the major free speech clash (900 or so) indicates that fewer than 30 were born in California, and the vast majority were New York red diaper babies.
I was only in elementary school during the 60s but remember all the crap going on.....you are right, there were so many out of staters that just came to Berkeley to do drugs and start trouble.......most didn't even go to the university.....however, if you look at the ratings like in US World News & Reports....they are still one of the best universitys you can go to education wise....have the most top 10 grad programs and most Ph.D's of any US university. I try not to confuse the education there with the liberal idiots that the city attracts...
Norman Thomas, socialist and member of the Civil Liberties Union, boldly told the world, “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.”
The story of how the socialists took over the American educational establishment would fill a book; so let us just listen to their own words.
John Dewey, called “the father of modern education,” was an avowed socialist, the co-author of the 'Humanist Manifesto' and cited as belonging to fifteen Marxist-front organizations by the Committee on Un-American Activities. Do the words (the father of modern education) now take on new meaning? Remember, Dewey taught the professors who would train America's teachers. He was obsessed with “the group.” In his own words, “You can't make socialists out of individualists. Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone is interdependent.”
Rosalie Gordon, writing on Dewey's progressive (socialist) education in her book “What's Happened To Our Schools,” said, “The progressive system has reached all the way down to the lowest grades to prepare the children of America for their role as the collectivists of the future. The group -- not the individual child -- is the quintessence of progressivism. The child must always be made to feel part of the group. He must indulge in group thinking and group activity.” Our schools are creating little left-wing activists. They grow up to become big left-wing activists.
| One of the best articles ever....
|
I'm sorry, but why do people think that I'm supposed to be interested in their "life's journey" to finding their true selves. This is just another example of narcisstic thinking in the extreme. The same point could have been made in, like, a third of the space if that.
Then again, I read the entire article. I guess I must blame myself.
Socialists want to control you. They always have.
BTTT
"It's not fair" -- Not only are they unwilling to cope with that truth but they perpetuate it through their elitism and hypocrisy. Their lack of maturity is more about a bad conscience: on one hand supporting equality as socialism and on the other their impulse to raise themselves above it, hence the term Limousine Liberal. They buy into the American dream but are at odds with it. But odds are they they know this and are happy supporting a cause that makes them hypocrites. Why? Because they are rich hypocrites which is better than being poor hypocrites... if Gods asks they can always say, "We're all fallen... and I tried, honestly... my heart was in the right place."
That 14th amendment grew enormous legs it was not born with. More legs grew as the liberals recognized it as a devious way to rewrite the constitution and the education system.
What you said is very true and having gone through teachers college there is a big push to do "group work." It's more a part of socialization than education of the individual... they can't have gods or beasts.
There are some very good points in this essay.
Yes, but socialism doesnt take into account human nature to succeed. It limits growth and advancement.
I think the author agrees with you?
In any case, I do - socialism has a tendency to reward failure while punishing success.
I think a lot of the more extreme liberalism - being terminally offended, for example, or knee-jerk reactions to things as a result of racism, sexism, etc., is really am extreme form of immaturity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
I thought so too. Four stars.