Millennial Thinking
This generation has been deprived of the history that showed why America transformed the world from its founding. It was founded on the principles of liberty, private property rights, smaller govt and morality and religion that taught self governance.
In their view their parents ruined the world with their greed by practicing “capitalism”. The word has been redefined by progressives aka Marxist atheist humanists. They don’t really know what the free market is.
They have been good students of their Marxist humanistic professors. Working hard is bad cause you do it to make money and that’s greedy.
You say “we all want a world that works for everyone”. The founders established it. We have dropped the ball. Theyk have to care about what’s worked in the past and what hasn’t further back than 1980, 1950, 1920.
They don’t even realize that destroying what they call capitalism will increase poverty and starvation.
In their view their parents ruined the world with their greed by practicing “capitalism”. The word has been redefined by progressives aka Marxist atheist humanists. They don’t really know what the free market is.
They have been good students of their Marxist humanistic professors. Working hard is bad cause you do it to make money and that’s greedy.
You say “we all want a world that works for everyone”. The founders established it. We have dropped the ball. Theyk have to care about what’s worked in the past and what hasn’t further back than 1980, 1950, 1920.
They don’t even realize that destroying what they call capitalism will increase poverty and starvation.
Me dino is with those who say education is the responsibility of each state.
Kalifornia? Forget about it for a lost cause anyway.
At this point maybe half the states will teach history as it actually happened.
Someone, maybe it was Reagan, said that the Department of Education should be abolished. Well, he had that right. Start there and then go on to the NEA. It's worthless and charges dues that are way too high. When it comes to choosing history text books, get some of the parents involved...maybe not in California. You are right. It is a lost cause.
Are you familiar with Charlotte Thompson Iserbyt's
Book the Dumbing Down Of America
Mrs Iserbyt is an American hero in my opinion.
She was senior policy advisor to dept of Ed under President Reagan.
For a short interview approx 10 mins she will explain how what and why . https://youtu.be/DDyDtYy2I0M
Thanks for letting me know about her. I wish that I could give you more than one +1.
You are a good judge of character.
Posted by CaptainKirk 8 hours, 35 minutes ago
You can go here and download her book as a PDF
http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/
Yeah, I'd like toi meet the creeps behind this organized indoctrination and turn into a real allosaur.
Rush Limbaugh clued me in on "the dumbing down of America" during the early 90s but I never heard of the insidious movement explained in such detail. So thanks, D.
When with Reagan admin she found a info of the Soviet indoctrination into our public Ed . She wrote a briefing to the President and gave it to his secretary. Next thing she is relieved of her duties and allowed to stay with no specific job she spent 2years researching the dumbing down in the Ed. System. It has continued unabated since.
Me dino thinking. Reagan saved us from four more years of Peanuts Carter and the malaise of his ineptitude. Peanuts moved on to doing a better job building houses as a charity worker.
When I went to Troy State on the GI Bill before I even heard of Peanuts, a liberal bias was being noticed as prevalent in the media. The Vietnam war and Tricky Dicky had helped that along. Me dino was a lib when I left the Marines in 1971 but a college course in logic and the malaise of Peanuts helped to burn that out of me. So much so I enthusiastically voted for Reagan to keep him around for eight years.
While Tricky Dicky, Pardoning Ford, Peanuts and Reagan were in office, many hippies (and radicals) of the 60s were becoming teachers at all levels of education. That would include the federal level of government.
Yeah, it all makes sense.
I think GWBush was a very active VP working toward his New World Order.
http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/
1) The USA was founded on principles they thought would keep the country free of domination by England , both on economic and religiious grounds.
2) Slavery was made to be an exception to the "freedom of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness". They specifically left off "property" so as to permit slavery.
3) Just as today, the documents were a series of compromises in order to get agreement. They were NOT based on some sort of moral principles, such as Objectivism.
4) The actual actions of the government were pretty bad in terms of stealing land from the indians, running the mormons out of town because of their religion allowing polygamy (who cares how many wives a man has anyway).
5) Most of those founding fathers, including Jefferson and Washington, had slaves (because they needed them to run their plantations !).
6) The lack of preservation of private property in the constitution has resulted in most of the very bad laws we have now and most of the bad actions that the government takes against us citizens.
They are far from a homogeneous group. In fact I would say they are far more diverse than the Boomers were. As an example, we only had about three or four "musical" diversity types that interested us in our 20's (rock, jazz, blues, folk). They have hundreds of different styles and styles within styles.
I live in Portland, Oregon and there could not be a grander plethora of millennial collectivists, this is the city of "the new world order". However, here are a couple of things I've learned from working and performing with them for about 3 years.
1. They respect elders for the most part and are exceedingly kind and considerate in their treatment. Consistently opening doors, helping with bags,
2. Nearly completely obsessed with being of service to others.
3. They are the most entrepreneurial generation since 1776. They aren't buying this 9-5 factory or office crap.
4. MANY of them are NOT buying the BS, are very skeptical of bureaucracy and only consider themselves "democrates" because no libertarian has ever talked to them.
5. They are far easier to convert than any other age group.
It might be good to start hanging out with them in bars or other places they go. You may actually form a much more positive picture of a group that is going to be responsible for moving this world forward in another 10 years.
They are strong willed and opinionated, yes....and so were we...remember the long hair, barefoot, smoking pot stuff? We flew in the face of every convention...and we weren't quite as polite about it sometimes.
The Pilgrims found this out in the first two winters of being on the New England coast and losing about 60% of their population to malnutrition and starvation since not enough people wanted to do the real work of planting, caring for and harvesting crops. A lesson lost to the socialist dream of utopia.
They used to be and still are ,it is the grand scheme. Obey and be a good debt slave.
They and the parents have been conned by
Identity politics and the PC that is the control mechanism.
Benjamin Bloom an educational psychologist outlined a classification of learning objectives that has come to be known as Bloom's taxonomy and remains a foundational and essential element within the educational community as evidenced in the 1981 survey.
Bloom states that "the purpose of education is to change the thoughts, actions and feelings of students."
He also said "good teaching is challenging and changing the students fixed beliefs"
And "Talent is not something to be found in a few but to be developed in the many."
Neither the millennials nor the millions of recent immigrants have any experience, respect, or longing for freedom.
Life is hard work, and of all the messages the Millenials seem to have missed, it's that one.
You seem to agree on the consensus here regarding capitalism.
In the 19th century, nominal individualists such as Godwin, Stirner, and Nietzsche, and, of course, Bentham and Mill, also expounded some emotional commitments to selfhood. But, really, Rand gave egoism a rational, reality based foundation.
It is not just this generation or the previous one, or the last 100 years since the Federal Reserve or whatever... Your ability to stand up and say that you live for yourself was given to you by Ayn Rand who put that idea into forms that were understandable with her fiction, and then her non-fiction. Rand is to selfishness as Newton is to calculus.
As an atheist, how do you define the moral rules?
Do you believe in the 10 commandments, and the some of the teachings, aside from "God", etc.
Or are you a Religious is a Destructive force kind of person?
Or anything goes, nihilistic approach?
For the record, I left the Church as a kid who found "Formal Religion" to be a problem.
I would say "I am Spiritual, but not religious" for 20+ years.
Later I realized the society was making that path easier (as was the pope). I don't like most
organized religions, per se. But I have started going back and revisiting the bible and have realized that I was always more or less Christian because the 10 commandments and the overall teachings were ingrained in me. I just don't need the Pomp and Glitter.
Now I realized how ingrained they are into what we consider society. and if you have no religion, I believe YOU BETTER have a moral belief system that expects MORE (not less) of you.
So I am genuinely curious as to how you square that in your life? Or if you have even thought about it?
Thanks.
The following is a short description of Objectivism given by Ayn Rand in 1962:
At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did as follows:
Metaphysics: Objective Reality
Epistemology: Reason
Ethics: Self-interest
Politics: Capitalism
If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” or “Wishing won’t make it so.” 2. “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.” 3. “Man is an end in himself.” 4. “Give me liberty or give me death.”
If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency—to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them—requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot—nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics.
My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:
Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church. -- http://aynrandlexicon.com/ayn-rand-id...
The problem here is that we in the Gulch go around and around on religion and it just creates animosity. Objectivism is the reason for Atlas Shrugged. Atlas Shrugged is the reason for Objectivism (if you know the biography of Ayn Rand.) The benefits of a free market and limited government are accepted as "floating abstractions" by political conservatives who are attracted to sites like this - and this one especially because of the movies.
Religion is a destructive force. It robs you of reality and reason and ultimately of self.
Of course it is complicated, as human life is. Ayn Rand pointed out that Christianity in particular was a step forward because its focus was not just obedience to the gods, but the salvation of the individual. (I add that historically, the disciples were hellenized Jews, so they adopted many ideas from Greek philosophy, hence, their interest in showing people how to live well.) But that is a small consolation and stands as a minor exception to an overwhelming condemnation of all that is wrong with religion. Objectivism demonstrates why communism and Christianity share common foundations of mysticism and altruism.
What you choose to believe is your own business, of course. You seem to be a nice enough person who accepts the social rules of private property.
I live by four principles:
I tell the truth (because I want others to be truthful with me).
I am equitable in my dealings with others (so they will be fair and impartial with me)
I recognize property interests of others (because I want them to recognize mine)
I adhere to that "do unto others" thing which, essentially incorporates the above three principles.
There is no need for a god's decree or a church's benediction. Cause and effect is the best litmus ever for defining good and bad.
Stefan Molyneux goes further as to say "you wouldn't want the opposite for you and yours".
Rape is bad because you would not want it for you.
Property Rights (not taking other peoples property) must exist, because you would not want people taking your property. I wish we could explain this to Liberals.
Anyways, that's what I was looking for. To see people have a codified view that keeps THEM on their best behavior. (And not some relative BS, again like the left, It's okay to take, if you do something good with it)