MSNBC Host: Your Kids Belong to the Collective

Originally posted by NuclearPaul
I think it's pretty obvious by now that we are someone's domesticated species. We are not free - far from it. We are not even capable of surviving in out natural habitat anymore. Set us free, and most of us would perish.

So what if whoever owns us also owns our children. Nothing new here...

True. True...A hundred years or so ago you could go out into the woods to shot venison.

Now the venison are protected like voters. If there is any venison left out there?

But, hey....you were told the planet is getting way too overpopulated. So many people. So few deer and fish in the stream.

So the people learn to survive in un-natural environments. Like the internet. And one of the many collectives. While fretting that the New World Order is taking over. Not paying much mind to the fact that socialists freely surrender themselves to the collective/New World Order.

"Don't take over my freedom....while I wait for the collective to assign my allotment of freedom for the day."

Hey, teachers....leave those kids alone. All in all they're just another brick in the collective wall.......and that seems to be just A-Okay with the same people who fear the New World Order.

Odd? Isn't it?

reply to post by BO XIAN


Thanks for your reply. I like the color codes.

You posted a webpage with quotes on NWO.

Heard the latest from Joe Biden? Fox news reported it.



nation.foxnews.com...

Here is the text of what Biden says, though I am disappointed in the analysis from the Blaze, as the person writing the analysis clearly does not understand the hidden meaning of certain text from the liberal standpoint. However, one can easily view Biden's text as thinly veiled references to redistributing American dollars to other countries, as we know that the Obama admin has been doing and promoting. As far as I'm concerned, Biden uses pro American statements to cover his International Socialist viewpoint and trick people into thinking he cares about US Sovereignty, because he could not possibly care about it, since he's clearly signed on to all those Globalist mechanisms bringing the NWO into being.

The task we have now is to actually create a new world order. Because the global order is changing again, and the institutions that have worked so well in the post-World War II era for decades, they need to be strengthened, and some have to be changed. So we have to do what we do best, we have to lead. We have to lead. We have to update the global rules of the road. We have to do it in a way that maximize benefits for everyone, because obviously, it’s overwhelmingly in our interest, this is not a zero sum game, it’s overwhelmingly in our interest that China prosper, that Mongolia prosper, that nations big and large, east and west, in Latin America and in Africa, prosper, because you know that old expression, they asked Willie Sutton why he robbed banks, he said ‘that’s where the money is.’ We want everybody to have a little money to make sure they can buy American products. So the paradox — so we don’t view, the President and I and Fred [Hochberg, President of the Export-Import Bank], we don’t view economic growth as a zero sum game here, that somehow we grow and it’s not in our interests if other powers grow as well. That’s the paradox of this new global order. So much of our success depends on the success of those with whom we compete.

www.theblaze.com...

In conclusion, he is signed on to everything Obama is signed onto, and Obama is clearly signed on to treating our children as being owned by the Collective. Obama has made previous statements that make one know he believes the State is more qualified to raise children than their own parents. The most glaringly obvious one was at the Saddleback Forum when he told the world that parents abusing their children was one of his biggest concerns. This is liberal code for using abuse of children as a pretext for sex ed in kindergarten(which he pushed as well openly) and also as a pretext for the govt control of education. This they accomplishing through Common Core which literally locks the parents out of any control of curriculum by eliminating parental access. This should be obvious, but some people see it as benign and for the children's best interests.

Instead, it is a diabolical federal power grab intent on stealing the children from their parents and seizing parental authority and transferring it to the State.

Anyone who has read Glenn Beck's new book, "Agenda 21" will immediately recognize the symptoms of this diabolical expansion of govt control of education as part of Agenda 21.

reply to post by dawnstar


Yes Dawn, clearly you feel that the Collective is a better parent than individual parents and that it is the State's duty to make sure the children everywhere are being taken care of exactly as the Collective feels they should. After all, the Collective is so much smarter than individual parents, and the parents cannot be trusted to be worried about the daily care of their progeny. Clearly the individual parents cannot be trusted to feed and clothe their own children properly. This is why in the UK they have those neat Nanny Cam closed circuit tv monitors to make sure parents are giving their kids broccoli, and not cookies so they won't be fat. Clearly Big Brother knows what's best for these children, no trans fats for them....clearly Big Brother knows best....


End sarcasm.

reply to post by Morgenstern89

Doom and gloom is acceptable when there's a legitimate reason for it. I'm not saying there's not a lot of shady government stuff going on, I'm sure there is, but not -everything- is a conspiracy. I mean just look at this thread. She's just some lady. Just some lady! Some lady talking about how schools need more funding and that having poorly funded schools hurts the kid

No, I have to disagree, she is not just some lady, she is some lady who was handpicked by the controlled media because she is willing to spout this nonsense, and she likely believes it herself because she was already co-opted by the State in State-controlled education. It is a brilliant way to get things done, don't you think?

reply to post by JiggyPotamus


Communism has nothing to do with representative government. It is the government of the People by the dictatorship of the Proletariat and a handful of self-appointed dictators who believe themselves to be the ultimate authority on what's best for the kids and people everywhere.

Communism will not ever be implemented anywhere in a satisfactory manner, and it will especially not be fruitful in a country which has grown up the last two centuries with a focus on rugged individualism. It is much easier to force a people who have never had a taste of that liberty.

I do love it when people here show their hand though.

Also, did you purposely misspell "Champion" as "Champien"? Or is that the International Socialist European spelling?

However, the government we have now is not a representative government, no matter what anyone says. It just isn't. It represents and cares for the interests of the few, while the majority, or the lower middle class, has no say in anything

I think what you really mean here is that you do not like representative government, which is the form of govt we have in the US, because you feel that the Collective majority(the Proletariat) must represent themselves and the only way they can do that is through Democratic Socialism, or direct democracy, to use the terminology of OWS.


A hint for you, you will not get any representative govt from a Communist collective. By it's very nature, the dictatorship of the Proletarian is controlled by a hierarchy of people who agree to set policy according to Communist rules, that is the control of the State over individuals. Do you really feel it is in the best interests to abolish private property? Who does that really benefit?

Going to chime back in on this with a little bit of history. Once upon a time, there was a young man at Berkeley who took part of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement. One of the issues that the Free Speech Movement had was the requirement that universities and specific students must sign what were basically "loyalty oaths".

Here's a Harvard piece on the subject: www.thecrimson.com...

The loyalty oath was packaged in during the McCarthy period at the same time that, due to the launch of Sputnik, our government decided that we need to focus on locating and finding children that had the abilities to become scientists, mathematicians, and engineers. The mandated affidavit was this:

all beneficiaries of the act complete an affidavit disclaiming belief in the overthrow of the U.S. government

Plus something tucked in about not having "Communist sympathies".

Title V of NDEA specifically earmarked funds for the guidance, counseling, testing and identification, and encouragement of gifted students (Fleming, 1960). A by-product of identification and counseling, academically able students would provide a steady stream for the STEM workforce.

Technically, they were hoping for a steady stream into DARPA and NASA. Everybody was cool with it except for the students and the universities impacted by the NDEA. Their basic argument was that the government shouldn't dictate what anybody thought--hence why it was called the Free Speech Movement. They wanted "free speech" and academic freedom.

Back to Savio:


Savio was considered to be very dangerous. Enough to warrant his being followed around by FBI for a long time even after he left the FSM. What made him so dangerous? He wasn't a "Communist sympathizer". Nope. He was becoming a leader for students with the ability to incite students to rebel. What do you think his "machine" was?
vault.fbi.gov...

Another area of potential development in computer applications is the attitude-changing machine. Dr. Bertram Raven, in the Psychology Department at the University of California at Los Angeles, is in the process of building a computer- based device for changing attitudes.** This device will work on the principle that students' attitudes can be changed effectively by using the Socratic method of asking an appropriate series of leading questions logically designed to right the balance between appropriate attitudes and those deemed less acceptable.

www.dtic.mil...

And why was the military interested in changing students' attitudes? Children are the raw materials that become the byproducts of the machine. Or community because it sounds better. Hope some of you can follow and understand this. There are two types of education and both are strictly controlled. And sorry about the length but stuffing a whole lot into one spot in that hope.

See because I actually update my threads, this is what this idiot woman had to say via Twitter:

Matthew 5:44.

— Melissa Harris-Perry (@MHarrisPerry) April 8, 2013

The verse reads: “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.”

God help this woman, the idiots know not what they do.

Source

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


The State doesn't necessarily have to ship the children off to some other location, as they can control their education right where they are at. All they have to do is lock the parents out of the scenario, as they are doing now with Common Core. You see, the various states have always been able to decide matters for education, but now the government is doing a federal power grab by forcing the states to adhere to federally controlled curriculum which is controlled centrally, and which even teachers cannot control more than 15 % of it. This has been by stealth and the media has heretofore not even mentioned it, till recently when Glenn Beck interviewed some people on it. The administration has taken advantage of the economic debacle, in that the states need money, and the govt uses money as a way to control the states.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


I just want to state that the initial schools in America existed simply to teach children to read the King Jame's bible. There was once a time that education was a hobby and employers actually taught their employees how to do their jobs.

Note: scam didn't exist in these times.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


Berkely is as liberal as the day is long. Your entire post is code for "We don't want the government telling us we can't be Communist subversives".

Originally posted by Bioshock
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

I just want to state that the initial schools in America existed simply to teach children to read the King Jame's bible. There was once a time that education was a hobby and employers actually taught their employees how to do their jobs.

Note: scam didn't exist in these times.

This is NOT an excuse for centrally controlled government bureaucracy and power grabs indoctrinating the youth into Progressive ideas.

Education for grade school consumption is based on the Progressive theories of John Dewey, and today the Progressives still control the outcome with values clarification and most recently as of the Obama admin, the new Common Core curriculum, which as I understand it is intent on eliminating understanding of the Constitution and the core principles of our Founding Father's ideas on liberty, and is also intent on pushing Progressive ideals. If you are concerned that schools in the 1700's taught the bible, you should be equally alarmed that the Progressive agenda is to eliminate the knowledge of the Constitution and Founding principles, and to replace it with Marxist ideals and other Statist agendas.

October 20, 1959 marked the one-hundredth anniversary of John Dewey’s birthday. This eminent thinker of the Progressive movement was the dominant figure in American education. His most valuable and enduring contribution to our culture came from the ideas and methods he fathered in this field.

Most broadly considered, Dewey’s work consummated the trends in education below the university level initiated by pioneer pedagogues animated by the impulses of the bourgeois-democratic revolution. This was especially clear in his views on child education which built on ideas first brought forward by Rousseau, Pestalozzi and Froebel in Western Europe and by kindred reformers in the United States.

The utopian socialists, in accord with their understanding that people were the products of their social environment, gave much thought to the upbringing of children and introduced many now accepted educational innovations.

Written: 1960
Source: International Socialist Review, Vol. 21, No. 1, Winter 1960.

www.marxists.org...

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

Berkely is as liberal as the day is long. Your entire post is code for "We don't want the government telling us we can't be Communist subversives".

Interesting response. Not unexpected. Btw, I am, in fact, very much against Communism but I find it very interesting that you picked that one sentence out of my entire post and painted the entire thing as being "Communist" when the point was "freedom of thought" and how that's a problem in this country apparently. One that Congress and the military took very seriously. If you looked at the link about the attitude-changing machine, its example was changing a student's mind about free trade policy--not Communism. And the FBI admitted that their problem with Savio wasn't fear of him being Communist. He wasn't....

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Lol I wrote this thread, you think I defend that garbage?

reply to post by WhiteAlice


Somehow I don't believe you. This is because I've read previous posts made by you, but also because only people who believe in Communism/Socialism/Secular Humanism complain about the McCarthy era.

Interestingly, it was also President Wilson, a Progressive, who signed into law the Sedition Act, and also interestingly presided over the passing of the Federal Reserve Act. How come so many people hate McCarthy for targeting Communists, when President Wilson passed the Sedition Act for supposedly the same thing? Yet we never hear Progressives complaining about Wilson.

To counter opposition to the war at home, Wilson pushed through Congress the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 to suppress anti-British, pro-German, or anti-war opinions.[105] While he welcomed socialists who supported the war, he pushed at the same time to arrest and deport foreign-born radicals.[108] Citing the Espionage Act, the U.S. Post Office, following the instructions of the Justice Department, refused to carry any written materials that could be deemed critical of the U.S. war effort.[108] Some sixty newspapers judged to have revolutionary or antiwar content were deprived of their second-class mailing rights and effectively banned from the U.S. mails.[108][109] Mere criticism of the Wilson administration and its war policy became grounds for arrest and imprisonment.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Bioshock
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Lol I wrote this thread, you think I defend that garbage?

Sorry, I got lost. Thanks for clarifying your position.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

Somehow I don't believe you. This is because I've read previous posts made by you, but also because only people who believe in Communism/Socialism/Secular Humanism complain about the McCarthy era.

Interesting. You must've missed the posts where I said that the Communist systems that my late NAF chief of staff grandfather sent me to, were terrible. East Germany was terrifying. We couldn't even smile there. In the USSR, there was a massive toilet paper shortage going on while I was there. Communism is a total logistical failure and what a disgusting failure that was. Can you imagine what it was like when I was there when all the Russians were out of something so simple as toilet paper? It literally stank. The other thing I noted after befriending a young woman in Moscow was how terrified she was of saying the wrong thing and "disappearing". Her apartment had been robbed and she never reported it because she was afraid the police would decide something about her wasn't right and she'd "disappear". Isn't freedom of thought and academic freedom part of our idea of liberty? Or are you down with indoctrination because indoctrination was what I saw in both E. Germany and the USSR?

Besides, you didn't really listen to what Savio was saying.

But we're a bunch of raw material[s] that don't mean to have any process upon us, don't mean to be made into any product, don't mean to end up being bought by some clients of the University, be they the government, be they industry, be they organized labor, be they anyone! We're human beings!

Pretty sure that the Organized Labor Movements were being pushed by Socialists so actually, Savio was agreeing with you in a sense. Berkeley is a very "liberal" school and he made a definite point of including that "be they organized labor" to his speech. Freedom of thought is very, very counter to Communism and the fundamental freedom that we have that underlies our First Amendment. Without freedom of thought, then what's the point of the freedom of speech?

(Post copied from my duplicate thread, PS, this new search engine is no better IMO)

I guess MSNBC is coming out as a true communist communications medium finally. Defending this saying that she doesn't represent .... is a coverup. This commercial was created and aired on the network. This was no interview on the street. Someone paid for this work, someone decided to air this work. The network has showed us it's true hand of cards, IMO.

MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry recorded a commercial for the network in which she stated that children do not belong to their parents, but are instead the responsibility of the members of their community.

She tries to make a valid point, that we (the state and fed) are lacking in support of educational system....however, this statement simply drips with communal nonsense IMO.

“We have never invested as much in public education as we should have because we've always had kind of a private notion of children. Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility. We haven't had a very collective notion of these are our children,” - MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry

How is that ride down that slippery slide now folks? Having fun yet? Are your eyes opening to the onslaught of our very way of life here? Can it be any more obvious? No to me....

Originally posted by coltcall

All I can say is that a lot of people claim to be atheists because they don't believe an invisible being will save them.

Yet they are waiting for an invisible bureaucratic being somewhere in the government to save them?

I suppose it's all in the wording. One group is a religion. The other group is a government. Somehow in many people's minds there are vast differences.

Me? And a lot of other intelligent people like myself are thinking that it is easy to fool a lot of the people a lot of the time.

INDEED. The contradictions in that perspective are abundant.

I just don't 'get it' that folks could even fantasize any way the LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR--that most group think devolves into--

would be ANY KIND OF GOOD THING for children!

Sheesh. What lunacy.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


Thanks for your response and the interesting points you made about your contact in Moscow It is good to have communications whereby we dialogue with one another and understand viewpoints.

I do agree with you about having freedom of thought, and I believe that Universities should champion that. Still, did you know that to become a US citizen, one must sign a pledge that one has not been a member of a Communist organization for 5 years prior to application? Yet, here we have people in the Obama administration who were unelected who yet had positions of power and authority who were outright Communist.
It is known that the famous feminist Betty Friedan who wrote, "The Feminine Mystique" was a Communist and she hid this from the public because there was a general fear of being outed that there would be reprisal. These days, Communists are coming out of the woodwork and saying, hey what's wrong with Communism. Our country went to war to keep the spread of Communism in check, and it was considered a threat It is no less a threat now, but indoctrination in the Universities has produced a generation of young people who are exposed to Marxist philosophies without understanding the consequences of instituting such.

The fact that Communist ideology does not promote freedom of thought and speech should be enough reason to continue to suppress Communist subversive activities, but because of our desire for liberty these things persist in popping up as gophers popping up out of their holes in the spring.
In fact, in my lifetime, I've never seen such heavy promotion of Communist and Marxist agendas as we have seen in the current administration, which is just chock full of people who promote the agendas. Look at who has been prominent...Anita Dunn promoting General Mao, Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett, these people all have Communist connections. It is not by accident.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

Thanks for your response and the interesting points you made about your contact in Moscow It is good to have communications whereby we dialogue with one another and understand viewpoints.

I have been overwelmed with emotions and how to react to the last few pages of this thread.......some brilliant insights...wow....

All I can say is Families are SPECIAL and IMPORTANT.....you guys wanna hear about how I learned about "diversity"....it was as a little girl...going to other kids homes for a Birthday Party....I really have some great stories....♥

www.youtube.com...