Behaviour of Members

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Why were you in Divis Street Raymond? I happen to live a couple of miles from there.

Hi, Gary: A classmate of mine at UCD invited me to hitchike to Belfast to spend the weekend visiting a friend of his on Coach's Street. This was the Summer of 1969, just after Neil Armstrong's moonwalk and about a month before the Divis/Percy/Bombay Street pogrom you describe.

We arrived on Friday afternoon and were promptly accosted by a British army officer who called us "Fenian bastards." Since he and his friends had machine guns, we let that one slide, for the time being anyway.

Next evening we joined the crowds of young people assembling on Divis St, a Republican stronghold, as you know. It was amazing how many people my friend and I had come to know in less than 24 hours, Everyone knew who we were and the spirit of comraderie was incredible. The British army blocked off surrounding streets and began advancing into the area. The crowd tried to keep them back with stones & bottles, but the soldiers were in riot gear with shields and batons, and firing tear gas canisters. Tear gas is one thing, but a hit from a flying canister could be extremely problematical, so we were gradually forced back to the upper balconies of Divis Street Flats.

When in Rome, I always say, and I hauled my share of rocks and bottles as the soldiers kept advancing down below. I even scored an amazing bullseye on one soldiers chin, just when his shield was lowered. When the soldiers burst up the stairs someone pulled me into his apartment. We turned off the lights and waited. The Flats were home to God knows how many women, children, infants and elderly, and the soldiers smashed the windows in every apartment on every floor before engulfing the entire complex in tear gas. They wanted to teach us who ruled the area. I could only pray that our tears might cease.

On Sunday I got word that the Brits had interrogated a young lady who befriended me during the battle. They showed her telephoto pictures of the two of us on the balcony and asked all about me and where I came from. Just to annoy them, she told them I was from England,

That was my first visit to Belfast. I was nineteen years old when I arrived, but I probably aged over the weekend. A few months later the Provisional IRA was formed and Republicans began to smuggle weapons into the north. That kept things boiling over until Bill Clinton became President and talked some sense into the British government and the IRA.

I hear things are looking up in Belfast, and I look forward to a quieter time on my next visit. The Flats have been demolished, but they will always live in memory, and the amazing people who used to live there.

Good luck to you and your fellow moderators. Blessed are the peacemakers.

[Guest Gary Loughran]

Why were you in Divis Street Raymond? I happen to live a couple of miles from there.

Hi, Gary: A classmate of mine at UCD invited me to hitchike to Belfast to spend the weekend visiting a friend of his on Coach's Street. This was the Summer of 1969, just after Neil Armstrong's moonwalk and about a month before the Divis/Percy/Bombay Street pogrom you describe.

We arrived on Friday afternoon and were promptly accosted by a British army officer who called us "Fenian bastards." Since he and his friends had machine guns, we let that one slide, for the time being anyway.

Next evening we joined the crowds of young people assembling on Divis St, a Republican stronghold, as you know. It was amazing how many people my friend and I had come to know in less than 24 hours, Everyone knew who we were and the spirit of comraderie was incredible. The British army blocked off surrounding streets and began advancing into the area. The crowd tried to keep them back with stones & bottles, but the soldiers were in riot gear with shields and batons, and firing tear gas canisters. Tear gas is one thing, but a hit from a flying canister could be extremely problematical, so we were gradually forced back to the upper balconies of Divis Street Flats.

When in Rome, I always say, and I hauled my share of rocks and bottles as the soldiers kept advancing down below. I even scored an amazing bullseye on one soldiers chin, just when his shield was lowered. When the soldiers burst up the stairs someone pulled me into his apartment. We turned off the lights and waited. The Flats were home to God knows how many women, children, infants and elderly, and the soldiers smashed the windows in every apartment on every floor before engulfing the entire complex in tear gas. They wanted to teach us who ruled the area. I could only pray that our tears might cease.

On Sunday I got word that the Brits had interrogated a young lady who befriended me during the battle. They showed her telephoto pictures of the two of us on the balcony and asked all about me and where I came from. Just to annoy them, she told them I was from England,

That was my first visit to Belfast. I was nineteen years old when I arrived, but I probably aged over the weekend. A few months later the Provisional IRA was formed and Republicans began to smuggle weapons into the north. That kept things boiling over until Bill Clinton became President and talked some sense into the British government and the IRA.

I hear things are looking up in Belfast, and I look forward to a quieter time on my next visit. The Flats have been demolished, but they will always live in memory, and the amazing people who used to live there.

Good luck to you and your fellow moderators. Blessed are the peacemakers.

Small world isn't it. One of the flats still remains to this day. If you remember it was the one which housed the spy equipment, cameras, listening devices etc. As part of the Good Friday Agreement this was one of the first spy posts to be demolished.

I wasn't born until a couple of years after the events you describe, though I witnessed more than my fair share of similar things in the area I lived. I've always said that these activities of the army and police left a deeper scar on the innocent civilian than the combatants because we were unprepared for such things. The biggest dissension against Republicans joining the PSNI came from the ordinary Nationalist. Though being typically passive and quiet this dissension only raises it head in bar room chats.

Gary

[Charles Black]

All members

I wish to apologize for my addition to the fuel that seemed to combust this subject. I could have taken some remarks that I found objectionable, made a simple comment of my disagreement, and gone forward.

I do not by nature take the soap box in support of Nationalism, as I have been in support of very little of my nations foreign policy during the past decade. As a matter of fact, I have expressed so on this forum, letters to editors, etc., repeatedly.

I frankly don't see how many, outside the confines of an asylum, could defend our (the U.S.) ridiculous empirical bullying which could not even be slightly concealed as anything other.

It is as if too small a man ( President) awakened one morning with unchallengeable power, and was determined to show the world. And he did ! To the detriment of the entire world.

This thread, for some reason raised my ire, not in support of Nationalism.......but for the first time in my life, I experienced something that I suppose would be akin to being a black man in the Old South. As a white Anglo Saxon Roman Catholic, it was a feeling that I had not only never experienced, but one which I had never "truly" tried to understand. For my lack of better vocabulary, I will state that I felt that I was being "racially" attacked for the first time in my life and was faced with the "fight or flight" crisis. As a result of my lifelong particular experiences, my nature is to "fight". Sort of a "fool rushing in", childish scenario.

I apologize to my hosts and to those of you who have contended with me.

I will in the future sincerely "attempt" to

refrain from such further immature reaction !

Charlie Black

[Terry Mauro]

In the decade that I've been posting to various JFK forums, I've witnessed much uncouth behaviour, flame wars over trifles, namecalling and puffy-chested posturing. There has been some of that in this forum as well, but it has usually been brief and over matters of some substance.

However, this thread has become a pathetic display of thin-skinned vituperation and ill-considered nationalistic arrogance.

If John Simkin maintains that virtually all complaints are about US Forum members, and are likewise nearly always initiated by other US Forum members, I have enough respect for his honesty to take that as a fact. Those who do not share that faith in John's honesty should perhaps relocate to other forums where their own excesses are more likely to be tolerated. If they choose to stay, perhaps they'd be courteous enough to keep their self-righteous comments to themselves. Speaking only for myself, I am sick to the eye teeth with complaints about our hosts who, in my view, have been nothing but courteous in their attempts to keep the level of bile to a minimum.

Moreover, those who appear to have taken the greatest ill-considered umbrage over our hosts' comments have nonetheless used this thread as an opportunity to display precisely the kind of arrogant sanctimony that first led to John Simkin's comments, in his bid to have Forum members police themselves. Given that this appeal from our host has demonstrably been ignored, we now have moderators to conduct that policing. That this has become necessary is a poor reflection on those who cannot resist a cheap shot at every turn.

Fifteen forum pages devoted to this topic is fourteen pages too many.

If we are all finished with our petty pissing and moaning over perceived slights against our respective nationalities, can we instead now resume devoting that vital energy to the topic that led us all here, the assassination of the 35th President of the United States?

If, instead, you insist upon continuing with your self-important bickering over comments which you have misconstrued as a slight against your nation, please go elsewhere. Your are contributing nothing but unpleasantness and, worse by far, you are an intolerably tedious bore.

Thank you Robert for your support. The most hurtful factor about this thread is that other members have been unwilling to state that they believe the administrators about the background to this dispute. It is like you are receiving a vote of no confidence. Maybe members fear that if they post they will be the next target for Charles and Myra. However, cowardice is no real defence.

Even more distressing is the number of page impressions this thread has received. For example, the excellent interview with Sterling Seagrave, started before this thread, has been looked at by only 274 people whereas this thread has received 4740 visitors.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9196

I once received a very disturbing email a little while ago. They told me that they were not members and had no interest in posting on the forum. Nor were they interested in education or political conspiracies. They only visited in order to see people having a go at each other. To them it was like watching “Big Brother” (a UK television reality show).

As for our American friends, you are welcome to say what you like about the British. I will not spend anytime at all defending us as a race, although I will intervene to defend individuals who are being unfairly criticised. Nationalism repulses me. Only religion has caused more wars than nationalism. I consider myself a citizen of the world. My only concern is to fight injustice, lies, oppression and inequality, from wherever it comes.

*****************************************************************

Thank you, John. For giving people a voice. I felt compelled to bring up a couple of reasons why I believe Americans are inherently aggressive and confrontational. It has nothing to do with nationalism, and pretty much reflects some of the opinions I've made on the subject, here on this very forum, albeit in other threads. This is copied and pasted from an e-mail between Dawn and myself.

Best regards,

Ter

__________________________________________________________________

Whether my opinion amounts to a hill of beans or not, is neither here, nor there. But, I felt especially moved to say a few words after an e-mail message I had shared with Dawn, and those of whom I counted as kindred spirits of heart and mind, which BTW, came back from a mutual acquaintance in the form of a scathing retribution, with regard to the content of the e-mail, which they perceived to be a direct attack on the conservative mindset, and the present administration in D.C., itself.

This unexpected response, having taken us both by surprise, led us to a discussion of what had been transpiring in the, "Behavior Of The Members" thread, currently being discussed on The Education Forum. We've come to the conclusion that much of the ambiguity, and animosity being stated by the American faction, against the owners, who are British, might be in direct response to the "cross" most anglo-american descendants are unwittingly forced to bear. By this, we mean to address the blatantly subjective manner with which their very ideals, in the form of The Declaration of Independence, as well as their laws, set forth in The United States Constitution, were written, and by whom.

Let us therefore acknowledge the paradox, the double standard, if you will, in which the statement, "...these "truths," we hold to be self-evident that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL...," was most certainly written in the hand of the founding fathers, the white landed gentry, with 200 known slaves, and indentured servants held amongst them.

Therefore, is it any wonder as to the reason there exists a seemingly eternal struggle and aggression inherent in the "descendants" of those who perceived themselves as, "the religiously persecuted, the down-trodden, the oppressed, or the debt-ridden convicts [according to British Common Law]?" BTW, a lot of whom ended up sequestered in what was known as "The Penal Colony," which comprised the territory in the original 13 colonies that eventually became known as the State of Georgia, following The American Revolutionary War. As a matter of fact, a Scottish ancestor of my own arrived in "The Penal Colony," and according to the records in the Prison Ship's log, his offense was listed as, "For stealing a loaf of bread." How come they don't teach that in the elementary school history classes anymore, like they did in 1950 when I started the first grade?

But, to get back to the point at issue, here. Can anyone see, let alone understand, the subjective hypocrisy upon which The Declaration of Independence, and The United States Constitution, has been erected? And, I'm not in any mood to listen to someone's treatise on the concept of "noblesse oblige" here, nor the piss-poor excuse that this was the way these people were conditioned to believe back then, either. Because, pure common sense and simple compassion most certainly had to have humanly existed in the minds of some of these people, lest they all risk being relegated to the status of ignoramus.

But, think about this. If America had been, and in all probability was, populated by the dregs of Europe, then what else could be expected, or be said for their mindset? Especially, having been fed this bald-faced falsehood of white superiority, and then been expected to swallow the lie fostered upon them by their very own "white" aristocratic oppressors, that people of color are nothing more than beasts of burden, to be slave-driven like mules, and oxen. When in reality, these "supposed" beasts of burden, walked upright, expressed emotions, and had the same, if not better, physical acuity, adeptness, and articulation for performing intricate tasks, as the white folks had. They not only learned to speak "English," including "French" patois, but were also capable of mastering the various indigenous Native American "tongues" and languages, as well.

The only theories I've personally been able to formulate which may account for the behavior of Americans are twofold. (1) The possible existence of a chemical anomaly in the basic structure of the brain involving personality and character formation. There may well be a physio-psychological connection at work here, resulting in the intrinsic misfiring of neurotransmitters within the axon-neuron-dendrite system, that may have been permanently etched into the chemical responses of the brain, due to, and/or (2) the possibility of it being based upon a vestigial survival instinct acquired as a means of adaptation to an unknown, yet perceived to be, "hostile" environment, following a Trans-Atlantic migration. A similar analogy to theory number two, may be drawn with reference to the incidences of high blood pressure that began to occur in American blacks, yet essentially was non-existent in those who managed to escape being captured, like wild game, and sent to America.

There's also much to be said for the virtual non-existence of diseases such as small pox, syphilis, or ETOH abuse, having presented itself in the bones of the remains of those indigenous populations of North and South America, before the French, Spaniards, and Anglos hit the shores of "The New World," as well.

Therefore, are "Americans" merely exhibiting barbaric traits, which genetically evolved, due to the socio-environmental pressures which came to bear upon them through the lives they were forced to adjust to in the colonies, or were these traits somehow inadvertently passed along to them from their European ancestors?

___________________________________________________________

On another note...

Below, I've copied and pasted an article from this week's L.A. Weekly, which I've found to be enlightening with regard to the present attitude so pervasive in and around The District of Columbia.

Cheers,

Ter

Dissonance

THERE'S SHRINKAGE

Majority Democrats can’t find the balls to face down Republican brinkmanship

By MARC COOPER

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 - 6:00 pm

Let me make sure I got this right. We’re spending a couple of hundred billion dollars and investing — so far — more than 3,000 American lives to bring democracy to Iraq, but we don’t really want any of that exotic, messy stuff in Washington. Especially not if it embarrasses the president.

As we go to press, Senate Republicans have at least temporarily blocked the debate, and therefore the vote, on a packet of non-binding resolutions that criticize George W. Bush’s escalation of the war for democracy in Iraq. Perhaps that’s just one of the moves listed in the standard American congressional play-book: When you can no longer win the political debate, the next best thing to do is to simply cancel it.

All fun aside, it was simply a putrid experience to watch, as I did, even a small portion of Monday’s verbal-flatulence contest on the Senate floor. Don’t want to be maudlin about all this, but as car bombs continued to blast Baghdad and IEDs continued to rip the limbs and lungs from our troops, the distinguished members of the U.S. Senate bickered over just how many votes — 50 or 60 — each proposed resolution would need to pass. What heroes!

The Senate was supposed to be debating the bipartisan resolution cooked up by Republican Senator John Warner and supported by most Democrats, which, politely, states that it “disagrees” with Bush’s plan to send 21,500 more troops into the Iraqi hellhole. Struggling to avoid a humiliating public-relations defeat for their president, the Republican leadership blocked the vote by generating a dispute over which competing measures would be considered and how many votes would be needed to pass them.

Negotiations are under way, we’re told, to still reach some sort of agreement that will allow the debate to go forward. Democrats may do an end run by ginning it up in the House, where their larger majority gives them firmer control over procedure.

But let me be frank. The Republican blocking maneuver didn’t perturb me in the least, because the Republican filibuster offers the most clarity when it comes to seeing through the fog of all the versions and permutations of the anti-surge resolution that have any realistic chance of passing.

After all, the Senate motions are all non-binding. They have no legal effect. And the language worked out between the Democratic leadership and some of the Republican dissenters to agree on the Warner resolution is so compromised, so squishy, that it has lost much, if not all, of its meaning. Better, for the moment, to allow the Republican abettors of the hideous war policy in Iraq to amply demonstrate to the American people their utter and unfathomable moral and political bankruptcy.

At least, why upstage or interrupt that show with a counter-demonstration of the Democrats’ own fecklessness? The resolution the Dems are rushing to rubber-stamp is but a limp, rhetorical statement that won’t save a single life or bring the war a day closer to conclusion.

Indeed, the only reason that the Republicans were able to successfully pull off their blocking maneuver is that they boldly called the Democratic bluff. The GOP demanded that a competing resolution by New Hampshire Republican Judd Gregg be given equal treatment to the Warner resolution. Gregg’s measure vows that Congress will not cut any funding for troop levels in Iraq and was fashioned solely to put Democrats on the spot. And, unfortunately, it has worked. The Republicans might not want to go on the record criticizing Bush. And the Democrats are terrified to go on the record saying they might cut funding for a failing war they otherwise oppose. Taken together, it makes you want to cancel your C-SPAN subscription if not set your voter-registration card on fire.

Let’s hope the Republicans remain insanely intransigent and don’t cut a deal allowing a vote on the watered-down Warner resolution. Maybe this will force the Democrats to do what they ought to be doing: putting an end to their empty foot stomping about the war and getting down to the business of exercising the only real power to alter the policy — cutting off the cash.

That’s the next move put forward by hopping-mad Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, who did a conference call with bloggers right after the Iraq debate was blocked on the Senate floor. Feingold’s fury was directed primarily at his fellow Democrats who continue to dance around the edge of the core issue. “The problem is a whole lot of middle-of-the-road Democrats who refuse to pull the trigger, who refuse to do what needs to be done,” Feingold said. “It requires courage. It requires brinkmanship.”

Amen.

The primary political victims of the war in Iraq have been the motley crew in and around the White House. They’ve outsmarted themselves and — and at great human cost — have succeeded in destroying their political legacy and, most probably, the future viability of many of their Republican allies. Let Congress — including the Democratic majority — take good note of such self-immolation. Unless Congress can immediately step forward to provide a clear way out, it too will become one more statistic in this hellacious war.

*************************************************************

ONE PARTY - TWO BRANCHES

Ter

[Charles Black]

Terry

Thank you. That certainly advanced the subject to crystalline clarity.

Charlie Black

[Jack White]

Well said, Terry. Put more succinctly in one word: SNOBBERY.

Thanks.

Jack

[Ashton Gray]

Hi, Terry. Nice to see you back!

Let us therefore acknowledge the paradox, the double standard, if you will, in which the statement, "...these "truths," we hold to be self-evident that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL...," was most certainly written in the hand of the founding fathers, the white landed gentry, with 200 known slaves, and indentured servants held amongst them.

Wellllll— No. It's worse than that. That is a direct steal by Jefferson (and other party or parties unknown, who scritched and scratched on the original draft) from the asthmatic runt John Locke—darling of philosophy departments the world over, and a slavering, drooling lunatic who poisoned the very groundwater of philosophical thought with just such barking mad concepts as "all men are created equal."

It is one of the most hideously insane statements ever uttered, and why he wasn't thrown onto a goat cart and trundled off to Bedlam the instant it issued forth from him is one of the great unsolved mysteries, and an unspeakable tragedy.

Locke, by the way, was an investor in the slave trade in the early days.

The pandemic socio/political diseases that spawned in and crawled out of the fetid swamp that served John Locke as a mind are worthy of a book, and in fact, one is in the works. I'm on the road at the moment, and away from my body of research materials on this for a week—which may be just as well, since this is straying far afield from the topic. But I simply couldn't let that infamous lie go by without crediting its infamous source.

In one of the curious little serendipities of life, though, part of what I'm on the road doing research on is the Scopes trial. As it happens, Darwin had come straight out of an intense study of Locke when he boarded the Beagle. He came home and promptly paraphrased Locke, and made us all into monkeys.

Then threads like this evolve (pun sent by messenger from my muse) wondering why people sometimes act like them.

Ashton

Edited February 12, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Myra Bronstein]

In the decade that I've been posting to various JFK forums, I've witnessed much uncouth behaviour, flame wars over trifles, namecalling and puffy-chested posturing. There has been some of that in this forum as well, but it has usually been brief and over matters of some substance.

However, this thread has become a pathetic display of thin-skinned vituperation and ill-considered nationalistic arrogance.

If John Simkin maintains that virtually all complaints are about US Forum members, and are likewise nearly always initiated by other US Forum members, I have enough respect for his honesty to take that as a fact. Those who do not share that faith in John's honesty should perhaps relocate to other forums where their own excesses are more likely to be tolerated. If they choose to stay, perhaps they'd be courteous enough to keep their self-righteous comments to themselves. Speaking only for myself, I am sick to the eye teeth with complaints about our hosts who, in my view, have been nothing but courteous in their attempts to keep the level of bile to a minimum.

Moreover, those who appear to have taken the greatest ill-considered umbrage over our hosts' comments have nonetheless used this thread as an opportunity to display precisely the kind of arrogant sanctimony that first led to John Simkin's comments, in his bid to have Forum members police themselves. Given that this appeal from our host has demonstrably been ignored, we now have moderators to conduct that policing. That this has become necessary is a poor reflection on those who cannot resist a cheap shot at every turn.

Fifteen forum pages devoted to this topic is fourteen pages too many.

If we are all finished with our petty pissing and moaning over perceived slights against our respective nationalities, can we instead now resume devoting that vital energy to the topic that led us all here, the assassination of the 35th President of the United States?

If, instead, you insist upon continuing with your self-important bickering over comments which you have misconstrued as a slight against your nation, please go elsewhere. Your are contributing nothing but unpleasantness and, worse by far, you are an intolerably tedious bore.

Thank you Robert for your support. The most hurtful factor about this thread is that other members have been unwilling to state that they believe the administrators about the background to this dispute. It is like you are receiving a vote of no confidence. Maybe members fear that if they post they will be the next target for Charles and Myra. However, cowardice is no real defence.

Even more distressing is the number of page impressions this thread has received. For example, the excellent interview with Sterling Seagrave, started before this thread, has been looked at by only 274 people whereas this thread has received 4740 visitors.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9196

I once received a very disturbing email a little while ago. They told me that they were not members and had no interest in posting on the forum. Nor were they interested in education or political conspiracies. They only visited in order to see people having a go at each other. To them it was like watching “Big Brother” (a UK television reality show).

As for our American friends, you are welcome to say what you like about the British. I will not spend anytime at all defending us as a race, although I will intervene to defend individuals who are being unfairly criticised. Nationalism repulses me. Only religion has caused more wars than nationalism. I consider myself a citizen of the world. My only concern is to fight injustice, lies, oppression and inequality, from wherever it comes.

I have come out of moveon retirement due to public demand, i.e., public slurs demand public redress. Besides, Naomi Judd came out of retirement every other day for years and she's rich. I'm hoping there's some cause and effect.

Ok, so what we have here is an opportunity to analyze rhetorical tactics. To look at devices such as framing, subtext, meta messages, influencing and manipulating. As we’re often reminded there may be students here. So let’s be as logical and dispassionate as possible.

First we have this gem from paragraph 1:

“Thank you Robert for your support. The most hurtful factor about this thread is that other members have been unwilling to state that they believe the administrators about the background to this dispute. It is like you are receiving a vote of no confidence. Maybe members fear that if they post they will be the next target for Charles and Myra. However, cowardice is no real defence.”

So the subtext, from the moderator of the forum to the members he has the power to ban, is ‘Forum members are expected to get in line and on message say I’m right. Forum members who do not do so are cowards.’

Next there’s a textbook example of framing. (Some call it “spin.”) Charles and Myra are lumped together as if one organism, cut from the same cloth—Marles or Chyra, two peas in a pod--so that feelings about one will transfer to feelings about the other.

Furthermore, the implication is made that Chyra (the Borg) rampage around the forum like Godzilla in Legoland terrorizing members out of posting. Not only does that unfairly characterize quiet members as timid little mice, but it’s an out and out attempt at character assassination of two members who displeased the moderator by objecting to slurs directed at Americans.

This from the person who demands proper behavior from others.

Let’s move on (whoops, didn’t mean to remind everyone) to paragraph 2:

“Even more distressing is the number of page impressions this thread has received. For example, the excellent interview with Sterling Seagrave, started before this thread, has been looked at by only 274 people whereas this thread has received 4740 visitors. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9196”

Here members are being scolded for posting in the thread that the moderator started so that behavior could be discussed. Not only that but members were scolded in the first paragraph for not posting on his behalf; now they’re told in the second paragraph that they are posting too much. I guess the difference is whether or not the posts are in lock-step with the moderator.

Regarding the Seagrave interview, veni, vidi, visited. Now the stats reflect that one more person was there. I’m a team player.

Paragraph 3:

“I once received a very disturbing email a little while ago. They told me that they were not members and had no interest in posting on the forum. Nor were they interested in education or political conspiracies. They only visited in order to see people having a go at each other. To them it was like watching “Big Brother” (a UK television reality show).”

Interesting phrasing. He “once” upon a time received email “a little while ago.” But it’s vague and raises so many questions. Was it received once upon a time recently? Was it received during this thread? Was it before this thread?

The meta message is that this thread is to blame for a disturbing email. Did the email explicitly state that this thread was the Big Brother thread? If not then what was the point in mentioning it? Again, it’s to present a frame that this thread is coupled with mocking email and public ridicule.

We should see the email for ourselves—in keeping with the forum rule that “Wherever possible, members should give references (books, documents, etc) concerning the comments that they make.”

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...2243&st=105

Remember, there may be students here so we should back up comments with documentation.

Paragraph 4 (my personal favorite):

“As for our American friends, you are welcome to say what you like about the British. I will not spend anytime at all defending us as a race, although I will intervene to defend individuals who are being unfairly criticised. Nationalism repulses me. Only religion has caused more wars than nationalism. I consider myself a citizen of the world. My only concern is to fight injustice, lies, oppression and inequality, from wherever it comes.”

A thread that started out with a Brit demeaning and demonizing Americans is being framed as a thread victimizing Brits. Again, there may be students here so listen up. It takes chutzpah (class, that’s Yiddish for “big ol’ gnarly balls) to attribute one’s own tactics to one’s opponent. It’s a favorite device of the Bush regime, thus there are real life implications for Americans. It’s best to be mindful of this trick.

Now on to the most audacious statement in the entire smear:

“Nationalism repulses me.”

This took big ol’ gnarly chutzpah.

Let’s get in the way-back machine. We’ll set it for January 31, 2007…

Unnamed moderator> “I have had a lot of complaints recently about the insulting comments of some members of this forum….In virtually every case, the culprits are Americans. I suppose this abusive behaviour must be part of their culture, however, people from outside the United States find it very offensive.”

Back to February 11, 2007…

Same unnamed moderator> “Nationalism repulses me.”

February 2, 2007:

Same unnamed moderator> “However, it is true that virtually every complaint I receive is about the behaviour of an American member. I do think it is partly cultural.…on forums, some Americans behave as if they are in the movies. Therefore, I assume there is something cultural in all this. That it is not a bad thing to be very aggressive. After all, in foreign affairs you seem to take a very similar approach.”

February 11, 2007…

Same unnamed moderator> “Nationalism repulses me. Only religion has caused more wars than nationalism. I consider myself a citizen of the world.”

Summation:

We can synthesize the subtext of the world citizen’s post in a few succinct words:

“If you don’t act as my mouthpiece Godzilla will squish you.”

Thank you for your attention. Next week we’ll analyze the Checkers Speech.

Edited February 12, 2007 by Myra Bronstein

[Jack White]

Thanks, Ashton, for the mention of Darwin. I wish there was a venue here

to discuss the Darwinism cult. It is one of the greatest conspiracies ever

perpetrated. Any truly thinking person ought to be able to see through the

Theory of Mutation, as I prefer to call the absurd "science" presented in

our schools as truth when it is no more than a unfinished theory.

Sure some "evolution" happens...but according to Darwin and his cultists,

ALL LIFE THAT EXISTS HAPPENED BY CHANCE THROUGH MUTATION.

Absurd.

Jack

[Myra Bronstein]

Thanks, Ashton, for the mention of Darwin. I wish there was a venue here

to discuss the Darwinism cult. It is one of the greatest conspiracies ever

perpetrated. Any truly thinking person ought to be able to see through the

Theory of Mutation, as I prefer to call the absurd "science" presented in

our schools as truth when it is no more than a unfinished theory.

Sure some "evolution" happens...but according to Darwin and his cultists,

ALL LIFE THAT EXISTS HAPPENED BY CHANCE THROUGH MUTATION.

Absurd.

Jack

Jack,

Can you recommend a good source--website, book, whatever--debunking the "Darwinism cult"?

Thx.

[Jack White]

Thanks, Ashton, for the mention of Darwin. I wish there was a venue here

to discuss the Darwinism cult. It is one of the greatest conspiracies ever

perpetrated. Any truly thinking person ought to be able to see through the

Theory of Mutation, as I prefer to call the absurd "science" presented in

our schools as truth when it is no more than a unfinished theory.

Sure some "evolution" happens...but according to Darwin and his cultists,

ALL LIFE THAT EXISTS HAPPENED BY CHANCE THROUGH MUTATION.

Absurd.

Jack

Jack,

Can you recommend a good source--website, book, whatever--debunking the "Darwinism cult"?

Thx.

Myra...highly respected JFK RESEARCHER MICHAEL GRIFFITH has written several great articles

on Darwinism. Click on...

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/g..._Evolution.html

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/g..._Evolution.html

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/g...riffithbio.html

These are good starters.

Or just google...DARWINISM CULT, DARWINISM CONSPIRACY, etc.

Jack

[Charles Black]

That is interesting because I am expecting soon to see in Barnes & Noble

"Darwinism for Dummies"

and in six parts

"The Big Bang Theory for Dummies"

Charlie Black

[Myra Bronstein]

Thanks, Ashton, for the mention of Darwin. I wish there was a venue here

to discuss the Darwinism cult. It is one of the greatest conspiracies ever

perpetrated. Any truly thinking person ought to be able to see through the

Theory of Mutation, as I prefer to call the absurd "science" presented in

our schools as truth when it is no more than a unfinished theory.

Sure some "evolution" happens...but according to Darwin and his cultists,

ALL LIFE THAT EXISTS HAPPENED BY CHANCE THROUGH MUTATION.

Absurd.

Jack

Jack,

Can you recommend a good source--website, book, whatever--debunking the "Darwinism cult"?

Thx.

Myra...highly respected JFK RESEARCHER MICHAEL GRIFFITH has written several great articles

on Darwinism. Click on...

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/g..._Evolution.html

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/g..._Evolution.html

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/g...riffithbio.html

These are good starters.

Or just google...DARWINISM CULT, DARWINISM CONSPIRACY, etc.

Jack

Thanks Jack. An open minded friend of mine has long alleged that he didn't believe in evolution, and it's led to some pretty lively debates. Maybe these links can explain it better than him. And offer an explanation of why such a hoax would be perpetrated.

[John Simkin]

Nationalism repulses me. Only religion has caused more wars than nationalism. I consider myself a citizen of the world.

As are we all. Some have yet to realize it. At the same time, there is nothing inherently wrong with pride in one's nation, any more than there is anything wrong with pride in one's family, community, school, or even church. Fanaticism in any of those types of groups, to the denigration or suppression or harm of other such groups, is simply fanaticism, and is ugly wherever it's found.

The subject of nationalism probably needs its own thread but it is indeed relevant to this discussion.

I disagree that there is nothing wrong about having pride in one’s own country.

My online dictionary defines pride as:

1. A sense of one's own proper dignity or value; self-respect.

2. Pleasure or satisfaction taken in an achievement, possession, or association: parental pride.

3. Arrogant or disdainful conduct or treatment; haughtiness.

4.

a. A cause or source of pleasure or satisfaction; the best of a group or class: These soldiers were their country's pride.

b. The most successful or thriving condition; prime: the pride of youth.

1. The Bible suggests that there might be something wrong with this type of pride, although I suppose we are all guilty of it on occasions.

2. I definitely feel proud about the achievements of the members of my family. For example, the role that my parents played in the fight against fascism during the Second World War. I also feel proud of the achievements of my children and grandchildren. However, that is understandable because I feel partly responsible for the people that they are. At the sametime, I would need to acknowledge my responsibilities if they turned out into the kind of person I was not proud of.

3. The third definition explains the connection between pride and nationalism. I would argue that arrogance is often a consequence of what happens when a government encourages its citizens to be proud of the nation’s achievements. This is a special problem when the government sees itself as a military power that is stronger than any other. For example, Nazi Germany in the 1930s.

4. The fourth definition of course refers to a pride in one’s country. This is based on the idea that your country is special in someway. The British tend to be very proud of once having a large empire and being the instigators of the industrial revolution. The message from the media, including in some cases, school history textbooks, is that the reason for this success was due to some sort of national trait. In reality, it was about geography and economic circumstances.

Of course, people who want to be highly selective in their willingness to take some sort of pride in past achievements. They are proud of the size of the British Empire but would rather forget the crimes committed in its name. They are proud of the people who created the factory system but don’t want to think about the exploitative use of child labour.

Nationalism is only other weapon in the armoury of the ruling class. Another aspect of the state machinery to develop a false political consciousness.

[Charles Black]

John

I must disagree with "most" of your feelings regarding pride, though I am not referring to "false pride" or a "false" sense of having significantly contributed to a cause or event in which one has truly had no influence.

True pride and "earned" self respect are the only rewards available to great numbers of people. I believe strongly in the "earned" self reward of the accomplishments of ones own person, family, team, school, organization or associations. It is a true natural "motivator" toward continued progress and accomplishment. I feel it is just reward for the body, mind and soul. I personally would rather die than be forced to live without self respect. As a matter of fact, other than my family, "self respect" is my proudest achievement and reward.

I honestly believe that monetary reward, although very nice, is far below the rewards granted by sense of accomplishment and the self respect which it bestows.

I do not see how ANYONE could ever be motivated that did not seek achievement or self respect.

It is possible for persons to escape their family, their military, or even their nationality. But regardless of what one does or where one goes, the

"INNER MIRROR" with which we are all both gifted and burdened cannot be escaped, and can both highly reward us or bring forth our demise.

Truly earned pride and self respect are the most

important traits by which I measure others.

Frankly, I am quite uncomfortable and cannot linger long in the company of those in whom these traits are lacking.

Perhaps this is why you and others have felt that I take umbrage in the lack of importance which you place on it !

One not having self respect cannot be humilated, angered, or motivated by WORDS !

Earned self respect and pride, combined with a good concience, are what I truly seek as rewards of this life. I personally cannot even "imagine" life without them ! Nor do I seek "improvement !

Charlie Black

Edited February 12, 2007 by Charles Black