Myra Bronstein Posted May 20, 2007 Share Posted May 20, 2007 Ok so I'm reading about John D. Rockefeller's Occasional Letter No.1 "detailing plans to mold the people, reduce national intelligence to the lowest common denominator, destroy parental influence, traditional and customs, and eliminate science and real learning, "in order to perfect human nature." http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/timeline.html The gist is that Rockefeller became an education philanthropist at least in part as a path to a controlled population—a population of "sheeple" customized for optimal ditch digging. Good read/background material here: http://www.sovereignty.net/p/gov/stevenyates-5.html So I'm wondering if President Kennedy's unusually lively intellect, and emphasis on learning, was yet another aspect that infuriated the ruling class. I'm not suggesting that it was a factor in his murder; there were plenty of those factors. His peacenik proclivities alone were enough to do him in. But, has anyone ever come across any evidence, readings, anything to indicate that JFK's love of learning and the arts was something that earned him the enmity of the rulers because they didn't want that mindset to contaminate the carefully cultivated dumbed-down populace? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 Ok so I'm reading about John D. Rockefeller's Occasional Letter No.1 "detailing plans to mold the people, reduce national intelligence to the lowest common denominator, destroy parental influence, traditional and customs, and eliminate science and real learning, "in order to perfect human nature."http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/timeline.html The gist is that Rockefeller became an education philanthropist at least in part as a path to a controlled population—a population of "sheeple" customized for optimal ditch digging. Good read/background material here: http://www.sovereignty.net/p/gov/stevenyates-5.html So I'm wondering if President Kennedy's unusually lively intellect, and emphasis on learning, was yet another aspect that infuriated the ruling class. I'm not suggesting that it was a factor in his murder; there were plenty of those factors. His peacenik proclivities alone were enough to do him in. But, has anyone ever come across any evidence, readings, anything to indicate that JFK's love of learning and the arts was something that earned him the enmity of the rulers because they didn't want that mindset to contaminate the carefully cultivated dumbed-down populace? ________________________ Myra, I'm sure you're right. Keep up the good work.... --Thomas ________________________ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted May 21, 2007 Author Share Posted May 21, 2007 Ok so I'm reading about John D. Rockefeller's Occasional Letter No.1 "detailing plans to mold the people, reduce national intelligence to the lowest common denominator, destroy parental influence, traditional and customs, and eliminate science and real learning, "in order to perfect human nature."http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/timeline.html The gist is that Rockefeller became an education philanthropist at least in part as a path to a controlled population—a population of "sheeple" customized for optimal ditch digging. Good read/background material here: http://www.sovereignty.net/p/gov/stevenyates-5.html So I'm wondering if President Kennedy's unusually lively intellect, and emphasis on learning, was yet another aspect that infuriated the ruling class. I'm not suggesting that it was a factor in his murder; there were plenty of those factors. His peacenik proclivities alone were enough to do him in. But, has anyone ever come across any evidence, readings, anything to indicate that JFK's love of learning and the arts was something that earned him the enmity of the rulers because they didn't want that mindset to contaminate the carefully cultivated dumbed-down populace? ________________________ Myra, I'm sure you're right. Keep up the good work.... --Thomas ________________________ And I'm sure the Rockefellers would approve of the work you do ToshAS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 (edited) Ok so I'm reading about John D. Rockefeller's Occasional Letter No.1 "detailing plans to mold the people, reduce national intelligence to the lowest common denominator, destroy parental influence, traditional and customs, and eliminate science and real learning, "in order to perfect human nature."http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/timeline.html The gist is that Rockefeller became an education philanthropist at least in part as a path to a controlled population—a population of "sheeple" customized for optimal ditch digging. Good read/background material here: http://www.sovereignty.net/p/gov/stevenyates-5.html So I'm wondering if President Kennedy's unusually lively intellect, and emphasis on learning, was yet another aspect that infuriated the ruling class. I'm not suggesting that it was a factor in his murder; there were plenty of those factors. His peacenik proclivities alone were enough to do him in. But, has anyone ever come across any evidence, readings, anything to indicate that JFK's love of learning and the arts was something that earned him the enmity of the rulers because they didn't want that mindset to contaminate the carefully cultivated dumbed-down populace? ________________________ Myra, I'm sure you're right. Keep up the good work.... --Thomas ________________________ And I'm sure the Rockefellers would approve of the work you do ToshAS. ___________________ (We??) thank you, Ms Bee! --Thomas (and Tosh?) LOL P.S. Keep up the good work.... P.P.S. "Paranoia Strikes Deep..." ___________________ Edited May 21, 2007 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted May 21, 2007 Author Share Posted May 21, 2007 Ok so I'm reading about John D. Rockefeller's Occasional Letter No.1 "detailing plans to mold the people, reduce national intelligence to the lowest common denominator, destroy parental influence, traditional and customs, and eliminate science and real learning, "in order to perfect human nature."http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/timeline.html The gist is that Rockefeller became an education philanthropist at least in part as a path to a controlled population—a population of "sheeple" customized for optimal ditch digging. Good read/background material here: http://www.sovereignty.net/p/gov/stevenyates-5.html So I'm wondering if President Kennedy's unusually lively intellect, and emphasis on learning, was yet another aspect that infuriated the ruling class. I'm not suggesting that it was a factor in his murder; there were plenty of those factors. His peacenik proclivities alone were enough to do him in. But, has anyone ever come across any evidence, readings, anything to indicate that JFK's love of learning and the arts was something that earned him the enmity of the rulers because they didn't want that mindset to contaminate the carefully cultivated dumbed-down populace? ________________________ Myra, I'm sure you're right. Keep up the good work.... --Thomas ________________________ And I'm sure the Rockefellers would approve of the work you do ToshAS. ___________________ (We??) thank you, Ms Bee! --Thomas (and Tosh?) LOL P.S. Keep up the good work.... P.P.S. "Paranoia Strikes Deep..." ___________________ Tag, you're it ToshASsss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted May 21, 2007 Author Share Posted May 21, 2007 (edited) ___________________(We??) thank you, Ms Bee! --Thomas (and Tosh?) LOL P.S. Keep up the good work.... P.P.S. "Paranoia Strikes Deep..." ___________________ Tag, you're it ToshASsss Just kidding ThomAS, you're a really really smart guy. Really... Edited May 21, 2007 by Myra Bronstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 Ok so I'm reading about John D. Rockefeller's Occasional Letter No.1 "detailing plans to mold the people, reduce national intelligence to the lowest common denominator, destroy parental influence, traditional and customs, and eliminate science and real learning, "in order to perfect human nature."http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/timeline.html The gist is that Rockefeller became an education philanthropist at least in part as a path to a controlled population—a population of "sheeple" customized for optimal ditch digging. Good read/background material here: http://www.sovereignty.net/p/gov/stevenyates-5.html So I'm wondering if President Kennedy's unusually lively intellect, and emphasis on learning, was yet another aspect that infuriated the ruling class. I'm not suggesting that it was a factor in his murder; there were plenty of those factors. His peacenik proclivities alone were enough to do him in. But, has anyone ever come across any evidence, readings, anything to indicate that JFK's love of learning and the arts was something that earned him the enmity of the rulers because they didn't want that mindset to contaminate the carefully cultivated dumbed-down populace? **************************************************************8 "But, has anyone ever come across any evidence, readings, anything to indicate that JFK's love of learning and the arts was something that earned him the enmity of the rulers because they didn't want that mindset to contaminate the carefully cultivated dumbed-down populace?" The only thing I can add, and this is pure speculation on my part, is the fact that it is known that JFK was the more sickly of the brothers in his family, and possibly spent an inordinate amount of time devouring books, as he was wont to do, from the amount of recovery time he was forced to endure in his formative years. This "book-learning" and/or studious aspect of his personality would most likely serve him well in the development of a more mediator stance on the arbitration matters he would be faced with, in the settlement of union issues concerning the miners and steelworkers, during his term in office. I also think it influenced the way he viewed the world and humanity, as a whole, rendering him highly cognizant of the plight of those less fortunate than he. I find those same traits inherent in the personalities of Lincoln, FDR, and Che Guevara, an asthmatic who seems to have spent an exceptional amount of time reading during his formative years, as well. "Ok so I'm reading about John D. Rockefeller's Occasional Letter No.1 "detailing plans to mold the people, reduce national intelligence to the lowest common denominator, destroy parental influence, traditional and customs, and eliminate science and real learning, "in order to perfect human nature." " Therefore, these "book-ish" personality traits, in the leaders I've mentioned above, would seem anathema to the agenda of the Rockefellers, wouldn't you say? And, would remain a thorn in their side until they chose to eliminate it. From a strictly circumstantial P.O.V., of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 ___________________(We??) thank you, Ms Bee! --Thomas (and Tosh?) LOL P.S. Keep up the good work.... P.P.S. "Paranoia Strikes Deep..." ___________________ Tag, you're it ToshASsss Just kidding ThomAS, you're a really really smart guy. Really... ___________________ Yeah, Myra, I confess I helped Tosh kill JFK even though I was only 13 years old at the time.... LOL. --Thomas P.S. To new member David G., if you want to find the pertinent posts between Tosh and Ms. Bee, I suggest that you simply plug in the search term "b****," because that's what Tosh called her right before he left The Forum. Too bad, too, because at that time Tosh was giving us lots of interesting information about his activities and observations on the South Knoll before, during and just after the assassination.... He seemed to think that the fatal shot was fired from the far South end of the underpass/overpass (which makes a lot of sense when one looks at the reports given about JFK's head wound(s) by the doctors/nurses/technicians at Parkland Hospital.) But unfortunately Ms. "Busy Bee," going for "the kill," harassed him to the point of leaving.... ___________________ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted May 21, 2007 Author Share Posted May 21, 2007 ___________________(We??) thank you, Ms Bee! --Thomas (and Tosh?) LOL P.S. Keep up the good work.... P.P.S. "Paranoia Strikes Deep..." ___________________ Tag, you're it ToshASsss Just kidding ThomAS, you're a really really smart guy. Really... ___________________ Yeah, Myra, I confess I helped Tosh kill JFK even though I was only 13 years old at the time.... LOL. --Thomas P.S. To new member David G., if you want to find the pertinent posts between Tosh and Ms. Bee, I suggest that you simply plug in the search term "b****," because that's what Tosh called her right before he left The Forum. Too bad, too, because at that time Tosh was giving us lots of interesting information about his activities and observations on the South Knoll before, during and just after the assassination.... He seemed to think that the fatal shot was fired from the far South end of the underpass/overpass (which makes a lot of sense when one looks at the reports given about JFK's head wound(s) by the doctors/nurses/technicians at Parkland Hospital.) But unfortunately Ms. "Busy Bee," going for "the kill," harassed him to the point of leaving.... ___________________ Psss, David G, It won't do you any good to search on that term because Tosh scrubbed his posts clean before absconding into the abyss. Just FYI. ThomAS seems to be losing his oh so contrived kewlllllll and forgetting that niggling little point about his his hero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 (edited) Ok so I'm reading about John D. Rockefeller's Occasional Letter No.1 "detailing plans to mold the people, reduce national intelligence to the lowest common denominator, destroy parental influence, traditional and customs, and eliminate science and real learning, "in order to perfect human nature."http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/timeline.html The gist is that Rockefeller became an education philanthropist at least in part as a path to a controlled population—a population of "sheeple" customized for optimal ditch digging. Good read/background material here: http://www.sovereignty.net/p/gov/stevenyates-5.html So I'm wondering if President Kennedy's unusually lively intellect, and emphasis on learning, was yet another aspect that infuriated the ruling class. I'm not suggesting that it was a factor in his murder; there were plenty of those factors. His peacenik proclivities alone were enough to do him in. But, has anyone ever come across any evidence, readings, anything to indicate that JFK's love of learning and the arts was something that earned him the enmity of the rulers because they didn't want that mindset to contaminate the carefully cultivated dumbed-down populace? Myra, Kennedy was definitely into freeing up educational institutuions to all US Citizens. In the South this was some of the first things he focused on. His 'style' or personal MO was very scholarly in that he formulated his policies dependent on indepth research. This led to a shakeup all around, not least in the Military esablishment. I think a lot of people and groupings learnt they couldn't just come to him and say such and such is so, without him consulting wider and coming to an as informed opinion as was possible. This was really a distinguishing aspect of all of his public life. IOW he was not 'controllable'. No doubt this made some uneasy. At the same time it is amongst the large group of people who do value education a major reason for remembering him. Edited May 21, 2007 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 (edited) ___________________(We??) thank you, Ms Bee! --Thomas (and Tosh?) LOL P.S. Keep up the good work.... P.P.S. "Paranoia Strikes Deep..." ___________________ Tag, you're it ToshASsss Just kidding ThomAS, you're a really really smart guy. Really... ___________________ Yeah, Myra, I confess I helped Tosh kill JFK even though I was only 13 years old at the time.... LOL. --Thomas P.S. To new member David G., if you want to find the pertinent posts between Tosh and Ms. Bee, I suggest that you simply plug in the search term "b****," because that's what Tosh called her right before he left The Forum. Too bad, too, because at that time Tosh was giving us lots of interesting information about his activities and observations on the South Knoll before, during and just after the assassination.... He seemed to think that the fatal shot was fired from the far South end of the underpass/overpass (which makes a lot of sense when one looks at the reports given about JFK's head wound(s) by the doctors/nurses/technicians at Parkland Hospital.) But unfortunately Ms. "Busy Bee," going for "the kill," harassed him to the point of leaving.... ___________________ Psss, David G, It won't do you any good to search on that term because Tosh scrubbed his posts clean before absconding into the abyss. Just FYI. ThomAS seems to be losing his oh so contrived kewlllllll and forgetting that niggling little point about his his hero. ***************************************************** O.K. kids, cut the clowning around. How about getting back to those XXXX Rockefellers? On second thought, carry on. I just got a look at the time. Maybe I'll hit the hay for the rest of the evening, instead. Find me something to laugh about in the morning before I shuffle off to work. Like an edit on my post, maybe? That was fun, Thomas. Good night, folks. Edited language. Edited May 21, 2007 by Antti Hynonen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 Ladies, gentlemen! Please could we not insult each other by changing words a little (ThomASS, B****)? It's very unbecoming. Thomas, I'd ask you to cease claiming Myra "harassed" someone out of the Forum. I am not aware of the background of the incident in question, but if John / Andy did not take any action over any claimed harassment, then I'd ask you to leave it at that. Thanks all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 (edited) Evan, not to dicscount such warranted appeals. It will nevertheless continue in various forms. ___________________________ An incomplete interesting take on 'idea polarization'. There is a studied mechanism at play: Wiki: "In politics, polarization is the process by which the public opinion divides and goes to the extremes. It can also refer to when the extreme factions of a political party gain dominance in a party. In either case moderate voices often find that they have lost power. In recent times, some Americans, such as American Demographics magazine editor John McManus, have seen increasing polarization in the U.S. political system. Some point to Jim Jeffords' resignation from the Republican Party in 2001 because of his feelings that the party was becoming increasingly polarized and that moderate voices were getting shut out. President Bill Clinton said on the 9/18/06 Daily Show that he thinks the current republican party believes in polarization. Others, such as Constitution Party analyst Michael Peroutka, take the view that the U.S. political parties themselves are actually quite close in terms of actual policy and party leadership. They say that political rhetoric is polarized in order to create some illusion of policy difference; however, in practice and action, both parties take a similar approach to government. Examples include vast bipartisan and popular support for one side of various supposedly controversial issues; a majority of both major parties in Congress voted to cut taxes in 2001, to authorize use of force in Iraq in 2002, and to ban partial-birth abortion in 2003. Additionally, since 1948, the Congress and the President--whether Democratic or Republican--have shown the same willingness to grow the size of the Federal Government. Supporters of this theory also say that public opinion has not gone to the extreme; rather, both parties have come closer to the center. Thus, for the average "centrist" voter, it is easier to decide which party/candidate is closest to them. Mr. Peroutka's is a minority opinion[citation needed]; most Americans and most in the news media see a very real rift growing within the fabric of U.S. society, as was shown most dramatically through the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, when the vote was virtually half and half between the two sides. However, it may be argued that those election results merely confirm that both major parties are essentially equivalent and as such attract a nearly equal number of votes. Perhaps the most disturbing sign of the schism has been the ominous division of the country into rigid geographic blocs, a phenomenon that has not been seen in America since the days leading up the Civil War in the 1852, 1856, and 1860 presidential elections. An example of polarization is in Germany in the early years after the first world war, when there was support for political parties on the extreme left such as the spartacists, and also the extreme right, such as the National Socialist Party." The agents of polarization are an important element in the process. They tend to understand the general ignorance of this mechanism. IOW they 'drive the agenda'. The more uninformed polarization occurs: the more progress is stymied. (This has relevance in some topics such as those on 'Strategy of Tension'). There are also groupings that seek ways to disarm such influences. A well educated populace that is not under some force demanding a position to be taken, or at least acknowledging the forces and denying to the best of ones ability their unwarranted influence, is more likely (IMO) to arrive at good solutions. The mechanism of polarization is not the congregation around the correct idea, but rather the tendecy to be herded to the idea whether it is correct or not. ie polarization in itself is not necessarily a bad thing but rather an ignorance of the mechanisms of its formation. This is something I think Kennedy was very aware of and always thought to counter. (keywords : groupthink, lobbying etc) Edited May 21, 2007 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 (edited) Tag, you're it ToshASsss Just kidding ThomAS, you're a really really smart guy. Really... _________________________ Dear Myra, What does the "ASsss" part of "ToshAsss" mean in your apocryphal "Tag, you're it TosshAsss?" How esoteric. XXXXXXXX. If that's the case, then one can only say that you have a very, very dirty mind, indeed. Likewise, what does the "AS" part of ThomAS signify? Hmmm... AS= Associatiated Students? Astonomical Society? What? Hmmm... Are you trying to phonetically spell my name, "ThomAS?" If that's the case, then you might as well move to the Czech Republic and teach English for seven years as I did. In case anyone on The Forum is interested, I'm writing a novel about it now; have decided to include a chapter about Ms. Bee entitled "The Writhing." You know as in Medusa... Well, gosh, thank you, Ms. Bees, for telling me that I'm a really really (no comma) smart guy. But I already knew that. LOL Unlike you, I try to keep an open mind and still love the country that I was born in and that I'm living in. Ms. Bee, if you don't want to live in America any longer, I suggest that you move to the Czech Republic and try living there (legally?) and teach English or dialectics or C.T. or whatever for a couple of years.... keep up th good work, --Thomas Edited for inappropriate language. ________________________ Edited May 21, 2007 by Antti Hynonen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now