POLITICS Re: Dirty Secrets of H1N1 Vaccine?

[Guest guest]

I have read it--it was fascinating in its own way-- and I stand by my comments.

I understand why readers of this list might be concerned about liberty--but not

everyone posing as promoting liberty actually does and this is definitely part

of the paranoid-style of American politics. Certainly I don't think being a

Reagan appointee makes you a defender of liberty, and the content is definitely

in the Bircher-mode, which is to say American-form fascism. It has got

nothing to do with liberty, in my opinion, since it is primarily a means of

accusing everyone else who disagrees with you as being part of some grand

conspiracy to undermine traditional values. That's virtually the definition of

fascism, so I really find it hard to not comment on that even if I understand

why the appeal to liberty from oppressive governmental interference is

attractive. Since you haven't read it yet, there's no point asking you to defend

it--I am genuinely curiously why this kind of rhetoric is appealing. Since I

find it so over the top, I'd certainly like why others might feel differently

about it.

Bill

>

> >

> > I really don't want to get into another big argument, but boy this is a

> really bizarre,

> > scary book--it's scary that she was an adviser on education to Reagan.

> Most of the

> > book's list of dangerous authors were authors who wrote positive, useful

> things

> > about education or tried to provide scientific approaches to psychology

> and

> > education (science free from religion seems to be disallowed by the

> author). It

> > lumps together authors like Dewey, Rousseau, and Bertrand

> with

> > Hitler and Communist Party representatives, along with alleged devious

> policy

> > initiatives, like implementing formal budgeting requirements in government

> > agencies.

> >

> > It suggests that we ought to avoid active learning and critical thinking,

> so I guess

> > indoctrination and passive, rote learning are in. Finally, it is written

> in a

> > conspiratorial tone, where all these unconnected fragments are made to

> seem

> > " deliberate " steps in some unfolding conspiracy. The discussion of the use

> of the

> > dialectic by " change agents " looking to subvert traditional values was

> priceless.

> > Honestly, I don't really want to convert anybody to my own views on

> politics and

> > education, but I'd really love to know why this kind of Birch-style

> analysis is so

> > popular among the natural foods community.

>

> Firstly, I was not endorsing the book as I haven't read it. I was suggesting

> that it seems to be along the lines of the Gatto book that Renate mentioned.

> It IS though on my list of things to read when I get a chance.

>

> Secondly, did you read the book? Just wondering if your analysis is based on

> your reading of it or scanning chapters quickly on the web.

>

> Thirdly, I would guess that my analysis would be different than yours as I'm

> not anti- Birch society, although I'm also not Christian nor

> conservative.

>

> And lastly, you will find a lot of independent thinkers among the WAPF

> community - especially those of us who have been involved for a long time

> and have seen a lot in that time to convince us that liberty and freedom to

> choose what we eat, drink, read, watch, listen to and the freedom to educate

> ones own children, etc. is becoming a very rare commodity and something we

> are willing to fight hard to protect. If that is what you consider to be a

> -Birch style analysis, then so be it. Of course this is just the

> opposite of *avoiding* active learning and critical thinking - two things

> which are perhaps the main characteristics of many in the WAPF community -

> definitely not fitting your interpretation of Iserbyt's message.

>

> Suze

>