Russians Mad

[Chalenge]

If you look for evidence that the Department of Education was designed to make the population of the United States just smart enough to do manual labor, then you will find it. This conversation is heading into the "bell curve" which is going to get it shut down, but that is where the truth will take you. The "left-right" political spectrum is the false dichotomy designed to keep the public lancing at windmills. I really hope you continue looking into this so that the veil of reality is lifted for you.

[Chalenge]

I watched it until I saw that graphic, then decided to look at literally anything else. All I know is that I saw 0% government on the far right, immediately closed tab.

There it is. The truth can be painful to look at.

[perdue3]

I absolutely agree with the left-right spectrum being a total waste of time to grade political beliefs. It is indeed a false dichotomy and wish it would find its peril at some point. With that being said, I do not see how you can agree that fascism means no government or that anarchy is somehow conservative.

With regard to painful truths, we just disagree. I do not think that the author was correct and you do. All good,  .

[Arlo]

With regard to painful truths, we just disagree. I do not think that the author was correct and you do. All good,  .

Seconded. 

[Chalenge]

I do not believe that fascism means no government. You didn't watch the video. It's talking about government rather than the false label "Democrat," or "Republican." Our original form of government, as described in the Constitution, is a Republic. A Republic provides only that government required to provide for the common defense, regulate commerce, uphold law, etc., etc., but a Democracy was never the intention of the founders.

Fascism is an Oligarchy, because the dictator at the top is only a figurehead that without a group of supporters (usually strict militarists) would be powerless. It's all there in the video I posted. I'm really disappointed you chose to ignore it, but . . . so goes current events.

[CptTrips]

A big part of the problem is indeed the professor. It is up to the professor to choose the textbooks. Keep in mind, at the higher level of education, textbooks are no longer general histories like we have in high school. The professor will either choose a book with his/her bias, because literally everyone on the planet has bias, or specifically choose a book that is a concrete piece of scholarship in that field (i.e. Green, Yenne, Marshall, etc.). But, this discussion is about primary and secondary school textbooks. Most of these are as objective as it gets. They leave things out because of the breadth of the subject (US History, World History, Government, State History, etc.). As an example, 9th Grade World History students spend exactly zero minutes learning about Hannibal Barca. This is unfortunate because of the importance of Hannibal and Carthage to the Roman Republic's growth.

I love ancient history.  If I ever win the lottery, I'd go back to school and get a phd in ancient history for the bucket list.  I love all history, but my interest does start tapering off after the fall of Byzantium.

I also have a side guilty interest in fringe ultra-ancient pre-history like Gobekli Tepe.     My gut instinct is that humans have been far more competent much farther back than we currently give them credit for.



   

[Arlo]

Our original form of government, as described in the Constitution, is a Republic. A Republic provides only that government required to provide for the common defense, regulate commerce, uphold law, etc., etc., but a Democracy was never the intention of the founders.

"History

In the US, the notion that a republic was a form of democracy was common from the time of its founding, and the concepts associated with representative democracy (and hence with a democratic republic) are suggested by John Adams (writing in 1784):

No determinations are carried, it is true, in a simple representative democracy, but by consent of the majority or their representatives.[6]"

Citation:

Adams, John (1851). The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: With a Life of the Author, Notes and Illustrations. Little, Brown.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_republic

(You may want to reconsider discounting the source cited.)

[Chalenge]

Not a democracy, Arlo. A representative democracy is not the same thing. That's the whole point.

[perdue3]

I do not believe that fascism means no government. You didn't watch the video. It's talking about government rather than the false label "Democrat," or "Republican." Our original form of government, as described in the Constitution, is a Republic. A Republic provides only that government required to provide for the common defense, regulate commerce, uphold law, etc., etc., but a Democracy was never the intention of the founders.

Fascism is an Oligarchy, because the dictator at the top is only a figurehead that without a group of supporters (usually strict militarists) would be powerless. It's all there in the video I posted. I'm really disappointed you chose to ignore it, but . . . so goes current events.

I don't mind watching it, it just seems like propaganda. It is Saturday and it is raining, thus I am playing video games. But in between busy streaks, I type here for a bit. I agree with everything you said regarding republics and democracies, but only partly with respect to Fascism/Oligarchy. Fascism is better defined as an ideology, whereas an oligarchy is a type of government. Fascist oligarchies can exist, but not every oligarchy is fascist and not every fascist nation is an oligarchy.

As far as defining republics and democracies, it gets very semantic. If we use the classic definitions, the US is a republic. But, if we use our founding fathers' definitions, we are a representative democracy. Jefferson and Adams both defined the government as such.

[perdue3]

I love ancient history.  If I ever win the lottery, I'd go back to school and get a phd in ancient history for the bucket list.  I love all history, but my interest does start tapering off after the fall of Byzantium.

I also have a side guilty interest in fringe ultra-ancient pre-history like Gobekli Tepe.     My gut instinct is that humans have been far more competent much farther back than we currently give them credit for.



 

Awesome. My expertise is ancient Western warfare, specifically Alexander. I really do not get excited about history until Classical Greece (5th Century BCE), but I have had pre-history courses. I spent about three weeks on Megiddo and Kadesh a few months ago. I spent it disproving theories about chariot warfare as well as reviewing the second of the books aforementioned. It is a very interesting period, filled with mystery.

[Arlo]

Not a democracy, Arlo. A representative democracy is not the same thing. That's the whole point.

The whole point is that the founding fathers did indeed think of the republic they founded was a form of democracy, a representative democracy. What I've seen from some is the constant insistence that the U.S. is a republic and not a democracy used as a talking point to discount the Democrat party under the guise of supporting the Republican party as the true inheritor of our founding father's intent and guardian of the sacred constitution.

[CptTrips]

Awesome. My expertise is ancient Western warfare, specifically Alexander. I really do not get excited about history until Classical Greece (5th Century BCE), but I have had pre-history courses. I spent about three weeks on Megiddo and Kadesh a few months ago. I spent it disproving theories about chariot warfare as well as reviewing the second of the books aforementioned. It is a very interesting period, filled with mystery.

I love classical Greece and Alexander.  I can never pass up a good book on those, seconded closely by anything on Caesar.

[perdue3]

I love classical Greece and Alexander.  I can never pass up a good book on those, seconded closely by anything on Caesar.

If you want some suggestions, let me know.

[CptTrips]

If you want some suggestions, let me know.

PM me your top three. 

 

[Chalenge]

The whole point is that the founding fathers did indeed think of the republic they founded was a form of democracy, a representative democracy. What I've seen from some is the constant insistence that the U.S. is a republic and not a democracy used as a talking point to discount the Democrat party under the guise of supporting the Republican party as the true inheritor of our founding father's intent and guardian of the sacred constitution.

"The Republic for which it stands" doesn't mean "the Democracy for which it stands" for a reason, but of course this argument has gone on since the founding.