Richard Dreyfuss's New 'Opus' : Civics

[knighthawk06699]

Wow very well spoken, I loved it when he put Bill Maher in his place. Very very good post.

[WhiteFeather]

Originally Posted by billamj

There is a first time for everything. Dreyfus is just a little to the left of Lenin. I am utterly astounded that he could make these types of statements and be taken seriously. Let me assure each and everyone of you, this will turn VERY political and we will not like the direction it takes. He is very much the anti, do not let this fool you. OTOH he's a pretty decent actor.

+1 billamj

I would not lay my life down to defend this democracy, nor would I cast a vote for others to die for this defending this democracy.

The founding fathers gave US a republic, read article 4 section 4 of the Constitution.

I am not going to be tricked into believing in democracy because all of the socialist repeat it over and over again in a form of brain washing of the masses.

The sad fact as this nation has shifted from being a Republic to a “democracy” is why we have most of the problems America now has.

Here is a article that I found when looking for the 1928 United States Army training that defined a Republic and democracy, that makes the points far better than I could.

Please understand the difference between the two very different forms of governments. This telling a big lie over and over again is the way we now have all of the so called "common sense" firearm laws, people listened to them and was tricked into following their lies. It sounds really good but nothing to address the problem. Gun control does not equal crime control


http://www.w3f.com/patriots/democracy.html

THE HYPOCRISY OF DEMOCRACY -- by Gordon Phillips

In a democracy, voters live under the illusion of self-rule. But how can one
rule himself when he is continually voting away his rights and property to
others? Or when others are continuously stripping away his own rights and
property?

Freedom is impossible without private property, yet most Americans have been
brainwashed by government-credentialed institutions to believe (not think) that
mass acceptance of democracy equals freedom, resulting in the majority selling
its birthright of liberty (rights and property) for a bowl of porridge (Social
Security, Medicare, food stamps, free cheese).

We have devolved from eagles into lemmings in just eleven generations.

Democracy shares many characteristics with its more outwardly totalitarian
equivalents, including 'public education' (translate: government mind-
conditioning) of those children who survive abortion. Yet Socialism is no less
tyrannical when viewed as government benevolence by numbed, compliant minds.

Simple equality before the written law has been replaced with mandated equality
of outcome in every area of life, proving to the global elite that it is
possible to homogenize and re-educate (condition) an entire nation to think in
terms of forced sameness (democracy) as freedom.

The following is reproduced from a chapter titled 'Republic vs. Democracy' from
my book, 'Losing Your Illusions':

Most adult Americans living today started out each school day as young children
by pledging allegiance to the flag '... and to the Republic for which it
stands.' Can you imagine pledging '.. and to the Democracy for which it stands?'

Yet President Clinton and most of our elected politicians keep referring to
America as a 'Democracy.' No doubt this is because they weren't taught the
difference under government-funded, outcome-based public 'education.' And their
parents and teachers probably weren't taught the difference either. The
Founders knew the difference, however.

James Madison warned: 'Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and
contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the
rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they
have been violent in their deaths.'

Alexander F. Tyler stated: 'A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of
government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote
themselves largess out of the treasury with the result that democracies always
collapse over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a dictatorship.'

Fisher Ames stated: 'Liberty has never lasted long in a democracy, nor has it
ever ended in anything better than despotism.'

Samuel Adams stated: 'Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes itself,
exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not
commit suicide.'

As Benjamin Franklin emerged from Independence Hall in Philadelphia, he was
asked by an onlooker what form of government he and his countrymen had created
during the first and to date, only constitutional convention. His answer: 'A
Republic, if you can keep it.'

The Founders understood that there is a spectrum of Liberty that spans a
gradient from anarchy, which is 0% government and 100% Liberty, to
totalitarianism, which is 100% government and 0% Liberty. On this scale,
Democracy is past the center and heading towards increasing government and
Socialism. A little further past Socialism and you reach Fascism and then true
totalitarianism -- 100% government and zero individual Liberty.

Bear in mind that not all republics have a written constitution. Remember the
USSR -- the United Soviet Socialist Republic? A constitutionally limited
republic, with restrictions that properly limit government, provides for the
protection of life and property yet still preserves individual liberty.

Many in America today already view our present government as Democratic
Socialism, just a step away from the pure Socialism practiced in countries such
as Sweden. Many of today's alert students of recent history see numerous,
uncanny parallels between Germany in the 1930's and America in the 1990's.

Good government is based on the collective right of self-defense where each
Citizen is in the law enforcement business and stands as an armed shield
against government tyranny.

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote: 'Experience should teach us to be
most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are
beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their
liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in
insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.'

Our Founders designed America as a constitutional Republic under the rule of
written Law, not a Democracy under the rule of opinion or public policy
guidelines. A vast ocean of difference separates the two forms of government.

As students of history, the Founders knew that democracies always degenerate
into favoritism, special interest groups, mob rule, and, ultimately, tyranny
due to a majority of the uninformed public consistently and predictably voting
to reelect those politicians who would guarantee them the redistribution of
public wealth.

They knew that a Republic protects minority individuals against a malicious and
willful majority. A perfect, if somewhat cynical, definition of a Democracy is
two ravenous wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for breakfast.

Explaining the disaster that a Democracy can become, Karl Marx, known as
the 'Father of Communism' and himself a student of political science,
stated: 'Democracy is a form of government that cannot long survive, for as
soon as the people learn that they have a voice in the fiscal policies of the
government, they will move to vote for themselves all the money in the treasury
and bankrupt the nation.'

Even our military command knows the difference. The United States Army training
manual number 2000-25, dated November 20, 1928 states in defining a
Democracy:

'A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meetings or any
other form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude towards
property is communistic; negative property rights. Attitude toward law is that
the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based upon deliberation
of the governed by passion, prejudice and impulse with-out restraint; or regard
to consequences. It results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent,
anarchy.'

This same 1928 Army training manual had the following to say about a
Republic:

'Authority is derived through the election by the people of public
officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward property is respect
for laws and individual rights and economic procedure. Attitude toward law is
the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established
evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. Avoids the dangerous extreme of
tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice,
contentment and progress. It is the ‘standard form’ of government.'

So apparently, our military does understand the advantages of a representative,
republican form of government over raw democracy. A constitutional Republic,
vigilantly guarded by an informed and enlightened electorate and represented
not by politicians, but by statesmen who would tirelessly defend Liberty and
Property, stands a fighting chance of not deteriorating into a Democracy.

Remember this the next time a TV newsreader extols the virtue of the recent
imposition of Democracy in some emerging nation, or a public figure wants to
pick your pocket to make the world 'safe for Democracy.' Under a Democracy, one
can appear to be free but can never truly be at Liberty as under a Republic.

Always keep in mind that the perfect slave is one who believes he is free.
Under a Democracy, we apparently need bureaucratic swarms of self-annointed
responsibility consultants to decide what is in the public's best interest to
read, view, inhale, ingest, inject, etc.

Under a condition of true Liberty, however, a medical practitioner could hang a
sign on his door exclaiming: 'Quack! Come On In And I'll Remove Your Appendix!'
Since the public would be expected to be responsible for their own actions,
there would be no need for bureaucrats, agencies, regulations and licensing to
protect them; since they could choose not to patronize the quack simply by
voting with their feet.

«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«
Let's INFORM AMERICA together! Tell a friend...
http://www.informamerica.com/news/tellafriend.htm
«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«

Don’t believe this author, and don’t believe me either, do your own research, you got the internet.

Seek the truth the truth shall set ye free.

The founding father knew all about democracy that is why they gave US a Republic and went to the extra step of writing in the Constitution for a reason.

Please don’t try to rationalize the two VERY different forms of government that are NOT the same. It’s tough to admit you been lied to all of your life and deceived by our so called leaders. People can not remain free and be ignorant at the same time.

Here is a better question to ask. Why do all of this socialist like Dreyfuss take historical quotes that sound real good except they are 180 degree out of sync with the truth and re write them to suit their own agenda?

[ChamberedRound]

WhiteFeather,

I usually enjoy your posts but this time you're WAY off base.

First, did you even watch the YouTube video or listen to the podcasts I linked before you commented? Mr. Dreyfuss specifically mentions in both that a "pure" democracy is mob rule and almost always inherently destroys itself. He never describes our form of government as a "pure" democracy, but uses the terms "representative democracy" and "democratic republic" to describe the US.

Second, your comments are completely unrelated to Bill's remarks, as his post was related to Dreyfuss' own political views and made no mention of "democracy vs republic". As I've stated in a previous post, in this case I believe Dreyfuss' intentions WRT a civics initiative to be on-the-level, and if I ever see evidence of the contrary I'll publicly post such. If you listen to the podcasts, at one point he even asks the audience to (paraphrased, not quoted) "tell me if anything I say sounds partisan, as if it does I'm not doing my job, and is not my intention".

I'm really finding it hard to believe that someone who wants to teach/remind us what it means to be American is met with such resistance. In a more elaborate and eloquent way, he's stating that it's the civic duty of ALL Americans to dissent, question, examine, comment, and participate in every level of government. And more importantly, those actions are necessary regardless of the political parties or beliefs of the individual. While that's an agenda, I think it's a pretty noble one, unlike the agenda of many other socialist liberals out of Hollywood.

[dc dalton]

EXCELLENT POST!

I'd give you rep but I have to spread it around first.

This is something all too many people have forgotten and Mr. Dreyfuss states it eloquently ... we have forgotten that education of our children (and adults) is NOT limited to the abcs and math. It is about educating them to be responsible, informed and socially responsible adults.

I grew up in the late 60s and 70s and it WAS taught but then again that was the time of Johnson and Nixon, the Vietnam war and Hippies. People just really seemed to care about their world, their country and their neighbors more back then and I often think "were did it go wrong". The only answers I can come up with are:

1. People became more enamored with money and possessions than the society they lived in.

I'm sure we can debate how that happened all night long but personally I think it started when the schools started pumping out "consumers" and "worker bees". For a long time (and still somewhat today) schools only care about the test scores. If they grade well they must be doing well when in fact IMO book knowledge only gets a person so far in life. When they started taking away music, ethics and those type programs they were taking the humanity out of school ... I really believe that.

2. Parents stopped becoming parents and became "kid factories".

Now this doesn't apply to all but we all know a good portion of them are like this. They stopped spending time with their children and teaching them the IMPORTANT things in life, family, community and common sense. All too often a child is dropped into day care within a year of being born until they are old enough to be "baby sat" by the TV, the internet of a video game. Mommy and Daddy are "just too busy" to take the time EVERY child requires to become an asset to society. This in itself is what I consider the MAIN reason we have kids wander the streets killing each other because parents don't seem to think they need to teach their children the moral obligations they need to get through life.

3. The breakdown of the family itself.

I don't know about you but as a young man I always said that when I got married it was going to be for life. Now I had a great example in my life in my grandmother and grandfather Meador. These two wonderful people spent almost 70 years married. They considered life "unlivable" without each other and even though they had arguments just like every other married couple there was no problem they couldn't face AS A TEAM. They looked at life as "them against us" NOT "me against you" .. for that one lesson I will always remember them and my wife and I have followed that example and we have found that after almost 25 years together there is NO problem we can't solve TOGETHER. Too many people get married for the wrong reason and then walk away from that commitment without even trying. From this lack of commitment we then get kids who "learn by example" and feel they are not required to completely commit to anything INCLUDING our nation and the responsibility of every citizen to that nation.

4. The bombardment of people by the "keeping up with the Jones" mentality.

Consumerism has run rampant over the past 20 years. It's buy buy buy, work harder and harder and harder to buy more. People have come to believe that "you win the game of life" by having the most toys when you die. Now this is somewhat a repeat of #1 BUT where did this come from? It came from the "pressure" put on people each and every day by corporate America doing what it does so well .. assaulting the human brain with advertising even when that advertising was focused at people that should know they can't afford it. Now is it the consumer's problem or the corporations? Actually I think it is both. The greed of some corporations seems limitless while the lack of common sense and social responsibility by consumers feeds that greed.

Its funny, I hear the term "morally corrupt" or "morally bankrupt" all the time but I hear it from people that themselves have NO sense of ethics, no sense of THEIR responsibility to their nation. Personally I think the public school system is MORALLY CORRUPT because they have forgotten THE most important lesson any student requires to become a "proper" citizen, the lesson that they are responsible for what they ALLOW their government to do, THEY are responsible for their own lives and THEY are responsible for their children's actions ... THEY and THEY alone!

I applaud Mr. Dreyfuss actions and can only hope beyond hope that they have some impact on people.

[pex]

2. Parents stopped becoming parents and became "kid factories".
[...]
3. The breakdown of the family itself.

It's possible that this is just a sociological evolution (like when you grow out of god because science can explain the things deism once did) that has not reached completion.

The problem isn't really the family unit but that the replacement (which I would expect to come from the mandatory education system) hasn't come to fruition. We will see these growing pains until this issue is resolved.

Before we harnessed fire, we probably prayed to the nature gods to keep us from illness begotten from the consumption of raw meat. Fire replaced that need, and we evolved to cooking food for a variety of reasons. (The evolution taking place then is mutagenic and carcinogenic results of cooked food...because life is really a big tradeoff on margins...and so we have to work to balance elsewhere.) I see the same thing happening as we realize the nature of marriage and grow out of it.

We basically need to quit being moralistic whiners and concentrate efforts not toward rebuilding deism and marriage but instead developing what will functionally replace them for the better of humans. It's certainly a scary idea for many, but if it was too scary to change, the world would still be flat.

[dc dalton]

Originally Posted by pex

It's possible that this is just a sociological evolution (like when you grow out of god because science can explain the things deism once did) that has not reached completion.

The problem isn't really the family unit but that the replacement (which I would expect to come from the mandatory education system) hasn't come to fruition. We will see these growing pains until this issue is resolved.

In all of nature how would you ever expect a replacement for parenting?

And trust me I'm the last one telling people to rebuild deism, I am an atheist and have been for a long long time. While I believe evolution has corrected many problems over the years I still see no way to replace parenting and the responsibility of parents to set their children on the right path in life.

I also don't believe a child HAS to be raised in a normal "marriage", there are many variations of that word that work just as well (yes I am not opposed to gay marriage etc) BUT in any such arraignment the "family unit" no matter WHAT that "unit" may be requires the "parent(s)" (whomever they may be) to raise their children in a manner that not only instills an education, but also instills common sense and respect for others AND the knowledge that some day THEY will be responsible for their own lives, the lives of any family they may create and the country they live in.

[pex]

Originally Posted by dc dalton

In all of nature how would you ever expect a replacement for parenting?

And trust me I'm the last one telling people to rebuild deism, I am an atheist and have been for a long long time. While I believe evolution has corrected many problems over the years I still see no way to replace parenting and the responsibility of parents to set their children on the right path in life.

I guess maybe I just saw a judgemental spin on 'parenting' that recommends it can only be done by a model family. I, however, don't see that it's required that the early or continuous installment of good values needs to be done by 'a mom and a dad who are both white and both had sex their first time on their marriage night where mom is a homemaker and dad is a middle class whatever' and that notion stretches even further beyond genes or a single- or bi-parent system...the kind of stuff we try to call 'normal' and 'required' for good upbringing.

I expect the school system to basically expand and kibbutz. There seems to be the widespread agreement that (standard) 'parents' aren't doing a good job, so who will pick up the slack (especially before it is too late?)

It's going to be a supplement for the community that won't preclude the model family any time soon, it'll just pick up for the apparent moral black hole that's otherwise being created.

I just think we should expect something like this and just be prepared that we'll have to shape it. If we don't, indoctrinators will, and it's going to be a swift turn to socialism.