portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts


Corporate America needs unthinking worker ants - not people who think for themselves. Support yur lokul skool adminustratur. Support government education - after all they don't have any other agendi. Yeah right!?

By: Alan Stang

Last week, we began to look at a book entitled the deliberate dumbing down of america (Ravenna, Ohio, The Conscience Press, 2000) by educator Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt. The title has no capital letters, to dramatize the deliberate dumbing down of children in the nation's government (public) schools. Again, the thing that makes Mrs. Iserbyt's book so stupendous was her ability to plow through a couple of mountains of garbage extruded by the (mis)educators who are deliberately doing this, so you don't need to guess what they mean. You can see for yourself.

This week, let's look at some things they are doing. Please remember that when I use the word "they," I am not necessarily talking about the teachers. Yes, many teachers in the government (public) schools are part of the problem, but many are not. The ones who are not do try to protect the children, even to educate them, but those good teachers do not run the schools and must do as they are told. No, we are talking about the administrators, the people who do run the schools, the academics who come up with the educational theories, the people in the state and federal departments of education.

For instance, in Conditioned Reflex Therapy, Andrew Salte writes this: "We are meat in which habits have taken up residence. We are a result of the way other people have acted to us. . . . Where there is a conditioned reflex, there is no will. Our 'will power' is dependent on our previously learned reflexes." (P. 49) N.B.: All pagination is taken from Mrs. Iserbyt's book.

This is what the (mis)educators think of your children. Your children are "meat," lumps of quivering protoplasm in a petri dish, without soul, without will, without individuality, without choice. Would you bother trying to "educate" protoplasm in a dish? No, you would condition it, you would create reflexes that bypass the brain.

Another book Mrs. Iserbyt suffered through is William E. Martin's Rediscovering the Mind of the Child: "A science of behavior emphasizes the importance of environmental manipulation and scheduling and thus the mechanization and routinization of experience. Similarly, it stresses performance in the individual. Doing something, doing it efficiently, doing it automatically - these are the goals. It is the mechanization of man .... The result is the triumph of technology: a push button world with well-trained button-pushers." (P. 120)
The "mechanization of man!" Mechanical children who respond when buttons are pushed! Most parents probably still believe that their children go to school to learn "subjects." No, in the government (public) schools today, what you may think of as learning is mere window-dressing, is coincidental, is a cover for the (mis)educationists' real purpose. In his 1981 book, All Our Children Learning, Professor Benjamin Bloom wrote, "The purpose of education and the schools is to change the thoughts, feelings and actions of students." (P. 160)

Notice, from their own mouths: Academic learning is not the purpose of education and the schools. Obviously, Bloom is unhappy with the thoughts, feelings and actions children learn at home. According to Thomas A. Kelly, Ph.D., in The Effective School Report, "The brain should be used for processing, not storage." (Loc. Cit.) If your brain isn't used for storage, you don't and can't know anything. You have no reservoir of learning. You are an automaton, trained, not educated, to respond to buttons.

Your Intrepid Correspondent was talking in a high school to a class of seniors about the career of Adolf Hitler, but there was a problem. I wasn't discussing Hitler the way I was supposed to. For instance, I was explaining that Hitler was of course a far leftist, a Socialist, a National Socialist, that he believed in total government and therefore that he and the Communists were natural allies, an affinity that found expression in the Hitler-Stalin Non-Aggression Pact.

The immensely curious and fascinating thing about the confrontation was that these seniors could not understand what I was saying, not even enough to disagree. They never did figure out whether I was a good guy or not. They responded not to the ideas I was voicing but to the names I spoke. Whenever I mentioned Hitler, they booed. When I mentioned FDR, they applauded. I realized that the names were buttons. They had been trained, not educated, to respond when those buttons were pushed.

Much of this training derives from Harvard Professor B.F. Skinner, one of the (dead) gods of the (mis)educationists. Skinner trained pigeons for the military during World War II, and, "I could make a pigeon a high achiever by reinforcing it on a proper schedule." (P. A-143) Skinner thought your child was nothing more than a pigeon. "For the purpose of analyzing behavior, we have to assume man is a machine." (Loc. Cit.) "We want him [the student-Iserbyt] to come under the control of his environment rather than on verbal directions given by members of his family." (Loc. Cit.)

How would all this play out in math, for instance? In December, 1928, O.A. Nelson, then a teacher of math, was invited to attend a meeting. John Dewey, founder of "progressive education" was there. Dewey of course was a Stalinist, as were the other leading "educators" present. Nelson tells us that he objected to the way they wanted to teach math. The man who had invited him responded: "Nelson, wake up! That is what we want. . . . a math that the pupils cannot apply to life situations when they get out of school!" Nelson comments: "That math was not introduced until much later, as those present thought it was too radical a change. . . . The radical change was introduced in 1952. . . . So, if pupils come out of high school now, not knowing any math, don't blame them. The results are supposed to be worthless." (Pp. 14-15)

The result is that The New York Times of August 31, 1986 reported as follows on a study conducted by the Educational Testing Service and the National Assessment of Educational Progress: ". . . In testing basic skills at various levels, the study found that one in three young adults with a college degree from a two- or four-year school failed to answer this question correctly: If one purchased a sandwich for $1.90, a bowl of soup for 60 cents, and gave the cashier $3, how much change should he receive? . . . (P. 238) Could you believe that a full one-third of college graduates can't figure the answer?

Here's just one example of what we're talking about. One of my sons and I were next in line at a checkout counter in a huge chain drugstore. When your obedient servant worked a cash register a century ago, it showed the purchase price and we had to figure out the change. Today, it shows the cashier how much change to give. But it happened that the victimized government (public) high school teenager working the register accidentally hit the wrong button, so the amount of change she was supposed to hand the man in front of us disappeared from the screen.

The poor child stared at the cash in her hand that the man had given her and stared at the numberless screen, in a state of helpless terror and frustration. Would she be chastised? Would she be fired? She had no idea how to figure the change. The man ahead of us didn't notice this little, heartrending crisis; he was looking around, oblivious, waiting for the cashier to put something in his hand, so there was a moment of respite before the approaching doom. But soon he would turn to find out what was happening and the sword would fall.

The son who was with me is today a handsome, hulking brute under whom the ground shakes when he walks. Some teenage females even think he's a "hunk." At the time, he was a pipsqueak, whose head barely cleared the top of the counter. At this crucial point in the melodrama, the pipsqueak piped up: "Thirty eight cents."

Wondering, the benighted cashier gave the man ahead of us $.38 and held her breath. He looked at the coins, nodded and left. The pipsqueak had been right! Thirty-eight cents was the right amount! The cashier totaled our purchase, and we paid and walked away. As we did so, she stared at my son in continuing wonderment. How could this pipsqueak, barely tall enough to clear the counter, know the right change? Was he a dwarf? An elf? A disciple of Yoda in possession of occult knowledge? No, he was simply a normal child educated at home, who had never seen the inside of a "school." The country today is full of academically challenged victims such as that cashier, and remember that she has been crippled by design.

What about reading? Thomas Sticht, Ph.D., says as follows (paraphrased from the Washington Post): "Ending discrimination and changing values are probably more important than reading in moving low income families into the middle class. . . ." How would you get into the middle class if you can't read?

Always keep in mind that when George W. Bush talks about leaving no child behind, he is not talking about changing all this. He is talking about spending a lot more money to finance a lot more of it.

Again, to order Mrs. Iserbyt's staggering book, send $39.95 (Maine residents add 5.5% tax=$2.19) plus $6.00 shipping and handling to 3D Research Co., 1062 Washington St., Bath, ME 04530. And be with your Intrepid Correspondent next week for more.

"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."

Alan Stang has been a network radio talk show host and was one of Mike Wallace's first writers.  He was a senior writer for American Opinion magazine and has lectured around the world for more than 30 years. He is also the author of ten books, including, most recently, Perestroika Sunset, surrounding our Government's deception in the POW/MIA arena. If you would like him to address your group, please email what you have in mind. He is a regular columnist for Ether Zone.

Alan Stang can be reached at:  stangfeedback@hotmail.com

Published in the November 29, 2002 issue of  Ether Zone.
Copyright © 1997 - 2002 Ether Zone.
This fellow is a nut. 16.Dec.2002 22:10

no, really a loon

Just in case you don't know who Alan Stang is, here's some of his writing. Just want you all to have some context with which to evaluate this newswire post. This is from an article of his that was published in The Patriotist:

Carter's treason consists of the fact that, only because of Jimmy, our enemies, the Communist Chinese, now control both ends of our Panama Canal. These are the same Red Chinese who boast that they may nuke Los Angeles and committed an act of war against the United States last year when they shot down a U.S. Navy aircraft.

The late Soviet spy Alger Hiss played a part in that strategy as a top State Department official. Later, David Rockefeller, of the then Chase Manhattan Bank, chose Carter as the Democrat President who would help us survive Watergate. Yes, they actually sat down around a table at one of David's New York estates, where Rockefeller interviewed Jimmy for the job. Jimmy became a factotum of Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations, the secret Marxist outfit to which Carter gave control of his administration.

The Communist goal for the Canal has been achieved, thanks to Jimmy Carter

Remember that Cuba is still deservedly on the federal government's list of terrorist nations. There is probably no area of terrorism in which Castro does not participate.

So, it should surprise no one that sexy Jimmy went to Cuba and said such nice things about Castro.

Another visitor from Langely? 16.Dec.2002 23:09


Please note the standard disinfo technique of not addressing the issues but instead attacking the messenger. This is textbook disinformation - when you want to discredit an idea with sound factual basis then you avoid debating the issue by making personal attacks. The reason being the facts on the other side hit home.

The above shill did not once address any of the specifics of the piece.

Stang and The Patriotist are Racists 17.Dec.2002 00:01

research the sources

Anyone can go to the Patriotist web site and read this racist drivel. Thanks IMC. Who needs cointelpro when we can count on IMC to repost this crap.

Try this one on, from the latest issue of The Patriot:

Senator Lott made the one mistake no respectable Southerner is ever forgiven for:
He told the truth.

Or maybe this, it's from their 'about us' page:

The Patriotist operates from a Christian world view. However, God gives intellectual gifts to all men, and when they have something profound to say about the human condition, you will read it here. This is in contrast to the blind inclusiveness that overruns our society today.

And finally:

Our strength comes from our similarities, not our 'diversity.' This used to be a Christian land - our problems stem from the fact that such is no longer the case

Eureka 17.Dec.2002 00:44


Now I get. You're an anti-Christian BIGOT. And no I am not a Christian but I respect their rights to freedom of conscience and to follow their beliefs. Being Christian does not make someone evil. Being firm in one's beliefs is not a crime.
You still have not addressed any of the data in the article shill.

Since the shill wants other sources... 17.Dec.2002 01:40

GRINGO STARS gringo_stars@attbi.com

Here you go, shill...
The same damn thing from a more respectable source:

John Taylor Gatto climaxed his 33 year teaching career as New York State Teacher of the Year after being named New York City Teacher of the Year on three occasions. He quit teaching on the OP ED page of the Wall Street Journal in 1991 while still New York State Teacher of the Year, claiming that he was no longer willing to hurt children. His books include: Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling (1992); The Exhausted School (1993); A Different Kind of Teacher (2000); and The Underground History Of American Education (2001) The following was culled from his most recent work:

Perhaps the greatest of school's illusions is that the institution was launched by a group of kindly men and women who wanted to help the children of ordinary families -- to level the playing field, so to speak. Let's see what's really behind these illusions:


The real makers of modern schooling weren't at all who we think.
Not Cotton Mather
or Horace Mann
or John Dewey.

The real makers of modern schooling were leaders of the new American industrialist class, men like:
Andrew Carnegie, the steel baron.
John D. Rockefeller, the duke of oil.
Henry Ford, master of the assembly line which compounded steel and oil into a vehicular dynasty.
and J.P. Morgan, the king of capitalist finance.

Rich white men like these, and the brilliant efficiency expert Frederick W. Taylor, who inspired the entire "social efficiency" movement of the early twentieth century, along with providing the new Soviet Union its operating philosophy and doing the same job for Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany; men who dreamed bigger dreams than any had dreamed since Napoleon or Charlemagne, these were the makers of modern schooling.


If modern schooling has a "Fourth Purpose," there must be an earlier three. Traditional forms of instruction in America, even before the Revolution, had three specific purposes:
1. To make good people
2. To make good citizens
3. And to make each student find some particular talents to develop to the maximum.
The new mass schooling which came about slowly but continuously after 1890, had a different purpose, a "fourth" purpose.

The fourth purpose steadily squeezed the traditional three to the margins of schooling; in the fourth purpose, school in America became like school in Germany, a servant of corporate and political management.

We should reveal the mechanism of mind control training, habits, and attitudes.

Children were literally trained in bad habits and bad attitudes! Teachers and principals, "scientifically"certified in teachers college practices, were made unaware of the invisible curriculum they really taught.

The secret of commerce, that kids drive purchases, meant that schools had to become psychological laboratories where training in consumerism was the central pursuit.


Since bored people are the best consumers, school had to be a boring place, and since childish people are the easiest customers to convince, the manufacture of childishness, extended into adulthood, had to be the first priority of factory schools. Naturally, teachers and administrators weren't let in on this plan; they didn't need to be. If they didn't conform to instructions passed down from increasingly centralized school offices, they didn't last long.

In the new system, schools were gradually re-formed to meet the pressing need of big businesses to have standardized customers and employees, standardized because such people are predictable in certain crucial ways by mathematical formulae. Business (and government) can only be efficient if human beings are redesigned to meet simplified specifications. As the century wore on, school spaces themselves were opened bit by bit to commercialization.

These processes didn't advance evenly. Some localities resisted more than others, some decades were more propitious for the plan than others. Especially during and just after national emergencies like WWI, the Depression, WWII, and the Sputnik crisis, the scheme rocketed forward; in quieter moments it was becalmed or even forced to give up some ground.

But even in moments of greatest resistance, the institutions controlling the fourth purpose -- great corporations, great universities, government bureaus with vast powers to reward or punish, and corporate journalism -- increasingly centralized in fewer and fewer hands throughout the twentieth century, kept a steady hand on the tiller. They had ample resources to wear down and outwait the competition.

The prize was of inestimable value -- control of the minds of the young.


After 1900 the new mass schooling arenas slowly became impersonal places where children were viewed as HUMAN RESOURCES. Whenever you hear this term, you are certain to be in the presence of employees of the fourth purpose, however unwitting. Human resource children are to be molded and shaped for something called "The Workplace," even though for most of American history American children were reared to expect to create their own workplaces.

In the new workplace, most Americans were slated to work for large corporations or large government agencies, if they worked at all.

This revolution in the composition of the American dream produced some unpleasant byproducts. Since systematic forms of employment demand that employees specialize their efforts in one or another function of systematic production, then clear thinking warns us that incomplete people make the best corporate and government employees.

Earlier Americans like Madison and Jefferson were well aware of this paradox, which our own time has forgotten. And if that is so, mutilation in the interests of later social efficiency has to be one of the biggest tasks assigned to forced schooling.

Not only was the new form of institution spiritually dangerous as a matter of course, but school became a physically dangerous place as well.

What better way to habituate kids to abandoning trust in their peers (and themselves) than to create an atmosphere of constant low-level stress and danger, relief from which is only available by appeal to authority? And many times not even then!

Horace Mann had sold forced schooling to industrialists of the mid-nineteenth century as the best "police" to create moral children, but ironically, as it turned out in the twentieth century, big business and big government were best served by making schoolrooms antechambers to Hell.


As the twentieth century progressed, and particularly after WWII, schools evolved into behavioral training centers, laboratories of experimentation in the interests of corporations and the government. The original model for this development had been Prussian Germany, but few remembered.

School became jail-time to escape if you could, arenas of meaningless pressure as with the omnipresent "standardized" exams, which study after study concluded were measuring nothing real.

For instance, take the case of Bill Bradley and George W. Bush, two of the four finalists in the 2000 presidential race. Bradley had a horrifying 480 on the verbal part of his own SATs, yet graduated from Princeton, won a Rhodes Scholarship, and became a senator; Bush graduated from Yale, became governor of Texas, and president of the United States -- with a mediocre 550. If you can become governor, senator, and president with mediocre SAT scores, what exactly do the tests measure?

Perhaps they sort out good scientists from bad? If so, how is it that both the scientists principally involved in the Human Genome Project have strange scholarly backgrounds to say the least!

Francis S. Collins, the head of the public portion, was homeschooled, and never followed any type of formal curriculum.
Craig Venter was a very bad boy in high school, a surfing bum who nearly flunked out, and he didn't go to college after graduation, but into the U.S. Army as an enlisted man before being shipped off to Vietnam!


The new purpose of schooling -- to serve business and government -- could only be achieved efficiently by isolating children from the real world, with adults who themselves were isolated from the real world, and everyone in the confinement isolated from one another.

Only then could the necessary training in boredom and bewilderment begin. Such training is necessary to produce dependable consumers and dependent citizens who would always look for a teacher to tell them what to do in later life, even if that teacher was an ad man or television anchor.

Since the shill wants other sources...
Since the shill wants other sources...

actually 17.Dec.2002 05:09


I mostly agree with the second article, but I find the first rather odd.

"Your Intrepid Correspondent was talking in a high school to a class of seniors about the career of Adolf Hitler, but there was a problem. I wasn't discussing Hitler the way I was supposed to. For instance, I was explaining that Hitler was of course a far leftist, a Socialist, a National Socialist, that he believed in total government and therefore that he and the Communists were natural allies, an affinity that found expression in the Hitler-Stalin Non-Aggression Pact."

Actually, Hitler was not a leftist at all.

"The immensely curious and fascinating thing about the confrontation was that these seniors could not understand what I was saying, not even enough to disagree. They never did figure out whether I was a good guy or not. They responded not to the ideas I was voicing but to the names I spoke. Whenever I mentioned Hitler, they booed. When I mentioned FDR, they applauded. I realized that the names were buttons."

Ummm...a room full of young adults booing on mention of the word Hilter?

I don't think so--even in America.

two cents... 17.Dec.2002 11:14

this thing here

it's unfortunate about the first article.

but i do think that schools at all levels aren'e so much making students stupid, as they are training them to work.

it seems schools have become training camps. seminar garrisons. where students are not told to think or analyze, but instead are merely given the words, facts, numbers and training neccessary to do a given job. what students miss is the ability to look down from above, to analyze from afar, to think philisophically about something, rather than merely cogitatively. schools, even colleges, are just mentally training students for the work place. students come out with microscope brains, excellent on tiny, specific little subjects of specific little industries and fields, but absolutely unable to stand back and put it all together.

as well, i think making education into nothing more than job trianing takes away from humans their inate ability to reason morally an emotionally. if all you're getting is job training, it becomes impossible to take a critical stance to what you are learning. it becomes impossible to step back and tell the teacher or professor that what you hear is bullshit. if all you're getting is dry facts and instruction manuals, how can you stand back and think deeply about what it is you're going to be building with these instruction manuals?

i like to think of genetic scientists. they've been given the best training in the world, use the most advanced equipment, but they are totally incaple of criticizing what they do from a moral standpoint. so they create farmed salmon that grow fat quickly, or clone animals that didn't ask to be cloned, or make plants that can stand up to a total flooding of round-up herbicide. they are so well trianed and focused, they seem absolutely oblivious to the implications and outcomes of their actions. they are removed from the moral and emotional questions of their work, and are simply robots in a lab working on a task and getting a fat paycheck. as if "it's someone else's job to figure out all the tough, dirty questions...". nah, sorry dude. it doesn't work like that. i think people who went to the best universities, and who got the best jobs, but are afraid to criticize the world around them are in a sense as stupid as someone who never learned anything. they are well trained pawns in someone else's game...

i'm not saying that specifics aren't important. i'm not saying that getting a good education shouldn't be about learning about a profession or field, all i'm saying is you get kids and young people who are robots, who are trained to the teeth, and who can do their jobs really well, but really have no idea about anything beyond their tightly focused specific careers. i think a broad view and ability to stand back and analyze and criticize makes people appreciate things more and makes them smarter and freer thinkers, less like well trained, heartless robots.

Control by mis-Education 17.Dec.2002 15:58


The first article actually did serve it's purpose which was to get people looking and thinking. I would still hammer on the point that because someone comes from the opposite end of the political spectrum does not mean they have nothing worthwhile to say. Myself I am a rather radical Libertarian and so have some common ground with both Left and Right. Enough to be willing to listen to both sides of the argument and then decide based on the merits of the argument. The other point of the article was to make people aware of Charlotte Iserbyt's book "the deliberate dumbing down of america" - it is extensively documented with source documents - whether you agree with her on anything else is up to you but she has the ammo to make her point.
By the way NAZI is an acronym for National SOCIALIST German Workers Party. Fascism exists at both ends of the political spectrum.
I'm sorry but the training of kids to be drones for the Corporate Fascists is NOT Education it is training. Following article makes the point very well:
How To Control People
By Charley Reese

The difference between true education and vocational training has been cleverly blurred. Here are a few tips on how smart people can control other people. If any of this rings a bell - Well, then wake up!
The first principle of people control is not to let them know you are controlling them. If people knew, this knowledge will breed resentment and possibly rebellion, which would then require brute force and terror, and old fashioned, expensive and not 100 % certain method of control.
It is easier than you think to control people indirectly, to manipulate them into thinking what you want them to think and doing what you want them to do.
One basic technique is to keep them ignorant. Educated people are not as easy to manipulate. Abolishing public education or restricting access to education would be the direct approach. That would spill the beans. The indirect approach is to control the education they receive.
It's possible to be a Ph.D., doctor, lawyer, businessman, journalist, or an accountant, just to name a few examples, and at the same time be an uneducated person. The difference between true education and vocational training has been cleverly blurred in our time so that we have people successfully practicing their vocations while at the same time being totally ignorant of the larger issues of the world in which they live.
The most obvious symptom is their absence of original thought. Ask them a question and they will end up reciting what someone else thinks or thought the answer was. What do they think Well, they never thought about it. Their education consisted of learning how to use the library and cite sources.
That greatly simplifies things for the controller because with lots of money, university endowments, foundations, grants, and ownership of media, it is relatively easy to control who they will think of as authorities to cite in lieu of doing their own thinking.
Another technique is to keep them entertained. Roman emperors did not stage circuses and gladiator contests because they didn't have television. We have television because we don't have circuses and gladiator events. Either way, the purpose is to keep the people's minds focused on entertainment, sports, and peripheral political issues. This way you won't have to worry that they will ever figure out the real issues that allow you to control them.
Just as a truly educated person is difficult to control, so too is an economically independent person. Therefore, you want to create conditions that will produce people who work for wages, since wage earners have little control over their economic destiny. You'll also want to control the monetary, credit, and banking systems. This will allow you to inflate the currency and make it next to impossible for wage earners to accumulate capital. You can also cause periodic deflation to collapse the family businesses, family farms, and entrepreneurs, including independent community banks.
To keep trade unions under control, you just promote a scheme that allows you to shift production jobs out of the country and bring back the products as imports (it is called free trade). This way you will end up with no unions or docile unions.
Another technique is to buy both political parties so that after a while people will feel that no matter whether they vote for Candidate A or Candidate B, they will get the same policies. This will create great apathy and a belief that the political process is useless for effecting real change.
Pretty soon you will have a population that feels completely helpless, and thinks the bad things happening to them are nobody in particular's fault, just a result of global forces or evolution or some other disembodied abstract concept. If necessary, you can offer scapegoats.
Then you can bleed them dry without having to worry overly much that one of them will sneak into your house one night and cut your throat. If you do it right, they won't even know whose throat they are cutting.
Charley Reese E-mail:  OSOreese@aol.com

Conservatives Post to Indymedia 18.Dec.2002 01:52

media analyst

Do your homework, IMC readers. Media analysis. Ask, who is Charley Reese? Who pays his way? Is he an anarchist? No. Is he a leftist? No. Is he a liberal? No.

Charley Reese is featured and profiled in the 'Conservative Chronicle.' An organization that claims to be 'The One Source.' As well as promoting 'Challenging Opinions from the Nation's Top Conservative Commentators.'

To delicately explain their origins, the publishers of the Conservative Chronicle decry the leftwing bias of corporate media, 'In response, Hampton Publishing Co. started Conservative Chronicle, focused on viewpoints to the right of center.'

Who do they promote? The Conservative Chronicle brags about their stable of rightwing flack-masters:

'Our columnists range from Tony Snow to Phyllis Schlafly, William F. Buckley to Walter Williams, Ann Coulter to Don Feder, Linda Bowles to Samuel Francis, and R. Emmet Tyrell to Cal Thomas.'

It pays to do some analysis of the media. Just because someone is complaining, it doesn't follow that they are necessarily on your side.

I must have hit a nerve with the Trolls 18.Dec.2002 12:56


A. I did not pick up the Charley Reese column from the Website you mentioned - I have never even been to it. I originally ran into it at, I believe, Rense.com which is not particularly sympathetic to the Control Freaks running our political system.

B. I have seen Charley Reese's columns picked up at Web Sites that span the political spectrum. If anything he is a Libertarian leaning moderate. He's hard to categorize because I have seen some columns sympathetic to the left and some to the the Libertarian Right. As always you should analyze the arguments for yourself and decide them on their merits not on the spin some disinfo agent tries to put on them.

Decide for yourself folks - do your homework and make up your own mind. Don't let the Trolls discourage you from "Looking behind the curtain". I do not demand that anyone agree with me. My only request is that you think for yourself.

Also note once again that the attack above was made on the person writing the column - not the substance of what was said. Disinformation Specialist At Work.