US public education: Bullshit to train stupefied work animals. ‘US History’ as easily-proved lies of omission and commission to hide the .01% rogue state empire, and cheer for stupefied American myth (2 of 12)

“One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit. Everyone knows this… But we tend to take the situation for granted… (the bullshitter) does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up… (Bullshitters) continue making assertions that purport to describe the way things are but that cannot be anything except bullshit.”  ~ Princeton professor emeritus, Harry Frankfurt, 2005 Bestseller, On Bullshit

“[The] erroneous assumption is to the effect that the aim of public education is to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence, and so make them fit to discharge the duties of citizenship in an enlightened and independent manner. Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all; it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardised citizenry, to put down dissent and originality.” ~ H.L. Mencken, 1924

Think Nice’s brilliant 5-minute artistic frame for Professor Frankfurt (although there’s likely more to climate change than he mentions [and here, here]):

Stephen Colbert’s 2005 two minutes on truthiness as bullshit’s brother (embedding forbidden by Comedy Central).

This 12-part series addresses an overarching fact about public education: its design of intentional curricular lies of omission and commission to keep our children and the general public powerless, relatively stupid, and controlled work animals.

Importantly, I do not blame education professionals working in good-faith effort to produce high-quality learning from our children; public education exists in a matrix of control for ongoing empires that I’ll explain in detail within the series’ sections. That said, anyone truly educated in one’s field gradually discovers that public education is a ridiculous substitute for what’s most important to teach and learn. This is Emperor’s New Clothes obvious when pointed to, with this paper’s content including factual assertions that no counterarguments exist outside of shallow and misleading bullshit.

The 12 sections (links to be added as the series progress):

US public education: Bullshit to train stupefied work animals:

**

“The only thing new in the world is the history you don’t know.”  ~ President Harry Truman, Plain Speaking: An Oral Biography of Harry S. Truman (1974) by Merle Miller, pg. 26.

2-minute video: US imperialism 1800 – 1900:

US “History” class textbooks are ridiculous and obvious propaganda in support of ongoing US rogue state empire.

For those of us who study history, this is easy for us to point to, defend, and destroy counterarguments that these texts are other than unacademic lies of omission and commission meant to bullshit children into “believing” their political and corporate leaders.

I understand that for those unfamiliar with at least one game-changing example of tragic-comic lies presented in typical public school history texts, my claim might appear unrealistic; as unrealistic of a boy pointing to a naked emperor at a parade with claims of exactly opposite of what “officials” and media were saying.

As in our Emperor’s New Clothes example, the objective evidence damns all attempts of counterargument as ridiculous bullshit. See for yourself, then I’ll ask you:

  • What does it mean that claimed “expert” historians present such lies of the comprehensive facts? 
  • Because these lies are in such Orwellian contradiction to any reasonable factual account, do these examples document our children are learning bullshit history? 
  • Because history is our best tool to understand the present, is the purpose of bullshit history to stupefy our children to similar acts of empire happening in our world of the present?

This one article will draw upon my eleven-part series, US illegal: History of rogue empire REQUIRING arrests in the present, and use excerpts from just three of the easiest examples to prove about history you’ll recognize.

Example 1: 

Stealing half of Mexico in 1848 despite Congressman Abraham Lincoln’s proof of President Polk’s OBVIOUS lying treaty violation

Prentice Hall’s 2008 United States History: Modern America (California edition) has four authors, eleven consultants, and a collection of 43 reviewers. On page 41, they represent this history as follows (my bold words to emphasize choice of language):

Conflict Erupts With Mexico: Westward expansion brought the United States into conflict with Mexico… The United States annexed Texas as a state in 1845. The following year, a dispute over the boundary between Texas and Mexico led to the outbreak of war. Some northerners opposed the Mexican-American War, viewing it as an attempt to extend slavery. Still, the United States won a quick victory. In 1848, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo set the Rio Grande as the southern boundary of Texas. Mexico also agreed to cede an immense expanse of land to the Untied States, including California and parts of other southwest states.

What changes this passage of “history” in game-changing way is inclusion of the fact that the US and Mexico had a treaty that forever promised to Mexico all land taken by the US in this “conflict” that “erupted” in an “outbreak” of war about a “dispute over the boundary” when in fact that “dispute” was entirely and completely settled by treaty guaranteed by Article 6 of the US Constitution as US “supreme law,” that the US reneged in forcing Mexico by armed invasion to “agree to cede.” What’s missing from this particular text is the unexamined claim by US President Polk that “American blood was shed on American soil.”

Please also notice the authors use a passive voice to bullshit about this history, such as stating “expansion brought” the US into “conflict” rather than US President Polk along with Congress violated a crystal-clear treaty with Mexico to steal land and resources. Please also note the authors write two misleading paragraphs buried in a text of 800 pages to obscure that the US invaded Mexico and stole almost half her nation.

Let’s look at correcting the text’s lies of omission and commission:

The US taking Texas as a state in 1845 was in direct violation of the Adams-Onís Treaty that guaranteed all the land that is now the Southwest US to forever belong to Mexico (signed in 1819 with Spain, and formally transferred to Mexico in 1831). The border was the Sabine River, between modern-day Texas and Louisiana.

Lincoln attempted to force President Polk to report to Congress and answer several pointed and brilliantly-worded questions from Lincoln that would prove Polk’s claimed “border dispute” was really ~400 miles into agreed-upon land of Mexico. I invite you to read Lincoln’s “Spot Resolutions” for yourself as an example of why Lincoln is considered to be one of the most brilliant writers in all American history.

Consider these maps that prove Lincoln’s points that President Polk violated the Adams-Onís Treaty to lie of a massive land theft of Texas, then lying that Mexico invaded the US when it was the US invading Mexico, and waging a War of Aggression to steal more prime land from Mexico. This initial battle upon which Polk made his claim was at the current border between Texas and Mexico:

Despite Lincoln having all the facts on his side, because the president, majority of Congress, and majority of the press wanted this war as an expression of the racist “Manifest Destiny,” Lincoln didn’t have the votes to pass the Spot Resolutions. In fact, Lincoln was called “unpatriotic” and “Spotty” in derision by both parties’ “leadership” and the press.

Lincoln became so unpopular from these intentional lies and propaganda that he had no chance for re-election.

A treaty is the “Supreme law of the land” in Article Six of the US Constitution. In this case, when a US president and Congress had the votes to violate a treaty and the Constitution in order to take land and resources, they lied, went to war, and took the land and resources.

The war killed over 50,000 Mexicans and over 5,000 Americans. Please consider the purpose of the text’s choice of language is to remove clear historical precedent for US “leadership” to choose lies, dictatorship, and War of Aggression rather than truth, limited government under the law, and peace.

If your text explained that a US President was the war-mongering liar that Lincoln exposed in the Spot Resolutions, and that Congress voted in criminal complicity to shred a US treaty, lie to the American public about who invaded whom, and be guilty of war-murdering tens of thousands of human beings, would you look at current US wars from the benefit of that accurate history?

Then, as today, the majority of Americans believed their “leaders” in ignorance of the facts, and without media’s coverage of clear voices like Abraham Lincoln’s to explain the facts.

The result of the war was the US taking almost half of Mexico’s land. Although historians note that freshman member of Congress Abraham Lincoln was/is correct that the president lied and violated a treaty with criminal complicity of Congress, both parties’ and media propaganda allowed the war to move forward without criminal prosecution. The House of Representatives had enough votes to censure the president for, “a war unnecessarily and unconstitutionally begun by the President of the United States,” but not to impeach.

Please consider this history is not so long ago as you might imagine. Consider this: When I was about 10 years old, my grandfather said, “Shake my hand.” I did. Papa then told me, “You are two handshakes away from shaking Abe Lincoln’s hand. When I was your age, an old-timer would sit at a bench at July 4th celebrations. Everyone would shake his hand because he shook Abe’s hand when he was campaigning for president in 1860.” If you were to shake hands with me, that puts you three handshakes away from shaking hands with Abraham Lincoln.

Please don’t believe any expert or me if this war on Mexico violated a treaty and therefore the US Constitution; use your critical thinking skills. This is as easy as a baseball rule analogy that when a person knows the rule when a runner is safe or out at first base, there’s no need to ask anyone. If you know that:

  • a treaty is defined in Article Six of the US Constitution as the “Supreme Law of the Land,”
  • the US had the Adams-Onís Treaty with Mexico (originally with Spain and formally transferred to Mexico in 1831; map here) in crystal-clear language regarding the areas of the now Southwest US (including Texas with all the “border dispute” lands because the Sabine River between Louisiana and today’s Texas was the agreed border):  “The two high contracting parties agree to cede and renounce all their rights, claims, and pretensions to the territories described by the said line, that is to say: The United States hereby cede to His Catholic Majesty, and renounce forever, all their rights, claims, and pretensions, to the territories lying west and south of the above-described line; and, in like manner, His Catholic Majesty cedes to the said United States all his rights, claims, and pretensions to any territories east and north of the said line, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, renounces all claim to the said territories forever.”
  • Therefore, the US Supreme Law was to forever recognize Texas and the now Southwest as Mexico’s land.

In baseball, you can (and do) say, “I know where first base is. I know when a runner is clearly safe or out at first base.” In this “current event” of life and death from our past, you can and should say, “I know what a treaty means. I know what a border means. I know when the US is 400 miles over the border that was defined in a treaty that they’re obviously into Mexico and not on American soil.”

Perhaps this famous quote makes better sense now:

“Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” ~ George Santayana, The Life of Reason, Vol. 1.

Imagine also the power of those countering US presidential candidate Trump’s statements that “Mexico isn’t sending us her best” with the above history.

Example 2:

American families lied into WW1 under zero national security risk to expand Empires

This same history text framing imperialism on page 138 (my same bold emphasis for bullshit misleading passive voice word choices):

“For most of its early history, America played a small role in world affairs. But in the late 1800s, this began to change. With leading spokesmen calling for the United States to join the ranks of the world’s major powers, the United States began to acquire influence and territories outside its continental borders. The United States was abandoning isolationism and emerging as a new power on the global stage.”

Regarding World War 1, pages 176 and 177 has the section title, “Neutrality Gives Way to War,” with claims that US President Wilson:

  • “… sincerely desired peace in his country and around the world.”
  • “Wilson attempted… to end the conflict among the warring countries.”
  • “… still wanted peace.”
  • “President Wilson wanted to remain at peace, but even he must have realized the futility of that hope.”

This apparent mind-reading of President Wilson are extraordinary claims of what should be objective evidence, and usual to portray American leadership as peace-loving people of honor.

Let’s consider the text’s stated reasons for the US declaring war on Germany. On page 179:

“America Enters the War: …In early 1917, two events occurred that helped to push the United States into the war. American trade with the Allies had sustained Britain and France in the war, while the British blockade of Germany had stopped the flow of American goods to the Central Powers. As far as Germany was concerned, desperate times demanded desperate measures.

In January 1917, suffering severe supply shortages due to the blockade, Germany took action. First, German Foreign Minister Arthur Zimmermann sent a telegram to Mexico. The Zimmermann note proposed an alliance with Mexico, stating that if the United States declared war on Germany, Mexico should declare war on the United States. In return, after a German victory, Mexico would get back the states of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona, which it had lost in 1848 after its defeat in the Mexican-American War. The telegram was intercepted by the British, who gave it to American authorities. Next, Germany once again announced unrestricted submarine warfare against Britain.

Although most leaders knew Mexico had no intention of attacking the United States, Americans were shocked by the publication of the Zimmermann note. Even Wilson no longer called for peace. On April 2, 1917, he asked Congress for a declaration of war against Germany:

‘The world must be made safe for democracy. Its peace must be planted upon the tested foundations of political liberty…. We are but one of the champions of the rights of mankind. We shall be satisfied when those rights have been made as secure as the faith and the freedom of nations can make them.’  – Woodrow Wilson, April 2, 1917

Congress responded on April 6, 1917, with a declaration of war. Wilson’s long struggle to keep America at peace was over.

Standards Check: What German actions led the United States to enter World War 1?”

This extraordinary bullshit is easily refuted with just a little critical thinking. Please note the text’s repeated claims that Wilson “wanted” peace, yet was the one who asked Congress to declare war on Germany. Please note the passive voice that somehow “Americans were shocked” by the Zimmermann telegram, but not who and how Americans were bullshitted by its content through American officials and media as a “reason” to invade Europe to attack Germans.

Let’s contrast the text’s version with the obvious and important facts:

At the start of this war, the British were intercepting telegram communications, including spying on the US government. Among their interceptions was a message from German Foreign Secretary Zimmermann to Germany’s Mexican ambassador, advising that Germany would resume submarine attack of all trading ships approaching Great Britain, their enemy in war, beginning in February 1917. Germany would attempt to keep the US “neutral” in the war with the argument that American shipping companies were not trading with Germany because the British Navy prevented them, and that in wartime American shipping companies also must not trade with Britain. If that failed and the US declared war against Germany, Germany’s ambassador was to ask Mexico to join Germany in the war by attacking the US. Germany would promise money and regained territory they lost in 1848. The Mexican government quickly evaluated that an armed invasion by Mexico of the US was a completely unrealistic military goal that would end in certain defeat, and that Germany’s offer was a ruse for American military to occupy itself by killing Mexicans rather than fighting Germany.

Mexico declined Germany’s offer.

After British government revealed the message to the American government (but not the fact they also spied on all American communications), the US government used this as a reason for war and declared it against Germany and her allies on April 6, 1917.

Let’s apply critical thinking to the facts of the German offer and the American response for war.

Please recall the revealing lack of such thinking in the history you read on this topic.

The Zimmermann telegram’s offer was only active if the US declared war on Germany first, and Mexico rejected the offer. The German submarines were not attacking US territory, only private ships that chose to do business with Britain in a declared war zone, one that was already enforced by the British to prevent trade with Germany. If merchants from any nation wanted to avoid the risk of being attacked by a German submarine, that was as easy as staying away from Great Britain.

Therefore, there was no national security threat from Germany to the US. The actual threat, if any, was from British spying on secret US communications. There is also compelling analysis that the story we have about the Zimmermann telegram covers-up actions by British and American actors working for the goal of American entry on the British side for WW1.

US political leadership didn’t present those facts, but instead promised a “war to end all wars,” and “a war to make the world safe for democracy.” The US declared war and a national draft.

This war is closer to you than you may see. I don’t know your family, but I know mine: both of my grandfathers were lied-into engaging in this war on the American side. My mother’s father was an engineer working on trains’ pneumatic braking systems in Paris. He spoke fondly of rich food and French women to my two brothers and me; he also said he heard the darkest stories from those in the trenches. My father’s father died when I was very young, but my dad told us he believed his father fought in the trenches. Whenever the topic came up, my dad said his father would reply in the most serious and steely emotion: “I don’t tell war stories.” Perhaps the heart attack that ended his life is connected to whatever affected his heart during World War 1.

This war, therefore, is personal to my family, and almost all American families, including yours.

What connection to your family is WW1?

Example 3:

Martin King assassinated by US government to stop his million person ‘Occupy DC’ movement to end war on Vietnam, end poverty

On page 550:

“Two Leaders Fall: In the spring and summer of the campaign season, bullets struck down two Americans who spoke out eloquently for peace in Vietnam and peaceful change in American society. Martin Luther King, Jr., the most prominent leader of the civil rights movement, had publicly turned against the war in 1967. He contributed compelling social and moral reasons to the argument for peace. But his voice was tragically silenced on April 4, 1968, when a racist assassin shot and killed him in Memphis, Tennessee.”

The text continues to “explain” how Robert Kennedy was assassinated by another “lone gunman.” I’ll keep this article to just three examples, and that said, if you’re interested, please feel free to explore the evidence that President Kennedy was assassinated by the US government.

Regarding Martin King, let’s prove the text’s bullshit (this case in greater detail here):

Dr. Martin Luther King’s family and personal friend/attorney, William F. Pepper, won a civil trial that found US government agencies guilty of Martin’s assassination/wrongful death. The 1999 trial, King Family versus Jowers and Other Unknown Co-Conspirators, is the only trial ever conducted on the assassination of Dr. King. The King Center fully documents the case, with full trial transcript (to more fully explain the following summary of trial evidence, here is the best article I’ve found).

Importantly, the following evidence demands arrests in our world of the present of those .01% liars in government and corporate media who act as ongoing criminal accomplices after the fact to protect those who assassinated Martin.

The overwhelming evidence of US government complicity found valid by the jury includes:

  • US 111th Military Intelligence Group were at Dr. King’s location during the assassination.
  • 20th Special Forces Group had an 8-man sniper team at the assassination location on that day.
  • Usual Memphis Police special body guards were advised they “weren’t needed” on the day of the assassination.
  • Regular and constant police protection for Dr. King was removed from protecting Dr. King an hour before the assassination.
  • Military Intelligence set-up photographers on the roof of a fire station with clear view to Dr. King’s balcony.
  • Dr. King’s room was changed from a secure 1st-floor room to an exposed balcony room.
  • Memphis police ordered the scene where multiple witnesses reported as the source of shooting cut down of their bushes that would have hid a sniper.
  • Along with sanitizing a crime scene, police abandoned investigative procedure to interview witnesses who lived by the scene of the shooting.
  • The rifle Mr. Ray delivered was not matched to the bullet that killed Dr. King, and was not sighted to accurately shoot.

Also, the FBI acted to cause Dr. King’s death by suicide. The FBI illegally spied on Dr. King, used data in attempt to split leadership, and sent Dr. King a letter promising to expose alleged sexual misconduct. This was part of the FBI’s illegal COINTELPRO program.

Please read the above evidence twice to be clear on its overwhelming power.

The King family’s attempts for a criminal trial were always denied by state and federal government. Claimed suspect, James Ray, said that his government-appointed attorney told him to sign a guilty plea to prevent the death penalty and threatened arrests of his father and brother as co-conspirators for his only part in the assassination plot: delivering a rifle. Mr. Ray produced a letter from his attorney stating the promise that Mr. Ray would receive a trial. When Mr. Ray discovered that he was solely blamed for Dr. King’s assassination and would never receive a trial, Mr. Ray’s subsequent recants of his guilty plea and requests for trial were denied.

The US government also denied the King family’s requests for independent investigation of the assassination, despite the overwhelming evidence produced at the 1999 civil trial. Dr. King’s wife, Coretta, spent more than twice the number of years she was married to Martin working to get a criminal trial for her husband’s assassination.

Importantly, the US government has never presented any evidence subject to challenge that substantiates their claim that Mr. Ray assassinated Dr. King.

The King family believes the government’s motivation to murder Dr. King was to prevent his imminent camp-in/Occupy at Washington, D.C. until the Vietnam War was ended and those resources directed to end poverty and invest in US hard and soft infrastructure. My analysis of why the US government has a policy of international and domestic poverty is for perceived scarcity (“scare-city” as Bucky Fuller poetically framed) to keep the public afraid, stupid, and “thankful” to at least have a job and not be homeless.

US corporate media did not cover the civil trial, interview the King family, and textbooks omit this information. This is crucial evidence of a controlled corporate media rejecting coverage of a game-changing story. Journalist and author, James Douglass:

“I can hardly believe the fact that, apart from the courtroom participants, only Memphis TV reporter Wendell Stacy and I attended from beginning to end this historic three-and-one-half week trial. Because of journalistic neglect scarcely anyone else in this land of ours even knows what went on in it. After critical testimony was given in the trial’s second week before an almost empty gallery, Barbara Reis, U.S. correspondent for the Lisbon daily Publico who was there several days, turned to me and said, ‘Everything in the U.S. is the trial of the century. O.J. Simpson’s trial was the trial of the century. Clinton’s trial was the trial of the century. But this is the trial of the century, and who’s here?’ ”

For comparison, please consider the media coverage of O.J. Simpson’s trials:

“Media coverage of the Simpson trial, which began in January 1995, was unlike any other. Over two thousand reporters covered the trial, and 80 miles of cable was required to allow nineteen television stations to cover the trial live to 91 percent of the American viewing audience. When the verdict was finally read on October 3, 1995, some 142 million people listened or watched. It seemed the nation stood still, divided along racial lines as to the defendant’s guilt or innocence. During and after the trial, over eighty books were published about the event by most everyone involved in the Simpson case.”

Coretta Scott King was certain of the evidence after 30 years of consideration from the 1968 assassination to the 1999 trial:

“For a quarter of a century, Bill Pepper conducted an independent investigation of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. He opened his files to our family, encouraged us to speak with the witnesses, and represented our family in the civil trial against the conspirators. The jury affirmed his findings, providing our family with a long-sought sense of closure and peace, which had been denied by official disinformation and cover-ups. Now the findings of his exhaustive investigation and additional revelations from the trial are presented in the pages of this important book. We recommend it highly to everyone who seeks the truth about Dr. King’s assassination.” — Coretta Scott King.

If we were discussing how the population of some other nation could employ critical thinking skills to understand current events from anytime in history, we would certainly understand the importance to anticipate disinformation from government, danger of controlled media and education, and assassination as a political weapon.

Failure to do so would appropriately elicit the label attributed to the first dictator of the Soviet Union, Vladimir Lenin. Such people who believe what their government and education tell them when the history and present have overwhelming objective evidence to explain, document, and prove that the government is typical of so many other historical self-serving oligarchies are:

“Useful idiots.”

To the extent the United States today is any different from all other nations and all other times is up to your exercise of critical thinking skills.

“The time is always right to do what is right.”   ~ Martin King, 1964

Dr. King’s 2-minute message to you:

As promised, I ask you:

  • What does it mean that claimed “expert” historians present such lies of the comprehensive facts? 
  • Because these lies are in such Orwellian contradiction to any reasonable factual account, do these examples document our children are learning bullshit history? 
  • Because history is our best tool to understand the present, is the purpose of bullshit history to stupefy our children to similar acts of empire happening in our world of the present?

If it helps, after 32 years as an education professional the best way I’ve found to describe our reality really is the Emperor’s New Clothes analogy as our tragic-comic condition of ongoing empire, with strong historical connection to the worst of the Roman Empire. History texts, like corporate media, are constantly bullshitting the public to maintain parasitic dominance. The easiest cases to explain and prove are illegal and lie-started wars, economic looting, and lying through media/education.

Hundreds of us in alternative media work as I do: professionally documenting our Orwellian condition in perhaps 100 game-changing areas.

Again, it’s easy to see when pointed to, and impossible to defend when the facts are comprehensively placed for objective consideration. The only defense possible is exactly what Americans receive from “officials,” corporate media, and public education: misleading bullshit exactly as Professor Frankfurt describes to use lies of omission and commission mixed with whatever facts can best combine to maintain an acceptable image to retain control.

And if it helps, the only route of freedom I see possible is public demand for arrests of the obvious “leaders” directing these massive crimes centering in war, money, and lies. But more on that later.

**

Note: I make all factual assertions as a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History, with all economics factual claims receiving zero refutation since I began writing in 2008 among Advanced Placement Macroeconomics teachers on our discussion board, public audiences of these articles, and international conferences. I invite readers to empower their civic voices with the strongest comprehensive facts most important to building a brighter future. I challenge professionals, academics, and citizens to add their voices for the benefit of all Earth’s inhabitants.

**

Carl Herman is a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History; also credentialed in Mathematics. He worked with both US political parties over 18 years and two UN Summits with the citizen’s lobby, RESULTS, for US domestic and foreign policy to end poverty. He can be reached at Carl_Herman@post.harvard.edu

Note: Examiner.com has blocked public access to my articles on their site (and from other whistleblowers), so some links in my previous work are blocked. If you’d like to search for those articles other sites may have republished, use words from the article title within the blocked link. Or, go to http://archive.org/web/, paste the expired link into the box, click “Browse history,” then click onto the screenshots of that page for each time it was screen-shot and uploaded to webarchive. I’ll update as “hobby time” allows; including my earliest work from 2009 to 2011 (blocked author pages: herehere).

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.
  • tom

    It was exhilarating to see and hear Professor Frankfurt (I read his book long ago, and consider it one of the most important I have ever read). Your comment about how he seems to have succumbed to some bullshit about climate change is also spot on. Poor Professor Frankfurt is probably old enough to have grown up in a time when most scientists could be trusted most of the time. Today, unfortunately, people have cottoned to the rich possibilities of bullshitting about science. (See, for example, Professor John Ioannidis’ paper showing that most scientific findings are false – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/).

  • by all means, specify what “BS” he’s succumbed to on AGW.

    That suggests that perhaps you’ve fallen for some of your own.

    • Carl_Herman

      stupidicus: by all means, no. Stick to the explained and documented evidence in abundance with this article.

      Do your own thinking about what it means that there’s been no global warming for the past ~11 years now (among abundant documentation: http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783 ). I merely point-out that I don’t agree with that one point of Professor Frankfurt, and request you stay on topic.

      • in other words you’re just a common AGW denier suffering from the same self-victimization cycle as the rest http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/06/boomerangs-versus-javelins-the-impact-of-polarization-on-climate-change-communication/ that you can’t break out of, and posting a ridiculously dated (like nothing’s changed in 8 years?) https://www.google.com/search?q=global+cooling+debunked&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 and wholly debunked article in defense of that is no defense at all. Gee what’s next, if there was a “97% consensus” (another “fact” deniers deny) with climate scientists on the matter, that you’re just smarter than they are Mr Renaissance Man?

        Your “no warming/global cooling” claim is ludicrous and an embarrassment https://www.google.com/search?q=%22no+warming%22+debunked&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=no+warming+since+1998+debunked and if you don’t want your claims challenged, regardless of the tangential nature of them to the “topic”, I’d suggest you don’t post them.

        It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that your claim here makes you as guilty of what the good prof was charging as those you’re trying to beat over the head with his work. You’re operating off the same lies by commission and omission from the fossil fuel industry’s lie masters, making the dynamics the same despite the different lie sources — which puts me exactly “on topic” with your ridiculous comment/claim as the target.

        • Carl_Herman

          in other words, your distraction from the topic of this article, how public education presents US history, is what you want the focus on.

          You’ve had your say. If you want further discussion on YOUR topic, stupidicus, go elsewhere. I will not discuss it with you.

          • thanks for conceding the validity of my observations and accompanying remarks. Of course you don’t wanna discuss why it is you’re conducting yourself in the manner the author of that piece critiaued, and you sure as hell don’t wanna get into the science of AGW that youi’re obviously grossly ignorant of.

        • diogenes

          “AGW denier”! Why don’t you be more traditional and say “WITCH!” or “HEATHEN!” or “COMMIE!” There is plenty of legitimate debate on what is no longer refered to, by the mainstream’s mouthpieces, as “warming,” but “change.” It is in the nature of global climate to change; the issue is the influence of “anthropogenic” factors and there is still plenty of informed discussion on both sides of this question. It’s the organs of Official Opinion that have foregrounded one side and driven it for patently political ends. There is also no question that the petro-economy is a toxic and economic disaster, for many many reasons that have nothing to do with the truth or falsity of “anthropogenic” global climate change. Your name-calling does nothing to advance this discussion. On the contrary. And it does, as Carl Hermon points out below, serve to distract discussion from the point under discussion, and leads this reader, also, to the conclusion that this is what you have in mind. So does the unquestioning reverence for official authority that permeates your comment. Anyone who has been subjected to American public education and who has managed nonetheless to become seriously informed, and who can think, knows that Carl Herman’s critique is 100% on the money and, if anything, understated. So do the millions of American families who have chosen to homeschool their kids.

          • meanlingless garbage referencing the always idiotic denier talking point about how the scientists changed it from “warming to change” when that was done b y the Bush admin at the behest of the language master and idiot Frank Luntz. And the “climate has changed before” bs is no argument, but rather a non-sequitor/logical fallacy that only deniers can’t quit spewing. http://theconversation.com/its-been-hot-before-faulty-logic-skews-the-climate-debate-23349
            now run along eh denier?

  • Brockland A.T.

    There’s a lot going for anthropogenic climate change. Opening up the Arctic Ocean for exploitation and intrusions into people’s lives in trying to ‘stop’ climate change while actually promoting it makes a lot of sense from a certain point of view.

    How much control humans have over the environment can be debated; whether industry may is just goosing a natural warming trend or bucking against a cooling trend. However, the only certainty is the BS politics and industry of climate change versus liberty and responsibility.

  • Jul 29, 2013 The Origins of the American Public Education System Horace Mann & the Prussian Model of Obedience

    In the 1830’s, American Lawmaker Horace Mann visited Prussia and researched its education methodology. He was infatuated with the emperor’s method of eliminating free thought from his subjects and designed an education system for Massachusetts directly based on these concepts. The movement then quickly spread nationally.

    https://youtu.be/HZp7eVJNJuw

  • Mar 10, 2014 Department of Education whistleblower Charlette Iserbyt about the deliberate dumbing down of America.

    The former US Department of Education Senior Policy Advisor suggests that the our educational system is not based upon children learning. Is the Carnegie foundation instrumental in developing a socialist-collectivist style educational system that is detrimental to our youth?

    https://youtu.be/yWHhLfc0VLg

    This single chart demonstrates the truthfullness of Charlette Iserbyt as measured by student test scores.

    https://rokita.house.gov/sites/rokita.house.gov/files/images/Fed-Spend-Ach-Pct-Chg-Cato-Andrew-Coulson.jpg

  • Abraham Lincoln: What They Wont Teach You in School

    Was Lincoln a slave-defending patriot or a blood-thirsty tyrant? This video tells you what public school text books won’t.

    https://youtu.be/FyNS1PMHPqo

    • That is hardly surprising. It was a commonly held opinion at that time. Judging people by opinions that are prevalent today is also a poor practise. For example, you can’t blame Newton for not believing in Darwin’s theory.