"To intentionally be taught just enough in order to be a menace to the rest of us."
So I think in some form that is what Republicans are trying to address?
But I also see Republicans perhaps facilitating the following;
"To decrease the effectiveness of an education system just enough so that the status quo or wealthy can never be challenged."
Now I would say that the Republicans profess the benefit of trickle down economics. And that is highly consistent with number two above. So in effect one above applies to the Republicans? They were taught just enough in order to be a menace to the rest of us?
******'
And so the Republicans want to ban books? Perhaps they ask, "What did that person read that made them believe what they do?" And if I can delete or burn what they read I can fix that problem from occurring in the future?
But does it really matter? I would likely read the same things that someone else does and come to an entirely different conclusion from them. But perhaps I know something you don't? I know immediately when I am reading something that is contrived in what amounts to propaganda? It has to do with having a free thinking brain wave? Whereby synthesis is the apex of analysis. In synthesis you have built a system of premises, perhaps with regard to everything. And hence you know when someone doesn't think or speak based on premises? It is like this, I know that you are wrong. But how long would it take me to explain why you are wrong; to you?
And when you burn books that is who you are attempting to shelter or protect? Those who aren't ever going to know why they are wrong in the first place?
So perhaps there is more to reading than reading. There is comprehension. But there is something else to. How readily do you believe what you read? Does what you are reading seem consistent with other sound ideas that you have learned?
And perhaps there are people who seek out books in order to support a belief about themselves that they cannot defend? And perhaps there are people who write books trying to support beliefs of people who need to believe things about themselves that they can't defend. And they write those books or stories knowing all well it is an errant belief. So in effect they are leading the individual astray. But then again, your job as a reader is to tell what is missing there? What is contrived there? What isn't true? What is just emotionalism? And perhaps people read for the emotionalism of certain things? Not that it helps them cope with their emotions. But that it validates that other people have the same emotions, whether or not those emotions are really valid and true to have?
What am I getting with that? A total baby is going to believe what they want to believe.
And Republicans always want to be proponents of "market?" They market will decide the price of this. The market will determine the worth of the individual?
But not perhaps in the case of books? To burn books is not going along with the market, on the issue?
So is the problem the books? Or is the problem really the people who have preconceived mal notions they look to support but cannot defend?
I really just sit at the computer and type as I think. Ah. Stream of conscience is the phrase I was looking for.
Aha. So you listen to someone speak. And you ask yourself do they have a valid stream of conscious? Or are they more like pre Alzheimer's and prone to be angry with things they don't understand and don't want any to explain to them or be able to explain to them. Ooh.
"I don't want anyone to be able to explain things to me that I don't understand?" That is one level worse than close mindedness isn't it.
To put ideas out of your head because they require thinking. To put ideas out of your head because you know they are not consistent with your belief system. To not be able to integrate new ideas into your belief system. It is indicative not only of mental retardation but also emotionally disturbed because of it.
*****'
And you ask yourself, what is really motivating Putin to wave the nukes at us? What does he belief is so much better about himself that he seeks to destroy us? What was he raised by one mother? What about his life does he find so superior to human freedom? What can't he believe?
© 2025 Thomas Paul Murphy
And something about Trumps shifting opinion about Putin doesn't seem sincere?
And so you ask yourself, what would a new world order with one government be like?
A lot of books burnt.
"But nobody will be able to learn anything to support industry without books?"
"Thats okay, all you have to do is shovel the princes horse shit."
******'
So indeed if you look at how many people who are highly successful today while earlier in life they participated in the sex industry? Quite a few.
A lot of off topic stuff. So be it.
******"
Isn't trickle-down economics similar to Communism? The hand that feeds decides who is fed and how much. The hand that feeds decides who advances and who doesn't." The Romans were initially farmers? Before they created their horrific empire?
"Hey Vlamimyr, lets say you and ust over here was to become one someday. What books we got over here you's over there don't likes?
.png)
