Saturday, March 27, 2021

Notable and Wonderful Noah Webster

Frederick R Smith has moved to Frederick R. Smith Speaks (substack.com)

Noah Webster (1758-1843) was born in Hartford, Connecticut, and grew up in an average colonial family. His father was a farmer, a justice of the peace, and a deacon of a Congregational church. Noah’s sisters Mercy (1749 – 1820) and Jerusha (1756 – 1831) worked with their mother to keep house and to make food and clothing for the family. His two brothers, Charles (1762 – 1817) and Abraham (1751 – 1831) helped their father with the farm work.

During the colonial period, few people went to college, but Noah loved to learn, and his parents let him go to Connecticut’s only college, Yale. To make this happen, his father mortgaged the farm, and in 1774, at 16 years of age, Noah left home for Yale. Noah graduated in 1778 at the height of the Revolutionary War and he wanted to study law, but his parents were unable to provide him with any more money. So, to earn a living, Noah taught school in Glastonbury, Hartford, and West Hartford. Later he studied law under several lawyers. In 1781, the bar in Hartford admitted Webster.

Noah did not like the conditions in American schools because many children of all ages were crammed into one-room schoolhouses with no desks, poor books, and untrained teachers. Schoolbooks came from England and Noah believed that Americans should learn from American books. As such, in 1783 Noah wrote his textbook: “A Grammatical Institute of the English Language” which was called by most people the “Blue-backed Speller” because of its blue cover. For 100 years, this book taught children how to read, spell, and pronounce words. Ben Franklin used it to teach his granddaughter to read.

In 1784, Webster also wrote a grammar book and in 1785 a reader book. The speller, grammar, and reader were published beginning in 1785 as a three-volume set. Around 1836, William Holmes McGuffey published the McGuffey Readers to include a grammar book and a reader book. McGuffey intended to use Webster’s “Blue Back” as a supplement along with the McGuffey Readers.

Beginning in 1785, Webster began delivering a series of public lectures that promoted a more uniform language and education. One little-known and overlooked but important fact is the significant role that Webster played in the development of the American Constitution. In 1785, he wrote a pamphlet called “Sketches of American Policy.” Read by educated Americans, most of the principles in that pamphlet were incorporated into the Constitution as well as into the essays in the Federalist Papers. While the principles themselves were not Webster’s, he was the first to publish them in the form of specific proposals for a new Constitution.

In 1786, Noah met Benjamin Franklin in Philadelphia where they discussed their favorite subject — simplified spelling. It was during this time that Noah coined the terms “fœderal” and “anti-fœderal” to describe the sides for and against a strong national government.

In 1787, he briefly lived in New York to edit the American Magazine, but this venture failed. After the Constitutional Convention in 1787, he anonymously wrote an “Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution,” an easy-to-read pamphlet that was influential among the citizens. He also wrote a number of articles promoting the new Constitution under the pseudonyms “America,” Giles Hickory,” and “A Citizen of America.” He moved back to Hartford in 1788 and practiced law there until 1793.

It was also during his travels that Noah experienced difficulties in obtaining copyright for his works in each state. As such, he was at the forefront of the establishment of a national copyright system.

In 1789, Noah married Rebecca Greenleaf in Boston and they had eight children. In 1793, a prominent Federalist convinced him to move back to New York to edit a daily newspaper “The Minerva” (later the Commercial Advertiser) and the semi-weekly “The Herald” (later the Spectator).

In 1803, Webster moved to New Haven to work on his dictionary. In 1812 the Websters moved to Amherst, Massachusetts and Noah helped to start Amherst College (1821). He served in the Massachusetts legislature in 1815 and 1819. In 1822 the Webster’s moved back to New Haven. Noah traveled to France and England in 1824-25 to research lexicography (the practice of compiling dictionaries).

When Noah was 43, he started writing the first American dictionary. He did this because Americans in various parts of the country used words differently. Noah thought that all Americans should speak the same way. He also thought that Americans should not speak and spell just like the English. For example, Noah used American spellings like “color” instead of the English “colour.” He also added American words that were not in English dictionaries. His early success in 1782 with the blue-backed spelling book earned him a steady income and the wherewithal to devote his life to the first American dictionary, published in 1806. In 1828 after 27 years of work and at 70 years of age, Noah’s second edition dictionary had 70,000 words in it.

Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language was produced during the years when the American home, church, and school were set up on a Biblical and patriotic basis. Webster descended on his mother’s side from Pilgrim Governor William Bradford of Plymouth Plantation who made important contributions to an American educational system, which kept the nation on a Christian family base and a Constitutional course for many years. The famous “blue-backed Speller,” his “Grammars,” and his “Reader,” all had Biblical and patriotic themes. Webster championed the flood of educational volumes emphasizing Christian Constitutional values for more than a century.

It is not surprising, therefore, that the 1828 American Dictionary should have the greatest number of Biblical definitions given in any reference volume. For a salient example of the different worldview that Webster had in mind in 1828 compared to today, look at the definition of the word “law.” The New Collegiate Dictionary:

LAW: a binding custom or practice of a community; a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority. (This definition continues for two inches of one column of space.)

The American Dictionary of the English Language with pronouncing vocabularies of Scripture, classical and geographical names (1828):

LAW: A rule, particularly an established or permanent rule, prescribed by the supreme power of a state to its subjects, for regulating their actions, particularly their social actions. Laws are imperative or mandatory, commanding what shall be done; prohibitory, restraining from what is to be forborne; or permissive, declaring what may be done without incurring a penalty. The laws which enjoin the duties of piety and morality, are prescribed by God and found in the Scriptures…

It appears that Christianity in the form of Calvinism was important to Webster, but he was not always consistent with it in his thinking. For instance, for a period in his early life, he believed in Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s social contract theory. [1] He later turned away from the social contract theory when he began to see the dangers of what today we would call “mobocracy” or “woke.”

Late in life, Webster was critical of the politics of dependency. [2] He set himself with the founders who believed that if a person depended financially on someone, they could not serve the public good, but would only be concerned about his dependent relationship. It was only a man who had no economic interests and sought no economic advantage who could serve well.

If there is any doubt to the veracity of Noah’s Christianity, the following from the preface to the 1828 edition of his “An American Dictionary of the English Language — with pronouncing vocabularies of Scripture, classical and geographical names:”

In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed . . . No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people. 

This above is just one of many examples of Webster’s Christian worldview expressed in his many works. It is curious but understandable why there is little about Webster in modern history (cough cough) books. What scant information that may be around is devoid of any Christian references. While the name Webster may still be known because of the modern namesake dictionary, Noah carried out many more wonderful things throughout his life.

Noah Webster and Daniel Webster are familiar names from history. While they lived during the founding of the United States and were from the same area, there is no known family relationship. Daniel Webster (1782-1852) was an American politician who twice served in the United States House of Representatives, representing New Hampshire (1813-1817) and Massachusetts (1823 -1827), served as a U.S. Senator from Massachusetts (1827-1841) and 1845-1850) and was twice the United States Secretary of State, under Presidents William Henry Harrison and John Tyler (1841-1843) and Millard Fillmore (1850-1852). He was a Dartmouth graduate.

Major sources for this paper:

Notes:

  1. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) was a French philosopher and political theorist and considered the father of modern democratic ideals. He believed in “popular sovereignty” and free will whose idea influenced the godless French Revolution. Rousseau held that laws must be solely the creation of man, not handed down by God. His “Social Contract” (1762) proclaimed that civil order would be a product of “general will,” a mystical thought that civic responsibility is inclined towards the good of all and not each person’s particular will. Rousseau believed in the perfectibility of man. His novel Émile (1762) outlined an education system with self-expression encouraged and rote learning eliminated (does this not sound like today’s school system?).
  2. Now we know why the debased woke commie gang loves the Caustic Cancel Culture Pogrom — it relegates the history of hard work to the dustbin.

###

Cogent Author and Publisher, Frederick R. Smith
Cogent Editor, Sean Tinney

Fred Smith’s clipped news items

Recommended Websites (bold is top shelf)

    Recommend (serious) Humor
    Recommended Videos (all top shelf)


    at No comments:

    Monday, March 22, 2021

    USS Belleau Wood I CV-24


    Frederick R Smith has moved to Frederick R. Smith Speaks (substack.com)

    Foreword

    Your Author Frederick R. Smith (FRS), the son of Frank G. (FGS), had a vivid dream on March 21, 2021. In this dream, my father (10/03/1920 – 08/01/2002) appeared and spoke about something from his past that was both good and bad. We talked about sharing this story. Upon waking up, a light bulb that went off in my mind. In 1988, my Father wrote about this story, and here it is for your reading pleasure.

    The Story

    “I WAS THERE”

    OCTOBER 30, 1944

    ABOARD THE U.S.S. BELLEAU WOOD

    This “Mutt” will begin a story starting on July 7th, 1942. On this day, I enlisted in the Navy. To say the least, a memorial day because as I embarked on the train to Great Lakes, the temperature in Chicago was 107 degrees, an all-time high.

    As usual, after arriving at Great Lakes, the B.S. began. Clothes that don’t fit and a hell of a time finding a pair of 12D shoes. What an ordeal! The first day at camp I fell out of my hammock about six times; I finally got to sleep. The next day the usual; oops there goes my curly hair! Yikes! Hated the 5:30 uptime, then on sloppy joes -- you know the rest of this bit.

    After qualification exams, I got my answer soon. Now off to Purdue University for a ninety-day wonder program. Turned out a 3rd class electrician. This changed the rest of my life.

    So on to Norfolk, VA. I was assigned to the “Charger,” a training ship -- yuck! What a bathtub! After seven days of this, I was shipped to Philadelphia Naval Center and assigned to the U.S.S. Belleau Woods. Since it was in the final stages of construction, I had time to “footsie.” A note of interest -- time to meet my wife of now forty-four years.

    As our ship was completed, a call to a “shakedown.” So off to Trinidad Isle. Nothing could go wrong -- everything ship-shape. On the way back from Trinidad, the Captain let her loose zig-zag at 24 knots. Yikes! I thought it would shake her apart. Back to Philadelphia again to load up to the gunnels with supplies.

    Our new Captain “McBride” (later to become Rear Admiral) was assigned to the ship. Now we knew we had to be ready. Time to leaver down the Pike to the Panama Canal Zone and on to San Francisco. We unloaded a lot there and took on planes. Little time wasted. Now off into the sunset and finally “Pearl Harbor.” Lucky for me my buddy from the U.S.S. Idaho was there. Somehow it made me feel it was all worthwhile, knowing he and I were fighting the same war. I liked liberty but was anxious to get out to sea. January 1943 -- now we were off, south to “Baker Island.” We circled that little island about twenty-three times (I think). No Japs there so an airstrip was set up as a stepping stone to the West. At this point, a little humor. I got a kick out of the chickens who crapped out on the “Polywog” ceremony. This includes “yours truly.” Big deal “going around the equator.” At least it created a lot of good laughs.

    Now we’re going on to more serious sea areas. We headed for the “Gilbert Islands.” Talk about a “cakewalk.” This was it! While we lost the U.S.S. Independence (CVL-21) in a freak encounter with a Jap submarine, we plastered these islands like you wouldn’t believe. Little or no Jap resistance was evident. Clean up like “washing the dishes.” With this out of the way, we headed toward the Marianas group. It didn’t take long until we met some stiff resistance. The Japs said, “Oh oh, here comes more trouble.” You betcha -- I can still see the “Micky Mouse” planes that tried to get to us. What a laffer! None reached us and all were shot down. Another four-star performance!  Kwajalein was a gift to us as it was a future home base for supplies. Time for more supplies -- back to our new base in the Gilberts, Majuro, recently captured from the Japs. Set foot on land for the first time in four months. Yuk! Warm beer was lousy. I sold mine for 50 cents a bottle to the suckers.

    After loaded fully, we started our voyage to “Truk Islands.” Things seemed to slow down; plenty of time to shoot crap and for card games. I was a loser as usual. I can still hear the dice banging on the bulkhead. Fun for the time being. When we approached “Truk Islands,” more action. We and other task forces “plastered” the Japs, sinking most of their vessels in the Truk Islands Harbors by our air power -- this was a key offense to our eventual victory. They lost more than 600 vessels. Our losses next to none.

    At Truk, we teamed up with another task force. Now we had the U.S.S. New Jersey, U.S.S. Franklin, U.S.S. Wichita and lots of “cans” with us. Northbound for all of us. We had two objectives -- Guam and Saipan. Can’t remember which came first, but I'll never forget the “turkey shoot” we fired at Saipan. We saw many Jap planes in the sky around us. The Japs were desperate to control the corridor to the Hawaiian Islands and Midway. This “turkey shoot” was something else. Jap planes dropping all over the area. Our fighters picked them off like flies. One Jap came close to hitting us. As Belleau Wood’s 20MMs were blasting away, we caught a Jap trying to make a run on us. This damned thing refused to go down or blow up. This Jap was already dead-headed directly towards us, but the Jap's timing was off. His burning plane missed us by only 50 feet above our aft elevator. The Jap hit the water about 200 feet from us. Close call. It didn't take long to get everything under control. The Japs lost over 600 planes to our 27. They were inexperienced pilots. Most of them were under 18 years of age! Two days later all seemed to be “A-OK.” Intelligence must have had some kind of insight.

    After Saipan and Guam, we headed southwest toward the “Carolinas.” We took supplies aboard at sea. Other task forces joined us. The U.S.S. Idaho was in sight but not to be our partner, so there goes my buddy.

    On the way to the Carolinas, our radar picked up three bleeps at nineteen miles. After sitting at general quarters for an hour, I could see my perspiration rolling down my leg. No ventilation and no freshwater. My perspiration rolled from one bulkhead and back to me as the ship rolled. How! If hell is this hot, from now on I’m going to be a good boy! Anyway, we shot down the three boogies. So, all’s well now.

    No more encounter as we finally got to New Hebrides off the Australian coast for supplies. Talk about surprises; this was it. Natives were black with almost red hair. No liberty? time was precious. We didn’t stay long; we had other things to do.

    A quick notice, back to the sea north to the Philippines. All hell broke loose! We cut off the Jap fleet including the prize Jap “Yamamoto” and many others. Our air support and the U.S.S. Enterprise plastered the Japs. Getting the “Yamamoto” was a real moral victory for us. What a delight it was to have the U.S.S. New Jersey with us. What a magnificent ship! Like having “Babe Ruth” play with teenagers. I can’t say enough to describe my delight at seeing her at our side.

    To other places now. Oh boy! Here comes a typhoon -- yikes! Talk about tossing and rolling, listing to 25 degrees from one side to the other. Good thing I had good sea legs.  I wish we had that rain now.

    Now we begin in earnest. October of 1944. Our float with all of the “goodies” -- U.S.S. New Jersey, U.S.S. Franklin, U.S.S. Wichita and many “cans” -- steamed to the North. About 1:30 PM on October 30, 1944 -- Surprise! “Here come the Japs!” Our radar picked up the bleeps and to G.Q.  we go. I was stationed on the hangar deck and watched out on the port blister when I saw a Jap plane make a run on the U.S.S. Franklin. The Jap dove down, dropped an “egg” on her. Clear as can be; it couldn’t miss. As it hit, the Jap “peeled off" and headed directly toward us. Oh boy! Jap was determined to hit us. As he approached I ran into the hangar yelling “fire on the hangar deck.” I only assumed it was a crash. Damned if I wasn't right! The Jap hit us on the aft elevator, plane, and all. Talk about confusion, this was it! Being very graceful about my language (I didn't swear or use vulgar language), now it's time to calm the crew. A boatswain above my rank had to get the planes on deck in order. Screaming and all pulling in different directions, I called down to the crew, “shut up you bastards and listen to the boatswain.” Shocked by my harsh language, they all pulled together and the planes were pushed to a safer place. The aft elevator pit was flooded from conflagration to a depth of four feet. As the injured come from the flight deck end down the rear ladder, I assisted them through the elevator to other help on the hanger deck.

    I remember one of my favorite officers staggering through the elevator pit asking me, “Please, help me, I'm burned badly.” I got him to the hanger deck where others could help. Shame, I never did find out if he recovered or not. Sickbay was bulging with the injured. No time for crying -- now on to dumping “the inflammables.” Wow! What waste -- barrels and barrels of oil went over the side. I couldn’t keep my mind off having watched my buddy “Poxy” go over the side in flames as the Jap hit us. It’s now time to get the fire out, but the hangar deck did little good since the fire was on the flight deck. It’s now about 2:30 P.M. and the fire is still burning on the flight deck. A stubborn flame due to the gas from all the planes still aboard. We did our part on the hangar deck. It’s now about 3 P.M. and orders from “Comsat” to abandon the ship. Our Captain McBride asked permission for one more hour to put out the fire. Permission granted. Boy! What a relief.

    About 4 P.M. the fire was under control. Since only about three hours of daylight was left, a rescue was almost impossible if we had to abandon ship. We got it done like seamen should. Fire out and off to safer places. The next day we were ordered back to Pearl Harbor. After reaching there, an evaluation of the damage was done. We were ordered to San Francisco for damage repairs. Now we are ready for an extensive leave -- much needed to say the least! Not much else in this “ditty.” A thirty-day leave and on to marry my sweetie pie of now 44 years.

    A footnote at this point. September 3rd is a real bell. It’s the day I entered Purdue University. For days I kept dreaming the war would end on September 3rd. In 1944 on September 3rd, I entered the Radio Shack to ask what happened today? Was the war over? “No,” was the reply, “but the Italians surrendered today.” Dreams of September 3rd went on. I just couldn’t get it off my mind. Guess what? The Japs surrendered on September 3rd, 1945, Tokyo time.

    Not to forget the day I went into business, September 3rd, 1947. In 1950 on September 3rd my first son was born. Coincidence? Maybe, but other notables happened on September 3rd. Goofy? Not to me, it isn’t.

    The war is over, and now it’s time to goof off!

    With my best regards to all my shipmates of the U.S.S. Belleau Wood, I am

    FGS

    Postscript

    The following videos show the action from October 30, 1944.

    Naval History and Heritage Command have an excellent write-up about the Belleau Wood. 

    https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/b/belleau-wood-cv-24-i.html

    ###

    Cogent Publisher, Frederick R. Smith

    Fred Smith’s clipped news items

    Recommended Websites (bold is top shelf)

      Recommend (serious) Humor
      Recommended Videos (all top shelf)



      at No comments:

      Saturday, March 20, 2021

      Collision Course - Guest Post by Dale T.


      Frederick R Smith has moved to Frederick R. Smith Speaks (substack.com)

      America is on a Collision Course with Almighty God
      “Shall Not the Judge of All the Earth Do Right”
      Guest Post by Dale T.

      Representative Greg Stuebe (R-FL) spoke during the floor debate on the Equality Act. He quoted the Bible and said that “A rejection of God’s design of complementary sexes offends God.” Democratic Representative Jerry Nadler of New York asserted that “God’s will is no concern of this Congress.” Sadly, not one Democrat came out against what Nadler said. Multitudes of people in America and those in political parties are revealed in Romans 1:21-22, “For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God, nor gave thanks to Him, but their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claim to be wise, they became fools.” Romans 1:28, “They did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so they did what ought not to be done.” They were given over to sexual perversion, envy, evil, greed, deceitfulness, pride, unforgiveness, God-haters, arrogant, boastful, having no love or mercy. Because of the increase of lawlessness, the hearts of many have grown cold.

      What happens to a people and a nation that reject God and continue to live sinful lives? Their thinking and reasoning will become dark and confused. Isaiah 5:20-23, “Woe (judgment, deep suffering, affliction) to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine and champions at mixing drinks, woe to those who acquit the guilty for a bribe, but deny justice to the innocent.” Scripture verses taken from Isaiah 59, “But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden His face from you so that He will not hear. For your hands are stained with blood, your fingers with guilt. Your lips have spoken falsely, and your tongue mutters wicked things. No one calls for justice. Nor does any plead for truth. They trust in empty words and speak lies; they conceive evil and bring forth iniquity. Therefore, justice is far from us, nor does righteousness overtake us. For our transgressions are multiplied before You, and our sins testify against us; for our transgressions are with us and as for iniquities, we know them. Justice is turned back, and righteousness stands afar; for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter. So, truth fails, and he who departs from evil makes himself a prey.” 

      The Old Testament scripture tells what happens to a people and to a nation that rejects and forgets God. Psalm 9:17, “The wicked shall be turned into hell and all nations that forget God.” One Corinthians 10:11, “Now all these things happened unto them as examples and they are written for our admonition, warning, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.” Matthew 24:37-39, “As the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will be the coming of the Son of Man be.” Two Peter 2:6, “If He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly.” 

      Jesus told a parable about a rich man and Lazarus, a beggar who died. When the rich man died, he went to Hades, where he was in torment. The rich man asked for pity and to send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool his tongue, “because I am in agony in this fire.” The Bible says, “Our God is a consuming fire.” The greatest and most important question in all of life is what must I do to be saved? Acts 4:12, “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name, (Jesus Christ), under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” This salvation saves us from a Christ-less eternity and from hell itself. Luke 13:5, Jesus said, “I tell you, no, but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.” Acts 17:30, “… but now God commands all people everywhere to repent.” Two Peter 3:9, “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise as some count slackness, but is long-suffering, patient towards us, not willing that any should perish, but they all should come to repentance.” Repentance is absolute, unconditional surrender to God. It is sorrow and regret over our sin. When we repent we make a 180 degree turn towards God. 

      What will happen if we are not ‘born again’ and our names are not written in The Book of Life? Revelations 2:11, “The one who has an ear let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. The one who overcomes, (born again), will not be hurt by the second death.” Revelations 20:14-15, “Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death, and anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.” The Bible says there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth in the lake of fire. Revelation 21:8, “But cowards, unbelievers, the corrupt, murderers, the immoral, those who practice witchcraft, idol worshipers, (anyone or anything you love more than Jesus Christ is an idol), and all liars - their fate is in the fiery lake of burning sulfur, this is the second death.” 

      According to the scriptures, this new life begins with repentance of our sins towards God, like lying, stealing, taking God’s name in vain, and lusting in our hearts, and that is just four of God’s Ten Commandments. The Bible says if we break one commandment, we have broken them all. We are all guilty and there is none righteous, no not one. Christ died for us even while we were dead in our sins and trespasses. All of us are in desperate need of a Savior. Ask Jesus Christ to forgive your sins and be your Lord and Savior. Trust and believe that His suffering and death on the cross paid for your sins in full. The Holy Spirit will witness to your spirit you are now a child of God. Your name has been written in the Book of Life. Old things in your life will pass away and all things become new. You will now hate what God hates (sin) and you will love what God loves, righteousness and holiness. You will begin to love God and begin to love all people. The Holy Spirit will give you the power to accomplish the will of God for your life.  

      One John 5:13, “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may KNOW that you have eternal life.” Ephesians 1:7, “In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins…” Ephesians 1:12-14, “That we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory. In Him you also trusted after you heard the word of Truth, the gospel of your salvation, in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the Redemption of the purchased possession, (believers), to the praise of His glory.”

      ###

      Cogent Publisher, Frederick R. Smith

      Fred Smith’s clipped news items

      Recommended Websites (bold is top shelf)

        Recommend (serious) Humor
        Recommended Videos (all top shelf)


        at No comments:

        Thursday, March 18, 2021

        Demented Delphi and Creepy Consensus

        Frederick R Smith has moved to Frederick R. Smith Speaks (substack.com)

        The Founding Fathers were people of diverse backgrounds and interests, but they had a common goal — the development of a new nation, a Republic. Despite their differences, the Founders         compromised on certain issues but worked together in a struggle to free themselves from the Crown. With the cancellation of history, we rarely hear about compromise and up until the recent time, it was “consensus.” Now it is the Caustic Cancel Culture Pogrom.

        In the late 1960s, the esoteric think tank called RAND Corporation developed a particular program or process with “consensus” the core element. This is known as the Delphi Method (or Technique). [1] This process developed into “forecasting methodology,” a group decision-making instrument. This paved the way by which a group of experts could come to some “consensus of opinion” when the key factors of an issue were subjective. More specifically, facts and knowledge are secondary elements.

        In more recent times, the Delphi Method has evolved into a completely different process and purpose. This process, “Consensus Building,” may seem familiar sounding. Surely many adults, regardless of their social status, have been subject to this sinister groupthink process. It exists in churches, businesses, government, and civic associations. It has been so successful with perceived results that most people embrace the consensus process without any knowledge of its sinister nature.

        During group settings, consensus-building can be an unscrupulous way to achieve harmony on controversial topics. For high-profile issues, it requires well-trained “change agents” that are presented to the group as “facilitators.” Even well-intentioned people are trained to be facilitators and conditioned to promote the Delphi Method based on the consensus process. Once trained, the facilitators unwittingly (or wittingly) cause tension between group members. The goal is to pit one faction against another to make a pre-selected viewpoint seem sensible. At the same time, it is the protocol of the consensus process to make opposing views appear unreasonable.

        The “Alinksy Method” [2] is a certain form of the consensus-building process for the educational setting. In this case, the setting or group is secondary, but it is the people in groups that tend to share certain knowledge and show certain identifiable characteristics. This is known as group dynamics and the change agent or facilitator goes through the motions of acting as an organizer. The facilitator gets each person in the group to express their concerns about a topic. They then carefully listen and designate workgroups, advocate participants to make lists (sound familiar?), and ask for comments. During this part of the process, the facilitator learns something about each member of the group. This enables the facilitator to silently find the talkers, sub-group “leaders,” and those who are non-committal to an idea or policy.

        At this point in the process, the well-trained facilitator engages in psychological manipulation (divide and conquer) whereby those who are out of step become stigmatized with being “resistant to change” or “against progress.” Since the professional facilitator is well trained, they are experts at being able to predict the reactions of each person. As such, those opposed to the intended outcome become alienated from the group. Those named to be out of step will rarely know that they are under a manipulation scheme.

        With the above achieved, the group becomes divided, and the facilitator magically becomes accepted as a member of the group. The facilitator is now on the way to becoming a change agent. They do this by presenting the idea at hand for group discussion. Magically, the participants who are polarized from the group start to embrace the idea as if it were their own. This pressures all participants to accept the idea or proposition.

        If there is continued resistance, it is time to call for a coffee break. During the break, the facilitator, and co-facilitators (or spotters who watch the participants during a meeting), decide who congregates and where. If the participants that resist the process congregate together, a spotter will mingle with that group. They then report back to the facilitator. This is how the facilitators know whom to avoid as the session continues. One positive outcome from Coronadoom — it sure put the brakes on this element of the program.

        The consensus-building process uses the Hegelian Dialect [3] of collective thought based on a thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. The consensus process is the practical application of differing or opposing views (thesis and antithesis). As illustrated above, the opposing views are changed toward an intended thought process (synthesis). The group members accept “ownership” of the new idea changing their views by manipulation to line up with the new policy or idea.

        Change agents believe in the process or have justification programmed into their minds to use consensus-building. Nevertheless, the net effects of these psychological manipulations include polarized sub-groups. Either people do not know what is going on or they understand that their role is merely obligatory. Those not duped know that it is a preset outcome and that they are not a part of the “go team.” When opposition occurs reform change agents can say that there was true “community participation.”

        In public school settings, only parents who agree with the process can be on restructuring committees. Carefully screened new participants ensure that education reform goes forward unquestioned. If sizable opposition persists, the change agents take steps to neutralize opposition.

        If the above technique is so successful, in neutralizing a group, why hold such meetings, particularly if the outcome is pre-selected? The answer – for the long term it is critical that the change agents obtain an overarching acceptance of their radial outcome, even if it is illusionary. Whatever the nefarious program, be it outcome-based education, school to work, sex “education” for early grade school, or the environment. This works so well, that the most sinister human-hating program such as extreme environmentalism that trumps human rights will be “accepted.” Dare any person even talk about the bad side of unreasonable extremist environmentalism, they will face branding as polluters and animal murderers. Today, anything under the sun will get the “racist” treatment if it does not fit the narrative.

        The Delphi Method effectively changed our nation from a representative republic to a fake “participatory democracy” in which citizens at large find themselves brainwashed into fiat ownership of preset outcomes.

        The only advice this author can present is to simply be aware and resist the psychological manipulation. If your employer or other organization you belong to mandates your attendance at a consensus-building meeting, be not afraid. Simply reduce your participation to a minimum and never show anger. Even a well-trained change agent will be stumped and will only figure out your position when it is too late in the game. As such, it is important to minimally take part and do not let any person know that you disagree with the “program.” In the end, you may be voluntold to present your position and if possible, calmly say that the outcome is unacceptable and that you are compelled to abstain. If it is necessary to be in “consensus” (to keep your job) it may, unfortunately, be time to say that you can “live with it.” But today even that may not work, after all, “silence is violence” in the mind of the debased commie woke folk.

        While it may not be possible to resist all nefarious consensus-building sessions, you now have the tools to let cogent non-woke folk know what is occurring. Let those who you trust have the empowerment to resist the dreadful consensus-building sessions. You will also know when a  consensus-building session is acceptable (it is not based on the Delphi Method). For added guidance, please see “The Delphi  - How to Disrupt It.”

        Sources: 

        Notes:

        1. The precursor to the Delphi Method is the Tavistock Method. In 1932, a psychiatrist and British military officer by the name of John Rawlings Rees headed the Tavistock Clinic. This was an outgrowth of the Tavistock Institue of Medical Psychology, founded in 1920.  A 1947 Rockefeller Foundation grant redirected the program to become the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations. That same year, Tavistock partnered with Kurt Lewin’s Research Center for Group Dynamics at the University of Michigan. The story goes deep into a rabbit hole but briefly, the key point is the fact that Lewin’s Group Dynamics marked the beginning of a collaboration between Lenin and the Tavistock Institute in Britain. See pp. 191 - 195 of Cloning of the American Mind.
        2. Saul Alinsky (1909-1972) was a debased organizer and a key figure in the development of unions in Chicago in the 1930s. Trained as a sociologist at the University of Chicago, he felt that social change could only occur by the mobilization and organization of people seeking such change (direct democracy). Alinksy was involved in many “social justice” (Communism) issues and in the 1950s he founded the Industrial Areas Foundation. Alinsky developed his brand of radical community-based organizing. He authored the books “Reveille for Radicals” and “Rules for Radicals.” Barack Husain Obama has close ties to Alinsky. To see how the debased folk spin this subject, check out Hillary Haters’ Fixation on Saul Alinsky.
        3. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) came to prominence during the period of “German idealism” in the decades following Kant, the philosopher. Throughout his published writings as well as in his lectures, Hegel tried to elaborate a comprehensive and systematic ontology (philosophical metaphysics concerned with the nature of being) from a “logical” starting point. He is most well-known for his natural (as opposed to a supernatural account of history). Hegel’s interpretation of history found its way to Marx where he “inverted” it into a materialist theory of historical development (Communism). 

         ###

        Cogent Author and Publisher, Frederick R. Smith
        Cogent Editor, Sean Tinney

        Fred Smith’s clipped news items

        Recommended Websites (bold is top shelf)

          Recommend (serious) Humor
          Recommended Videos (all top shelf)

          at No comments:

          Sunday, March 14, 2021

          Elia Kazan the Great

          Frederick R Smith has moved to Frederick R. Smith Speaks (substack.com)

          Elia Kazan (1909 – 2003) was born in Constantinople (now Istanbul). In 1913, Kazan along with his Greek parents came to the United States and they settled in New York City. Kazan’s father, George Kazanjoglous, worked as a rug merchant and expected his son to follow him. However, Kazan’s mother, Athena, encouraged her son to make his own decisions.

          Kazan attended public schools in the New York City area and graduated from Williams College in Massachusetts. Thereafter, he studied drama at Yale. In the 1930s, Kazan took part in New York’s Group Theater and it was during this acting stint that he worked with well-known actor Lee Strasberg. In 1935, he directed his first stage production and by the 1940s he was known to be one of the great Broadway actor/producers. He also was one of the founders of the “Actor’s Studio” in 1947. The more notable achievements were his direction of the plays “A Streetcar Named Desire” (1947) by Tennessee Williams and “Death of a Salesman” (1948) by Arthur Miller. After Streetcar Named Desire, Kazan also took part in the development of William’s scripts. In 1955, William’s felt that Kazan had taken over his authority as the writer of “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.”

          Kazan also started to work on films during this period and his first feature film was “A Tree Grows in Brooklyn” (1945). In 1947, he won the Academy Award for the film “Gentleman’s Agreement” in which Gregory Peck portrayed a reporter investigating Anti-Semitism. Kazan worked with Marlon Brando during the Broadway production of “A Streetcar Named Desire” and in 1951 it was made into a screenplay. The movie adaptation starred Kim Hunter and Karl Malden. Brando said that “Kazan is the best actor’s director you could ever want… because he was an actor himself, but a special kind of actor. He understands things that other directors do not. He also inspired you. Most actors are expected to come with their parts in their pockets and their emotions spring-loaded, when the director says, ‘Okay, hit it,’ they go into a time-slip. But Kazan brought a lot of things to the actor and he invited you to argue with him. He is one of the few directors creative and understanding enough to know where the actor's trying to go. He’d let you play a scene almost any way you’d want.” [1]

          Brando’s key role in “VIVA ZAPATA!” (1952) and “On the Waterfront” (1954) won him eight Oscars. Budd Schulberg's account of corruption in NYC harbor unions was the basis of “On the Waterfront.” Schulberg knew his subject as he testified as a friendly witness before a Congressional committee looking into the corruption of longshoreman. In this film, there were depictions of conflicting loyalties that paralleled Kazan’s own life. 

          On April 10, 1952, Kazan testified at the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HCUA) hearings and admitted past membership in the Communist party. It was there that he committed the secular sin that certain people from the debased left have never forgotten — he named others in his former secret Communist group. Kazan not only admitted that he had been a Communist member for 18 months (1934-36), but he named eight people who had been in the party with him. He did not denounce them, as some newspapers erroneously reported. The unreported truth: Kazan felt that they joined for the same reasons he did, anger against Hitler and sympathy for the poor. Just two days after his appearance, Kazan placed an ad in the New York Times urging others who knew about this “dangerous and alien conspiracy” to inform the public or “the appropriate government agency.” Many with a debased leftist worldview were ballistic, as they could not stand such “betrayal” from one of their own.

          Other former party members had appeared before the HCUA and spoke of ex-comrades. However, the debased lamestream media vilified Elia to the hilt because he was the most well-known former Communist from the entertainment industry to have cooperated with the HCUA. As an insult to the lamestream, even more, Kazan had become an anti-Communist. While he was initially reluctant, he thought that cooperating with HCUA was a justifiable position because of the menace that Communism posed to world stability. Kazan also supplied information on how key Communist leaders would show his Red Cell how to assist the party’s front organizations and how to make Group Theatre a Communist organ. Other debased leftist publications, including The Nation (still an open Commie rag) and the New York Post (then a far-left newspaper), went after Kazan. Playwright Arthur Miller (his longtime friend and collaborator) and Stalinist/writer Lillian Hellman joined in the assault. Even today, the lamestream will portray the “Kazan affair” as an illustration of “McCarthyism” but never mention the salient facts. The most outstanding item to consider is the fact that HCUA was a project of the House of Representatives; McCarthy was a senator.

          Even today, people will invoke the “terror” of the “blacklist.” Kazan’s exposure that peeled open the Communist infiltration was the reason for the blacklist (supposedly). Hogwash and balderdash! The blacklist would have occurred even without Kazan’s exposure. On their own, after the HCUA hearings, Hollywood executives felt compelled to deny jobs to about three hundred Communists in Hollywood. About 150 more people were denied jobs in television and radio. [2] Nevertheless, the reporters who do not know history will spout off that “thousands” of people (Communist or not) had their careers ruined because of Kazan and others such as McCarthy. Nonsense! What is not reported are the correct numbers (as supplied above). Furthermore, a number of those blacklisted could continue to work under assumed names. The above illustrates why the McCarthyism mantra continues to this day — people are unaware of the facts at best or at worst they are in sympathy with Communism (debased woke folk). [3] Today, the Caustic Cancel Culture Pogrom, managed by the same Commie crowd and their puppets (useful debased woke folk), have the upper hand terminating the jobs of many people who dare question the new Communist woke worldview.   

          Just two years after his testimony, Kazan directed “On the Water Front,” which he considered an allegory about his life. The brave Budd Schulberg, who also turned against Communism in 1951, wrote the script. This work by these two brave former Communists inspired the public and Hollywood. Kazan forged ahead to produce many more wholesome movies. Other well-known actors that stared in his movies included Montgomery Cliff, Lee Remick, Natalie Wood, Warren Beatty, and Kirk Douglas. In the 1970s, Kazan devoted more of his time to writing.

          In his autobiography “Elia Kazan: A Life,” he wrote “No one who did what I did, whatever his reasons, came out of it undamaged… I did not. Here I am, thirty-five years later, still worrying over it. I knew what it would cost me. Do I now feel ashamed of what I did? ... The truth is that within a year I’d stopped feeling guilty or even embarrassed about what I’d done...”

          The measure of the success of Communist infiltration in Hollywood is the virtually total absence of movies to this day that chronicle the primary drama of the last century: the struggle for freedom against totalitarian communism. There are just a few exceptions with the motion picture Dr. Zhivago being one notable example. Nevertheless, not one Hollywood film has ever depicted the horrors of the Soviet-induced famine in Ukraine, the Gulags, the Moscow show trials, or the Hungarian uprising against the Soviet military. For the cogent un-woke folk reader, this sure proves the salient point. Specifically, the debased lamestream media and Hollywood were, and are, indeed Communist fronts.

          In 1983, Kazan was honored with a Life Achievement award at a Kennedy Center ceremony. In 1999, he received an Honorary Oscar, and your author can clearly remember the television footage showing Warren Beatty applauding while Nick Nolte remained seated with his arms folded in his lap. This award was due in part to the persistent lobbying by Karl Malden and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences (sponsor of the Oscar night). Sad to say, the announcement of this event gave birth to some bitter protests, and right on cue the debased lamestream media made much of Kazan’s supposed “betrayal” of old friends. What a bunch of debased Communist creeps. 

          In 1932, Kazan married playwright Molly Day Thatcher and they had four children. She passed away in 1963. In 1967, he married the actress/writer Barbara Loden and she passed away in 1980. In 1982, Kazan married Frances Rudge.

          On September 28, 2003, Elia Kazan passed away, in his Manhattan home. The debased lamestream media gave just a fleeting mention of the passing of this wonderful 94-year-old man. Films directed by Kazan garnered 22 Academy Awards, 62 nominations, and two Directing Oscars. Kazan had a liberal worldview, but he would be “moderate” by today’s standards. He gave us wonderful memories of the once upon a time decent entertainment industry.

          Notes:

          1. Conversations with Marlon Brando by Lawrence Grobel, 1991
          2. The “Hollywood Ten” were in this “list.” These were the unfriendly Communist witnesses who refused to cooperate with HCUA. While it is not illegal to be a member of the Communist Party, each of the Hollywood Ten served time for contempt of Congress.
          3. “Debased woke folk” is Fred’s term for those who have lost critical thinking skills (debased) and have a programed mind (woke) because of the psychological operations of the media and education systems. The opposite: cogent non-woke folk.
          ###

          Cogent Author and Publisher, Frederick R. Smith
          Cogent Editor, Sean Tinney

          Fred Smith’s clipped news items

          Recommended Websites (bold is top shelf)

            Recommend (serious) Humor
            Recommended Videos (all top shelf)

            at No comments: