Steve Davies and Dave Rubin: Brexit, Classical Liberalism, Libertarianism (Full Interview)
The Difference Between Classical Liberals and Libertarians (Steve Davies Part 2)
Syria, the Middle East, and America’s War on Drugs (Steve Davies Part 3)
Nigel Farage speech in The United States about Brexit and Trump
Emergency! Man Behind Brexit Issues Warning For America
Nigel Farage : The Speech That WON Us Our BREXIT – 24 June 2016
Nigel Farage roasts the EU Parliament before & after Brexit
Nigel Farage on Fox News after Brexit
Epic Rant – ‘Nigel Farage Was Right!’
George Carlin – It’s a Big Club and You Ain’t In It! The American Dream
George Carlin – Dumb Americans
The Collapse of The American Dream Explained in Animation
Obama: We Must Guard Against American Nationalism
Trump’s Nationalism Is Destroying Globalism
BREXIT & America First: The Battle of Globalism vs Nationalism
The Most Important Reason Why the European Union Will Surely Fail
Italy Rejects EU Globalism, Defeats Referendum to Give Globalists Limitless Power
Tony Blankley – At Last, an American Nationalist!
Three Big Ideas: Liberalism, Socialism, Nationalism
Nationalism: Crash Course World History #34
Capitalism and Socialism: Crash Course World History #33
07 Nationalism, Imperialism & Globalization the good, the bad and the really, really ugly
What is Classical Liberalism? – Learn Liberty
The History of Classical Liberalism – Learn Liberty
Libertarianism 101 with Dr Stephen Davies
The Decline and Triumph of Classical Liberalism (Pt. 1) – Learn Liberty
The Decline and Triumph of Classical Liberalism (Pt. 2) – Learn Liberty
Dawn of the New World Order: 2017 will be the year EVERYTHING changes
A NEW World Order is set to emerge next year as huge political changes sweep across Europe including the rise of the mega-alliance under Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump.
By Henry Holloway / Published 29th December 2016
GETTY/DSNEW WORLD ORDER: Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump will trigger a revolution across EuropePutin’s growing power and Trump’s extraordinary US Election victory are both herald’s of a growing movement against the established world governments.Anti-establishment parties raging against the political class could sweep to victory in a swathes of elections next year and change the face of the West.
From Germany, to France, to the Netherlands – fringe and extremist parties are gaining momentum hand over fist and looked primed to seize power.
Notable victories have already been won – with a shocking referendum win in Italy causing Prime Minister Matteo Renzi to resign in a move said to pave the way for the collapse of the EU.
DSEND OF THE EU: Anti-establishment parties are set to sweep to power in Europe
“The new axis between Trump’s America, Putin’s Russia, and European populists represents a toxic mix”
Fredrik Wesslau
Fredrik Wesslau, from the European Council of Foreign Relations, predicted the “unthinkable is now thinkable” after Trump was swept into the White House.
He said the political parties are trying to unseat the “liberal order” in a campaign backed by Putin and Trump.
Politicians look to overthrow the established order are hailing Trump’s election victory as the beginning of the “Patriotic Spring”.
There are six key elections coming up in 2017 which could very easily be won by right-wing parties with nationalist policies which would spell the end of the EU.
GETTYGOLDEN DAWN: The Neo-nazi movement in Greece is the most extreme example
Brexit aftershocks: Who’s next to leave the EU?
Wednesday, 29th June 2016
After Britain voted to leave the EU, we look at which European countries want to hold their own EU referendum.
1 / 10
EXPRESS
Frexit, Nexit or Auxit? Who will be next to leave the EU
Marine Le Pen, leader of France’s National Front, could be poised to take power after the election in May in a move which could pull France out of the EU.
She has described the coming year as a “global revolution” after the election of Trump and the victory of Brexit.Mrs Le Pen has promised to pull france out of NATO and “push migrants who want to come to Europe back into international waters”.The alliance is feared to be a further casualty of the looming political shift – with NATO bosses “preparing for the worst” as they fear Putin will invade Eastern Europe and Trump will pull all US support.GETTYMARINE LE PEN: France’s National Front leader could seize power next yearGEERT WILDERS: The Netherlands’ Party for Freedom leader has compared the Koran to Mein KampfMeanwhile, anti-Islam and anti-migrant leader of the Party of Freedom Geert Wilders ended 2016 leading the polls in the Netherlands – contesting the general election in March.He tweeted a picture of Angela Merkel with blood on her hands following the Berlin Christmas market attack – and shared the message “they hate and kill us. An nobody protects us”.He has also compared the Koran to Adolf Hitler’s book Mein Kampf – campaigning to have the Muslim holy book banned – and coined the phrase “patriotic spring”.FRAUKE PETRY: Angela Merkel faces losing Chancellor’s seat next year after major unrestFrauke Petry is also contesting the German federal election next year as the aftermath of the Berlin attack rocks the government of Angelea Merkel.While she does not have a seat in the Bundestag – the German parliament – approval of her Alternative for Germany party has been swelling in wake of backlash against refugees following terrorist attacks.In her first election manifesto she declared “Islam is not part of Germany” and has previously called on border guard to use “firearms if necessary” when dealing with refugees. GETTYGERMANY: Unrest is sweeping across the European nation after terror attacksGETTYBEPE GRILLO: This comedian turned politician has already struck a blow to the EULeader of Italy’s Five Star Movement TV comedian Beppe Grillo has already caused a stir as the the Italian government lost a key referendum.Savagedly anti-EU, he has said “political amateurs are conquering the world”, called Trump’s victory an “extraordinary turning point” and his party won two key mayoral seats in Turin and Rome.He has been called the “Italian Donald Trump” and his party could be a key player with elections expected to be held in 2017.GETTYJIMMIE AKESSON: Sweden Democrats’ outspoken leader led a campaign against migrantsThe Czech Republic is also set to hold elections in 2017 while Sweden goes to the polls in 2018, both with own Trump-esque leaders who could make a shocking grab for power.Andrej Babis, the second richest man in the Czech Republic, is expected to win the general election for the ANO party and has been reported to have close ties to Putin’s Russia.While in Sweden, anti-immigration Jimmie Akesson of the Sweden Democrats is gaining in popularity – campaigning against his nation’s membership of the EU and advocating a campaign to tell people not to come to Sweden.With Europe’s biggest economies set to go to the polls, struggling Greece could also follow suit.The extreme right fringes of their politics is dominated by the neo-nazi party Golden Dawn – who have launched attacks on refugee camps.While it is very unlikely they have any chance at power, their nationalist cause is of the most intense and hate-filed in Europe.Centre-right party New Democracy is the most likely to unseat the government should a snap election be called.The former EU diplomat Wesslau said: “The new axis between Trump’s America, Putin’s Russia, and European populists represents a toxic mix for the liberal order in Europe.”He added: “Within Europe, populists on the left and right are trying to roll back the liberal order.”This insurgency is being actively backed by Putin’s Russia, and, now, it seems, Trump’s America.”The European Union itself risks being an early casualty.”RELATED ARTICLES
Trump’s populist views of self-determination are sweeping the planet and the elite are in a sheer panic. Only a few weeks ago, the sheep of the planet were being marched to their Armageddon. The dumbed down masses have managed to mount a ninth inning rally that have sent the elite into frenzy.
Hillary Clinton Was Supposed to Usher in the New World Order Through the Fall of America
The lies are exposed. Hillary and Bill cannot unring the bill, the truth has been exposed for millions of people to see.
Two months ago, I called upon the Independent Media to step up their attacks on Hillary Clinton’s criminal behavior in a last-ditch and desperate effort to derail her presidential aspirations. After issuing my plea, I can happily report that I got more than I had hoped for. Merely a year ago, I was one of the few voices that was pounding away at Hillary Clinton’s sociopathic behavior. Today, the attacks are so bombastic and vitriolic, that I am joyfully reporting that I feel that my voice is being drowned out by a relentless chorus of voices that has Hillary Clinton in a death grip and they won’t let go. This is a great time for humanity. Even if the criminal elite unleash genocidal hell on Earth, at least humanity will die on their feet. There is absolutely no way that the criminal elite can stem the tide of rebellion against their corrupt and satanically inspired rule over the people.
The criminal elite had pinned their hopes on Hillary Clinton ushering in the NWO by tearing down what was left of American sovereignty. From a Bilderberg, Trilateral and CFR perspective, this woman was sociopathic enough to do what would need to be done to complete this task. However, the criminal elite forgot to do one thing. They neglected to manage her public image. It is leaders like Clinton and Cameron which have awakened the masses, through their abject criminality, and the people are saying enough is enough.
Clinton’s role in the emails, her treason by selling uranium to the Russians to raise money for her foundation, the Benghazi affair, etc., etc, are exploding on the national scene. Former Clinton campaign leaders and Secret Service personnel are speaking out against this despot. The genie will not fit back into the bottle. The elite know this and they are on the verge of a mass nervous breakdown. The playground bully has just been punched in the nose by the 98 pound weakling.
Zbigniew Brzezinski saw this awakening coming in 2011 which prompted him to say the following:
This is what wounded animals do, they lash out in an uncontrollable manner.
The following op-ed piece written for the Council on Foreign Relations captures the criminal elite’s sense of desperation.
The Face of Global Elite Arrogance
Meet the face of global pomposity and unbridled arrogance. His disdain for “your type” is noteworthy and speaks to the desperation of global criminal elite.
His name is James Traub and he and his kind are the absolute enemy of every American. He is the heir to the Bloomingdale industries and a prominent member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
Traub’s elitist views leave nothing to the imagination. Writing for the mouthpiece of The Council on Foreign Relations, he leaves little doubt that the the evil empire is going to strike back.
It is clear that Traub and his fellow CFR elitist snobs are declaring war on any kind self-determination. He expects every Westerner to relish in their servitude to the globalists as he states the following in the article:
“the Brexit vote…utter repudiation of….bankers and economists”…
“…establishment political parties in major western countries must combine forces to keep out the nationalists”.
“…globalization means culture as well as economics: Older people whose familiar world is vanishing beneath a welter of foreign tongues and multicultural celebrations are waving their fists at cosmopolitan elites.”
“…(describes) the pro-Trump Republican base as “know nothing” voters…”
In one fell swoop, Traub validated several conspiracy theories, as being conspiracy facts as his statements admit to the following conspiratorial beliefs held by much of the Independent Media:
The bankers are involved in a conspiracy that work against the interests of the common man…all wars are bankers’ wars.
The Democrats and the Republicans are “establishment” parties and for all intents and purposes these two parties are two flavors of the same party.
There is an overt admission that illegal immigration is about decultralizing the west.
The “Know-nothing voters” who support Trump should be viewed with extreme disdain (e.g. extremists and domestic terrorists).
Conclusion
After reading Traub’s article, there is nothing left to the imagination, the elite are in absolute panic. This is what makes the criminal elite so very dangerous. It is my considered opinion that the panicked elite may resort to one of more of the following to reassert control over dumbed down masses, who are awake to the corruption that has ruled over them for so long:
False flag induced martial law, followed by mass incarcerations and genocide.
A complete economic collapse which will pit one useless eater vs. another useless eater.
Bankers start world wars of epic proportions. World War III could be right around the corner.
If this is not the future that you want for your children, you best get off of your backside and get involved in the planet-changing conflict.
And how moral psychology can help explain and reduce tensions between the two.
What on earth is going on in the Western democracies? From the rise of Donald Trump in the United States and an assortment of right-wing parties across Europe through the June 23 Brexit vote, many on the Left have the sense that something dangerous and ugly is spreading: right-wing populism, seen as the Zika virus of politics. Something has gotten into “those people” that makes them vote in ways that seem—to their critics—likely to harm their own material interests, at least if their leaders follow through in implementing isolationist policies that slow economic growth.
Most analyses published since the Brexit vote focus on economic factors and some version of the “left behind” thesis—globalization has raised prosperity all over the world, with the striking exception of the working classes in Western societies. These less educated members of the richest countries lost access to well-paid but relatively low-skilled jobs, which were shipped overseas or given to immigrants willing to work for less. In communities where wages have stagnated or declined, the ever-rising opulence, rents, and confidence of London and other super-cities has bred resentment.A smaller set of analyses, particularly in the United States, has focused on the psychological trait of authoritarianism to explain why these populist movements are often so hostile to immigration, and why they usually have an outright racist fringe.Globalization and authoritarianism are both essential parts of the story, but in this essay I will put them together in a new way. I’ll tell a story with four chapters that begins by endorsing the distinction made by the intellectual historian Michael Lind, and other commentators, between globalists and nationalists—these are good descriptions of the two teams of combatants emerging in so many Western nations. Marine Le Pen, the leader of the French National Front, pointed to the same dividing line last December when she portrayed the battle in France as one between “globalists” and “patriots.”But rather than focusing on the nationalists as the people who need to be explained by experts, I’ll begin the story with the globalists. I’ll show how globalization and rising prosperity have changed the values and behavior of the urban elite, leading them to talk and act in ways that unwittingly activate authoritarian tendencies in a subset of the nationalists. I’ll show why immigration has been so central in nearly all right-wing populist movements. It’s not just the spark, it’s the explosive material, and those who dismiss anti-immigrant sentiment as mere racism have missed several important aspects of moral psychology related to the general human need to live in a stable and coherent moral order. Once moral psychology is brought into the story and added on to the economic and authoritarianism explanations, it becomes possible to offer some advice for reducing the intensity of the recent wave of conflicts.Chapter One: The Rise of the GlobalistsAs nations grow prosperous, their values change in predictable ways. The most detailed longitudinal research on these changes comes from the World Values Survey, which asks representative samples of people in dozens of countries about their values and beliefs. The WVS has now collected and published data in six “waves” since the early 1980s; the most recent survey included sixty countries. Nearly all of the countries are now far wealthier than they were in the 1980s, and many made a transition from communism to capitalism and from dictatorship to democracy in the interim. How did these momentous changes affect their values?Each country has followed a unique trajectory, but if we zoom out far enough some general trends emerge from the WVS data. Countries seem to move in two directions, along two axes: first, as they industrialize, they move away from “traditional values” in which religion, ritual, and deference to authorities are important, and toward “secular rational” values that are more open to change, progress, and social engineering based on rational considerations. Second, as they grow wealthier and more citizens move into the service sector, nations move away from “survival values” emphasizing the economic and physical security found in one’s family, tribe, and other parochial groups, toward “self-expression” or “emancipative values” that emphasize individual rights and protections—not just for oneself, but as a matter of principle, for everyone. Here is a summary of those changes from the introduction to Christian Welzel’s enlightening book Freedom Rising:
…fading existential pressures [i.e., threats and challenges to survival] open people’s minds, making them prioritize freedom over security, autonomy over authority, diversity over uniformity, and creativity over discipline. By the same token, persistent existential pressures keep people’s minds closed, in which case they emphasize the opposite priorities…the existentially relieved state of mind is the source of tolerance and solidarity beyond one’s in-group; the existentially stressed state of mind is the source of discrimination and hostility against out-groups.
Democratic capitalism—in societies with good rule of law and non-corrupt institutions—has generated steady increases in living standards and existential security for many decades now. As societies become more prosperous and safe, they generally become more open and tolerant. Combined with vastly greater access to the food, movies, and consumer products of other cultures brought to us by globalization and the internet, this openness leads almost inevitably to the rise of a cosmopolitan attitude, usually most visible in the young urban elite. Local ties weaken, parochialism becomes a dirty word, and people begin to think of their fellow human beings as fellow “citizens of the world” (to quote candidate Barack Obama in Berlin in 2008). The word “cosmopolitan” comes from Greek roots meaning, literally, “citizen of the world.” Cosmopolitans embrace diversity and welcome immigration, often turning those topics into litmus tests for moral respectability.
For example, in 2007, former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown gave a speech that included the phrase, “British jobs for British workers.” The phrase provoked anger and scorn from many of Brown’s colleagues in the Labour party. In an essay in Prospect, David Goodhart described the scene at a British center-left social event a few days after Brown’s remark:
The people around me entered a bidding war to express their outrage at Brown’s slogan which was finally triumphantly closed by one who declared, to general approval, that it was “racism, pure and simple.” I remember thinking afterwards how odd the conversation would have sounded to most other people in this country. Gordon Brown’s phrase may have been clumsy and cynical but he didn’t actually say British jobs for white British workers. In most other places in the world today, and indeed probably in Britain itself until about 25 years ago, such a statement about a job preference for national citizens would have seemed so banal as to be hardly worth uttering. Now the language of liberal universalism has ruled it beyond the pale.
The shift that Goodhart notes among the Left-leaning British elite is related to the shift toward “emancipative” values described by Welzel. Parochialism is bad and universalism is good. Goodhart quotes George Monbiot, a leading figure of the British Left:
Internationalism…tells us that someone living in Kinshasa is of no less worth than someone living in Kensington…. Patriotism, if it means anything, tells us we should favour the interests of British people [before the Congolese]. How do you reconcile this choice with liberalism? How…do you distinguish it from racism?
Monbiot’s claim that patriotism is indistinguishable from racism illustrates the universalism that has characterized elements of the globalist Left in many Western nations for several decades. John Lennon wrote the globalist anthem in 1971. After asking us to imagine that there’s no heaven, and before asking us to imagine no possessions, Lennon asks us to:
Imagine there’s no countries; it isn’t hard to do Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too Imagine all the people living life in peace. You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one. I hope some day you’ll join us, and the world will be as one.
This is a vision of heaven for multicultural globalists. But it’s naiveté, sacrilege, and treason for nationalists.
Chapter Two: Globalists and Nationalists Grow Further Apart on ImmigrationNationalists see patriotism as a virtue; they think their country and its culture are unique and worth preserving. This is a real moral commitment, not a pose to cover up racist bigotry. Some nationalists do believe that their country is better than all others, and some nationalisms are plainly illiberal and overtly racist. But as many defenders of patriotism have pointed out, you love your spouse because she or he is yours, not because you think your spouse is superior to all others. Nationalists feel a bond with their country, and they believe that this bond imposes moral obligations both ways: Citizens have a duty to love and serve their country, and governments are duty bound to protect their own people. Governments should place their citizens interests above the interests of people in other countries.There is nothing necessarily racist or base about this arrangement or social contract. Having a shared sense of identity, norms, and history generally promotes trust. Having no such shared sense leads to the condition that the sociologist Émile Durkheim described as “anomie” or normlessness. Societies with high trust, or high social capital, produce many beneficial outcomes for their citizens: lower crime rates, lower transaction costs for businesses, higher levels of prosperity, and a propensity toward generosity, among others. A liberal nationalist can reasonably argue that the debate over immigration policy in Europe is not a case of what is moral versus what is base, but a case of two clashing moral visions, incommensurate (à la Isaiah Berlin). The trick, from this point of view, is figuring out how to balance reasonable concerns about the integrity of one’s own community with the obligation to welcome strangers, particularly strangers in dire need.So how have nationalists and globalists responded to the European immigration crisis? For the past year or two we’ve all seen shocking images of refugees washing up alive and dead on European beaches, marching in long lines across south eastern Europe, scaling fences, filling train stations, and hiding and dying in trucks and train tunnels. If you’re a European globalist, you were probably thrilled in August 2015 when Angela Merkel announced Germany’s open-door policy to refugees and asylum seekers. There are millions of people in need, and (according to some globalists) national borders are arbitrary and immoral.But the globalists are concentrated in the capital cities, commercial hubs, and university towns—the places that are furthest along on the values shift found in the World Values Survey data. Figure 1 shows this geographic disjunction in the UK, using data collected in 2014. Positive sentiment toward immigrants is plotted on the Y axis, and desire for Britain to leave the EU on the X axis. Residents of Inner London are extreme outliers on both dimensions when compared to other cities and regions of the UK, and even when compared to residents of outer London.
But if you are a European nationalist, watching the nightly news may have felt like watching the spread of the Zika virus, moving steadily northward from the chaos zones of southwest Asia and north Africa. Only a few right-wing nationalist leaders tried to stop it, such as Victor Orban in Hungary. The globalist elite seemed to be cheering the human tidal wave onward, welcoming it into the heart of Europe, and then demanding that every country accept and resettle a large number of refugees.
And these demands, epicentered in Brussels, came after decades of debate in which nationalists had been arguing that Europe has already been too open and had already taken in so many Muslim immigrants that the cultures and traditions of European societies were threatened. Long before the flow of Syrian asylum seekers arrived in Europe there were initiatives to ban minarets in Switzerland and burkas in France. There were riots in Arab neighborhoods of Paris and Marseilles, and attacks on Jews and synagogues throughout Europe. There were hidden terrorist cells that planned and executed the attacks of September 11 in the United States, attacks on trains and buses in Madrid and London, and the slaughter of the Charlie Hebdo staff in Paris.By the summer of 2015 the nationalist side was already at the boiling point, shouting “enough is enough, close the tap,” when the globalists proclaimed, “let us open the floodgates, it’s the compassionate thing to do, and if you oppose us you are a racist.” Might that not provoke even fairly reasonable people to rage? Might that not make many of them more receptive to arguments, ideas, and political parties that lean toward the illiberal side of nationalism and that were considered taboo just a few years earlier?Chapter Three: Muslim Immigration Triggers the Authoritarian AlarmNationalists in Europe have been objecting to mass immigration for decades, so the gigantic surge of asylum seekers in 2015 was bound to increase their anger and their support for right-wing nationalist parties. Globalists tend to explain these reactions as “racism, pure and simple,” or as the small-minded small-town selfishness of people who don’t want to lose either jobs or benefits to foreigners.Racism is clearly evident in some of the things that some nationalists say in interviews, chant at soccer matches, or write on the Internet with the protection of anonymity. But “racism” is a shallow term when used as an explanation. It asserts that there are some people who just don’t like anyone different from themselves—particularly if they have darker skin. They have no valid reason for this dislike; they just dislike difference, and that’s all we need to know to understand their rage.But that is not all we need to know. On closer inspection, racism usually turns out to be deeply bound up with moral concerns. (I use the term “moral” here in a purely descriptive sense to mean concerns that seem—for the people we are discussing—to be matters of good and evil; I am not saying that racism is in fact morally good or morally correct.) People don’t hate others just because they have darker skin or differently shaped noses; they hate people whom they perceive as having values that are incompatible with their own, or who (they believe) engage in behaviors they find abhorrent, or whom they perceive to be a threat to something they hold dear. These moral concerns may be out of touch with reality, and they are routinely amplified by demagogues. But if we want to understand the recent rise of right-wing populist movements, then “racism” can’t be the stopping point; it must be the beginning of the inquiry.Among the most important guides in this inquiry is the political scientist Karen Stenner. In 2005 Stenner published a book called The Authoritarian Dynamic, an academic work full of graphs, descriptions of regression analyses, and discussions of scholarly disputes over the nature of authoritarianism. (It therefore has not had a wide readership.) Her core finding is that authoritarianism is not a stable personality trait. It is rather a psychological predisposition to become intolerant when the person perceives a certain kind of threat. It’s as though some people have a button on their foreheads, and when the button is pushed, they suddenly become intensely focused on defending their in-group, kicking out foreigners and non-conformists, and stamping out dissent within the group. At those times they are more attracted to strongmen and the use of force. At other times, when they perceive no such threat, they are not unusually intolerant. So the key is to understand what pushes that button.The answer, Stenner suggests, is what she calls “normative threat,” which basically means a threat to the integrity of the moral order (as they perceive it). It is the perception that “we” are coming apart:
The experience or perception of disobedience to group authorities or authorities unworthy of respect, nonconformity to group norms or norms proving questionable, lack of consensus in group values and beliefs and, in general, diversity and freedom ‘run amok’ should activate the predisposition and increase the manifestation of these characteristic attitudes and behaviors.
So authoritarians are not being selfish. They are not trying to protect their wallets or even their families. They are trying to protect their group or society. Some authoritarians see their race or bloodline as the thing to be protected, and these people make up the deeply racist subset of right-wing populist movements, including the fringe that is sometimes attracted to neo-Nazism. They would not even accept immigrants who fully assimilated to the culture. But more typically, in modern Europe and America, it is the nation and its culture that nationalists want to preserve.
Stenner identifies authoritarians in her many studies by the degree to which they endorse a few items about the most important values children should learn at home, for example, “obedience” (vs. “independence” and “tolerance and respect for other people”). She then describes a series of studies she did using a variety of methods and cross-national datasets. In one set of experiments she asked Americans to read fabricated news stories about how their nation is changing. When they read that Americans are changing in ways that make them more similar to each other, authoritarians were no more racist and intolerant than others. But when Stenner gave them a news story suggesting that Americans are becoming more morally diverse, the button got pushed, the “authoritarian dynamic” kicked in, and they became more racist and intolerant. For example, “maintaining order in the nation” became a higher national priority while “protecting freedom of speech” became a lower priority. They became more critical of homosexuality, abortion, and divorce.One of Stenner’s most helpful contributions is her finding that authoritarians are psychologically distinct from “status quo conservatives” who are the more prototypical conservatives—cautious about radical change. Status quo conservatives compose the long and distinguished lineage from Edmund Burke’s prescient reflections and fears about the early years of the French revolution through William F. Buckley’s statement that his conservative magazine National Review would “stand athwart history yelling ‘Stop!’”Status quo conservatives are not natural allies of authoritarians, who often favor radical change and are willing to take big risks to implement untested policies. This is why so many Republicans—and nearly all conservative intellectuals—oppose Donald Trump; he is simply not a conservative by the test of temperament or values. But status quo conservatives can be drawn into alliance with authoritarians when they perceive that progressives have subverted the country’s traditions and identity so badly that dramatic political actions (such as Brexit, or banning Muslim immigration to the United States) are seen as the only remaining way of yelling “Stop!” Brexit can seem less radical than the prospect of absorption into the “ever closer union” of the EU.So now we can see why immigration—particularly the recent surge in Muslim immigration from Syria—has caused such powerfully polarized reactions in so many European countries, and even in the United States where the number of Muslim immigrants is low. Muslim Middle Eastern immigrants are seen by nationalists as posing a far greater threat of terrorism than are immigrants from any other region or religion. But Stenner invites us to look past the security threat and examine the normative threat. Islam asks adherents to live in ways that can make assimilation into secular egalitarian Western societies more difficult compared to other groups. (The same can be said for Orthodox Jews, and Stenner’s authoritarian dynamic can help explain why we are seeing a resurgence of right-wing anti-Semitism in the United States.) Muslims don’t just observe different customs in their private lives; they often request and receive accommodations in law and policy from their host countries, particularly in matters related to gender. Some of the most pitched battles of recent decades in France and other European countries have been fought over the veiling and covering of women, and the related need for privacy and gender segregation. For example, some public swimming pools in Sweden now offer times of day when only women are allowed to swim. This runs contrary to strong Swedish values regarding gender equality and non-differentiation.So whether you are a status quo conservative concerned about rapid change or an authoritarian who is hypersensitive to normative threat, high levels of Muslim immigration into your Western nation are likely to threaten your core moral concerns. But as soon as you speak up to voice those concerns, globalists will scorn you as a racist and a rube. When the globalists—even those who run the center-right parties in your country—come down on you like that, where can you turn? The answer, increasingly, is to the far right-wing nationalist parties in Europe, and to Donald Trump, who just engineered a hostile takeover of the Republican Party in America.The Authoritarian Dynamic was published in 2005 and the word “Muslim” occurs just six times (in contrast to 100 appearances of the word “black”). But Stenner’s book offers a kind of Rosetta stone for interpreting the rise of right-wing populism and its focus on Muslims in 2016. Stenner notes that her theory “explains the kind of intolerance that seems to ‘come out of nowhere,’ that can spring up in tolerant and intolerant cultures alike, producing sudden changes in behavior that cannot be accounted for by slowly changing cultural traditions.”She contrasts her theory with those who see an unstoppable tide of history moving away from traditions and “toward greater respect for individual freedom and difference,” and who expect people to continue evolving “into more perfect liberal democratic citizens.“ She does not say which theorists she has in mind, but Welzel and his World Values Survey collaborators, as well as Francis Fukuyama’s “end of history” thesis, seem to be likely candidates. Stenner does not share the optimism of those theorists about the future of Western liberal democracies. She acknowledges the general trends toward tolerance, but she predicts that these very trends create conditions that hyper-activate authoritarians and produce a powerful backlash. She offered this prophecy:
[T]he increasing license allowed by those evolving cultures generates the very conditions guaranteed to goad latent authoritarians to sudden and intense, perhaps violent, and almost certainly unexpected, expressions of intolerance. Likewise, then, if intolerance is more a product of individual psychology than of cultural norms…we get a different vision of the future, and a different understanding of whose problem this is and will be, than if intolerance is an almost accidental by-product of simple attachment to tradition. The kind of intolerance that springs from aberrant individual psychology, rather than the disinterested absorption of pervasive cultural norms, is bound to be more passionate and irrational, less predictable, less amenable to persuasion, and more aggravated than educated by the cultural promotion of tolerance [emphasis added].
Writing in 2004, Stenner predicted that “intolerance is not a thing of the past, it is very much a thing of the future.”
Chapter Four: What Now?The upshot of all this is that the answer to the question we began with—What on earth is going on?—cannot be found just by looking at the nationalists and pointing to their economic conditions and the racism that some of them do indeed display. One must first look at the globalists, and at how their changing values may drive many of their fellow citizens to support right-wing political leaders. In particular, globalists often support high levels of immigration and reductions in national sovereignty; they tend to see transnational entities such as the European Union as being morally superior to nation-states; and they vilify the nationalists and their patriotism as “racism pure and simple.” These actions press the “normative threat” button in the minds of those who are predisposed to authoritarianism, and these actions can drive status quo conservatives to join authoritarians in fighting back against the globalists and their universalistic projects.If this argument is correct, then it leads to a clear set of policy prescriptions for globalists. First and foremost: Think carefully about the way your country handles immigration and try to manage it in a way that is less likely to provoke an authoritarian reaction. Pay attention to three key variables: the percentage of foreign-born residents at any given time, the degree of moral difference of each incoming group, and the degree of assimilation being achieved by each group’s children.Legal immigration from morally different cultures is not problematic even with low levels of assimilation if the numbers are kept low; small ethnic enclaves are not a normative threat to any sizable body politic. Moderate levels of immigration by morally different ethnic groups are fine, too, as long as the immigrants are seen as successfully assimilating to the host culture. When immigrants seem eager to embrace the language, values, and customs of their new land, it affirms nationalists’ sense of pride that their nation is good, valuable, and attractive to foreigners. But whenever a country has historically high levels of immigration, from countries with very different moralities, and without a strong and successful assimilationist program, it is virtually certain that there will be an authoritarian counter-reaction, and you can expect many status quo conservatives to support it.Stenner ends The Authoritarian Dynamic with some specific and constructive advice:
[A]ll the available evidence indicates that exposure to difference, talking about difference, and applauding difference—the hallmarks of liberal democracy—are the surest ways to aggravate those who are innately intolerant, and to guarantee the increased expression of their predispositions in manifestly intolerant attitudes and behaviors. Paradoxically, then, it would seem that we can best limit intolerance of difference by parading, talking about, and applauding our sameness…. Ultimately, nothing inspires greater tolerance from the intolerant than an abundance of common and unifying beliefs, practices, rituals, institutions, and processes. And regrettably, nothing is more certain to provoke increased expression of their latent predispositions than the likes of “multicultural education,” bilingual policies, and nonassimilation.
If Stenner is correct, then her work has profound implications, not just for America, which was the focus of her book, but perhaps even more so for Europe. Donald Tusk, the current president of the European Council, recently gave a speech to a conclave of center-right Christian Democratic leaders (who, as members of the educated elite, are still generally globalists). Painfully aware of the new authoritarian supremacy in his native Poland, he chastised himself and his colleagues for pushing a “utopia of Europe without nation-states.” This, he said, has caused the recent Euroskeptic backlash: “Obsessed with the idea of instant and total integration, we failed to notice that ordinary people, the citizens of Europe, do not share our Euro-enthusiasm.”
Democracy requires letting ordinary citizens speak. The majority spoke in Britain on June 23, and majorities of similar mien may soon make themselves heard in other European countries, and possibly in the United States in November. The year 2016 will likely be remembered as a major turning point in the trajectory of Western democracies. Those who truly want to understand what is happening should carefully consider the complex interplay of globalization, immigration, and changing values.If the story I have told here is correct, then the globalists could easily speak, act, and legislate in ways that drain passions and votes away from nationalist parties, but this would require some deep rethinking about the value of national identities and cohesive moral communities. It would require abandoning the multicultural approach to immigration and embracing assimilation.The great question for Western nations after 2016 may be this: How do we reap the gains of global cooperation in trade, culture, education, human rights, and environmental protection while respecting—rather than diluting or crushing—the world’s many local, national, and other “parochial” identities, each with its own traditions and moral order? In what kind of world can globalists and nationalists live together in peace?
Jonathan Haidt is a social psychologist and professor in the Business and Society Program at New York University—Stern School of Business. He is the author of The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion.
Story 1: The Fed’s Long and Winding Road Back To A Normal Monetary Policy Starting in June 2015 With a .75% Increase in The Federal Fund’s Interest Rate Target — Two Years Too Late — Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah — Imagine, Stand By Me — Videos
The Beatles – The Long And Winding Road
Federal Reserve Open Committee – March 2015 Meeting
Jim Rickards on Fed Chair Janet Yellen and The Strong Dollar
Peter Schiff on Weak Economy, Fed, Inflation, Asset Bubbles
Peter Schiff on The Strong Dollar, U.S. market risk and Fed Chair Janet Yellen
Peter Schiff Janet Yellen Is Wrong! There Is A LOT Of Inflation! US Economy On Verge In Crisis
Federal Reserve and the IRS American Dream (Animation)
Charlotte Iserbyt – Deliberate Dumbing Down of the World
Charlotte Iserbyt served as Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education, during the first Reagan Administration, where she first blew the whistle on a major technology initiative which would control curriculum in America’s classrooms.
Charlotte Iserbyt: The Deliberate Dumbing Down of the World
Download Mrs. Iserbyt’s book, as well as other materials, on her websites:
Charlotte Iserbyt: The Miseducation of America Part 1-Full
The Miseducation of America – Part 2 (by Charlotte Iserbyt)
Charlotte Iserbyt Speaking At The Zombie Country Conference
Charlotte Iserbyt – Skull and Bones, The Order at Yale Revealed (Full)
Time Out Charlotte Iserbyt Part 1
Time Out Charlotte Iserbyt Part 2
Mind Control in Public Schools with Charlotte Iserbyt
State Of Mind delves into the abyss to expose the true agendas at work. This film reveals the secret manipulations at work and provides shocking and suppressed historical and current examples. From the ancient roots of the control of human behavior to its maturity in the mind control experiments of intelligence agencies and other organs of manipulation, State Of Mind reveals a plan for the future that drives home the dreadful price of our ignorance.
Alex Jones Movie (2013) State Of Mind The Psychology Of Control Full Version HD
Alex Jones Movie (2013) State Of Mind The Psychology Of Control Full Version HD: BUY THE DVD OR BLU-RAY SUPPORT THE DOCUMENTARY MAKERS http://www.infowarsshop.com/State-Of-…
State Of Mind: The Psychology Of Control, from the creators of A Noble Lie: Oklahoma City 1995, reveals that much of what we believe to be truth is actually deliberate deception. The global elites are systematically implanting lies into our consciousness to erect a “tyranny over the minds of men.” This film exposes the mind control methods being used to turn our once vibrant society into a land of obedient sheeple.
Are we controlled?
To what extent and by whom?
What does it mean for humanity’s future?
From cradle to grave our parents, peers, institutions and society inform our values and behaviours but this process has been hijacked. State Of Mind examines the science of control that has evolved over generations to keep us firmly in place so that dictators, power brokers and corporate puppeteers may profit from our ignorance and slavery. From the anvil of compulsory schooling to media and entertainment, we are kept in perpetual bondage to the ideas that shape our actions.
State Of Mind delves into the abyss to expose the true agendas at work. This film reveals the secret manipulations at work and provides shocking and suppressed historical and current examples. From the ancient roots of the control of human behaviour to its maturity in the mind control experiments of intelligence agencies and other organs of manipulation, State Of Mind reveals a plan for the future that drives home the dreadful price of our ignorance.
We are prepared for a new paradigm. Will we choose our own paths or have one selected for us? State Of Mind unveils the answers that may decide whether humankind will fulfil its destiny or be forever shackled to its own creation.
Inside the Academy: John Goodlad
John Goodlad is Professor Emeritus in the College of Education and co-founder of the Center for Educational Renewal at the University of Washington as well as President of the Institute for Educational Inquiry in Seattle. While he has previously held faculty positions at Emory University, the University of Chicago, and the University of California at Los Angeles, Goodlad first taught in a one-room, eight-grade school house in British Columbia, Canada. His experiences as a classroom teacher encouraged his later educational research examining grading procedures, curriculum inquiry, the functions of schooling, and teacher education. Recognized for his distinguished contributions to educational renewal, Goodlad drew national attention and spurred research efforts on school improvement through his award-winning book, A Place Called School (1984). Honored for his life-long commitment to universal education as a mainstay of democracy, Goodlad has received numerous awards and honorary degrees including the Harold W. McGraw, Jr. Prize in Education (1999), the first Brock International Prize in Education (2002), and the John Dewey Society Outstanding Achievement Award (2009). Having authored or edited more than three dozen books, 200 articles in scholarly publications, and 80 book chapters and encyclopedia entries, Goodlad’s more recent publications include: In Praise of Education (1997), Education for Everyone: Agenda for Education in a Democracy (2004), and Romances with Schools: A Life of Education (2009).
Dewey meets Goodlad
Goodlad’s goals of school
“Teaching as if Democracy Matters,” by John Goodlad
John Goodlad lecturing at UCLA 1/20/1968
Charlotte Iserbyt: Societies Secrets
“Her father and grandfather we members of the infamous Skull & Bones Society at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut.
“Charlotte Iserbyt is the consummate whistleblower! Iserbyt served as Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education, during the first Reagan Administration, where she first blew the whistle on a major technology initiative which would control curriculum in America’s classrooms. Iserbyt is a former school board director in Camden, Maine and was co-founder and research analyst of Guardians of Education for Maine (GEM) from 1978 to 2000.
She has also served in the American Red Cross on Guam and Japan during the Korean War, and in the United States Foreign Service in Belgium and in the Republic of South Africa. Iserbyt is a speaker and writer, best known for her 1985 booklet Back to Basics Reform or OBE: Skinnerian International Curriculum and her 1989 pamphlet Soviets in the Classroom: America’s Latest Education Fad which covered the details of the U.S.-Soviet and Carnegie-Soviet Education Agreements which remain in effect to this day. She is a freelance writer and has had articles published in Human Events, The Washington Times, The Bangor Daily News, and included in the record of Congressional hearings.”
Antony Sutton – The Order of Skull and Bones [Brotherhood of Death]
Anthony C. Sutton
Antony Sutton-1976 Lecture (Full Length)
Norman Dodd On the hidden agenda for world government
Hidden Agenda Norman Dodd 1 of 6
G. Edward Griffins circa 1982 landmark interview of Norman Dodd, chief investigator for the Reece Committee, charged with the duty to ferret out the anti-American activities of non-profit, tax-exempt foundations.
Professor Carroll Quigley, Bill Clinton’s mentor at Georgetown University, authored a massive volume entitled “Tragedy and Hope” in which he states: “There does exist and has existed for a generation, an international network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims, and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies, but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.”
“The powers of financial capitalism had another far reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements, arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences…”
“The apex of the system was the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the worlds’ central banks which were themselves private corporations…”
“The growth of financial capitalism made possible a centralization of world economic control and use of this power for the direct benefit of financiers and the indirect injury of all other economic groups.” Tragedy and Hope: A History of The World in Our Time (Macmillan Company, 1966,) Professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University
“The Council on Foreign Relations is the American branch of a society which originated in England (RIIA) … [and] … believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established.” Dr. Carroll Quigley
“As a teenager, I heard John Kennedy’s summons to citizenship. And then, as a student, I heard that call clarified by a professor I had named Carroll Quigley.”President Clinton, in his acceptance speech for the Democratic Party’s nomination for president, 16 July 1992
“Quigley” is the late Carroll Quigley, a Council on Foreign Relations member and historian, as well as mentor to CFR and Trilateral Commission member Bill Clinton. The lecture is based around the following quote from his book Tragedy & Hope, pp. 1247-1248:
“The National parties and their presidential candidates, with the Eastern Establishment assiduously fostering the process behind the scenes, moved closer together and nearly met in the center with almost identical candidates and platforms, although the process was concealed as much as possible, by the revival of obsolescent or meaningless war cries and slogans (often going back to the Civil War)….The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy. … Either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.”
“…Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt is an American freelance writer and whistleblower who served as a Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education during the first term of U.S. President Ronald Reagan, and staff employee of the US State Department (South Africa, Belgium, South Korea).[1][2][3] She was born in 1930[4] and attended Dana Hall preparatory school and Katharine Gibbs College in New York City, where she studied business.[5] Iserbyt’s father and grandfather were Yale University graduates and members of the Skull and Bones secret society.
She is known for writing the book The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America. The book claims that changes gradually brought into the American public education system attempt to eliminate the influences of a child’s parents (religion, morals, national patriotism), and mold the child into a member of the proletariat in preparation for a socialist-collectivist world of the future.[3] She alleges that these changes originated from plans formulated primarily by the Andrew Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Education and Rockefeller General Education Board, and details what she says are the psychological methods used to implement and effect the changes.[3]
In an interview[2] concerning secret societies and the elite agenda she disclosed that in the early 1980s she had a chance to meet with Norman Dodd who had been the chief investigator for the United States House Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations commonly known as the B. Carroll Reece Committee. In the video she claims that Dodd discussed a ‘network’ of individuals including Carnegie who planned to bring about world peace by means of rapid changes in society. These changes would be brought about by involving the populace in various wars and military conflicts. She further claimed that Dodd had discussions with Rowan Gaither, the president of the Ford Foundation in which he revealed that directives from the President of the United States compelled foundations related to the Ford Foundation to direct their funding into bringing about the merger of the USA with the Soviet Union.[6][7][8]
Filmed interviews of Iserbyt have her detail her story that lead her from school board trustee/administrator to becoming a Ronald Reagan administration staff in the U.S. Department of Education, and discovering further to her complete disbelief how these policies of a socialist-collectivist nature originated all the way to President Reagan, Vice President George H. W. Bush, and their policy advisers.
Up until 1960 Reagan, a leading member of United World Federalists (whose purpose was to merge America into a world government), was a charter member of Americans for Democratic Action. Reagan was also a member of the National Advisory Council of the American Veterans Committee[10] that was supposedly “under communist influence.”
Not listening to warnings provided to her in a book about Ronald Reagan (as California Governor, written by United Republicans of California (UROC)) given to her by friend, Iserbyt dismissed the seemingly outrageous claims made in the book a short time prior to her accepting and leaving for the government position. 1982 Reagan relieved her of her duties after leaking an important technology grant for computerized learning–Project BEST: “Better Education Skills through Technology”[11] brought about by the scholarly writings and a large study by an education specialist named Dr. John I. Goodlad at the Center for Educational Renewal at the University of Washington originally from British Columbia, Canada.[12] One book Iserbyt was critical of was “Schooling for a Global Age” edited by Charlotte C. Anderson, James M. Becker, Institute for Development of Educational Activities, New York 1979, that Iserbyt cited as having less to do with fostering learning and mainly to do with psychological manipulation of students possibly against the teaching of the child’s parents, for example, in arts classes.[13]
Parents and the general public must be reached also. Otherwise, children and youth enrolled in globally oriented programs may find themselves in conflict with values assumed in the home. And then the educational institution frequently comes under scrutiny and must pull back.
— Dr. John I. Goodlad, Schooling for a Global Age-1979
And again later…
Enlightened social engineering is required to face situations that demand global action now… Parents and the general public must be reached also, otherwise, children and youth enrolled in globally oriented programs may find themselves in conflict with values assumed in the home. And then the educational institution frequently comes under scrutiny and must pull back.
— Dr. John I. Goodlad, “Guide to Getting Out Your Message,” National Education Goals Panel Community Action Toolkit: A Do-It-Yourself Kit for Education Renewal (September 1994); 6.[14]
Through her father Charlotte Iserbyt was able to gain possession of the complete listings of the members, living and dead, of the Yale University Skull and Bones secret society, fashioned into a three-volume set: living members, deceased members, and complete listing of both[citation needed]. She cooperated in the writing of Dr. Antony C. Sutton’s book America’s Secret Establishment – The Order of Skull & Bones by providing the list of members obtained from her father.[15]
Fifteen Yale juniors are invited to join the Skulls each year in a process called “tapping”. A couple of thousand Yale graduates have been Skulls–WASP males from wealthy Northeastern families: Bush, Bundy, Cheney, Dodge, Ford, Goodyear, Harriman, Heinz, Kellogg, Phelps, Pillsbury, Rockefeller, Taft, Vanderbilt, Weyerhaeuser and Whitney were among its membership.
Iserbyt believes that the Bavarian Illuminati hid inside the Freemasons, and that the Skull and Bones Secret Society is derived from these Illuminati-degree Freemasons from Bavaria whose goals were documented in an original edition 1798 book Proofs of Conspiracy by John Robison in Iserbyt’s possession that she claimed was originally owned by the first president of the United States of America, Freemason, George Washington. The ideas of a ruling elite date back prior to Plato’s writings about the hierarchical plutocracy. Among the goals of the Order of the Illuminati were to destroy religions, and governments from within, merge the destroyed countries, and to bring about a one world government, a new world order, in their secret control.[16][17]
In the secret societies interview she states that virtually all of the Carnegie Foundation agreements with the Russian education system were still in place, as well as the U.S. Department of Education programs that Iserbyt claims brought about the downfall of American prosperity since the turn of the century, especially post World War II.[citation needed] …”
From his early days as a teacher in rural Canada to his eminent status today, John Goodlad has been crafting an agenda for constructive school renewal.
The acknowledged leader of educational renewal, John Goodlad has been at the vortex of every wind that has blown across education since World War II—holding firm to the basic ideas of humanism and progressivism. From the 1970s, when he took a stand against the behavioral objectives movement, to the early 1990s, when he opposed America 2000, Goodlad has steadfastly adhered to the wisdom of Alfred North Whitehead and John Dewey.
From Whitehead, he took the notions of “romance, rigor, application,” that is, embrace a compelling idea, examine and refine it with great rigor, and apply it to your work. From Dewey, he learned the concepts of progressive education, what might now be called constructivism, and the practice of applying theory with seriousness of purpose and intellectual power.
At 74, the slim, energetic Goodlad is professor of education at the University of Washington, Director of the Center for Educational Renewal, President of the Institute for Educational Inquiry, and former long-time dean of the Graduate School of Education at UCLA. The Nongraded Elementary School (1959) and A Place Called School (1984) are his most well-known books. As celebrated as he is today, however, Goodlad mused that to understand him, you must return to an era that is very different from today, to the Great Depression.
Growing Up in Rural Canada
Goodlad grew up during hard economic times in a rural Canadian town 2,500 feet up the side of a mountain overlooking Vancouver. His memories of childhood, nevertheless, are happy ones—of hiking in the mountains, fishing in the streams, picking fresh huckleberries, sleigh-riding in the snow, and, in his words, watching “the marvelous northwest summer come on so quickly and vigorously.”
As a boy, Goodlad did not spend much time thinking about higher education, for very few people went to the university in his day. “The university was something remote, and those who went weren’t fully trusted by the common man,” he said. His parents had only an elementary school education, but were certainly literate. His mother played the organ in church, and he remembers her walking to school to get his books when he was ill. Goodlad’s father wrote poetry and had a literary bent. Sadly, he contracted influenza during the great epidemic of 1918–1920 and died when young John was just 16.
Goodlad’s teenage years were a time when things flattened out economically. The vast majority of people had very little; in high school, he knew only one boy who owned a car. A good student, Goodlad had always envisioned teaching as “something I wouldn’t mind doing. It would be nice to say I was driven powerfully to education, but the truth of the matter was you didn’t have any choices.” Neither of his two older brothers went to college, and there was no way Goodlad could get to the university either.
At that time, however, Canada allowed students to matriculate for a fifth year of high school (senior matriculation) plus one year of normal school to qualify for a provisional teaching certificate in an elementary school. Goodlad completed these studies and attained a position in a one-room schoolhouse in a farming community not far from Vancouver. At that time, Goodlad told me, you were hired as a teacher if you were male and athletic, on the grounds that you could keep order in the classroom and live independently. It was a sexist world, he reflected.
Exploring the Boundaries of Teaching
Goodlad taught in a small room with 34 children scattered across eight grades, planning and teaching an average of 56 lessons every day. With very few books or instructional supplies, he felt fortunate to have three walls of chalkboard space. “At the end of each day,” he said, “I filled these spaces with instructions to pupils in eight grades and seven subjects.” The nongraded school concept had its genesis at this one-room school, where Goodlad also experienced the regulations of schooling that so often get in the way of teaching and learning.
Fate next took Goodlad to a graded elementary school where the routines of schooling continued to dominate daily practice. When crowded conditions forced him to relocate his classroom to a church, Goodlad was free to experiment with dismantling some of the encumbrances of traditional schooling. Unable to maintain the pace of managing 56 periods a day, Goodlad stumbled upon a way to integrate grades and subject matter when he had the custodian build a sand table for his class. “I created a very progressive environment,” he explained. “With a great big sand table…. I integrated history, geography, art, reading, and other subjects as well as broke down all of the grade lines.” Often in his career, Goodlad drew on this experience when he examined the nongraded elementary school and techniques for crossing subject lines.
Gathering Ideas, Shaping a Vision
Gradually, Goodlad began to further his education. During the summer he attained permanent certification at Vancouver’s Victoria College. He liked many of the classes he took, particularly radio script writing and others that had no direct connection to pedagogy. “I don’t think I was aware of the relationship between degree-getting and position-getting,” Goodlad told me, “but I became aware at some point that a degree was in the works.”
From 1943 to 1947, several important events occurred in Goodlad’s life. First, he became the director of education at the Provincial Industrial School for Boys, a place where youngsters, Goodlad recalled, “were incarcerated for everything from incorrigibility to murder.” Here, he learned the power of the environment to shape young people, a notion of culture that went against the conventional wisdom of the time and is still not fully accepted today.
Goodlad completed both his bachelor’s and master’s degrees at the University of British Columbia. Now married to Evalene Pearson, he began applying to graduate schools in the United States and Canada. Up until then, Goodlad had not spent a continuous period of residence in a university. Leaving behind everything he and Evalene had grown up with took a lot of courage, much of which Goodlad attributes to his wife. With her help and encouragement and with eight years of hard teaching experience behind him, Goodlad raced through the University of Chicago to a Ph.D. in three years.
Chicago operated not by course credits but, rather, by the examination process, so Goodlad—who was well versed in how to work by day and write and study late at night and on weekends— quickly passed his exams and wrote a dissertation on nonpromotion. His investigation found that the practice frequently had no helpful consequences for the student.
During this time, Goodlad also began a long relationship with Ralph Tyler—first a mentor and later a close friend. He learned to appreciate what he called Tyler’s “incredible ability not to tell you a darn thing, but to ask you a few questions and to help you reach a completely clear conclusion.” From Tyler, he also learned to respect extremely careful preparation and to expect high standards of intellectual competence from himself and valued colleagues in their work in education.
Viewing the School as a “Cultural Entity”
Up to this time, all of Goodlad’s teaching had been in Canadian schools. Deciding that he needed to know something about U.S. schools, he accepted a job with the Atlanta Area Teacher Education Service, an innovative attempt to work with hundreds of teachers who, like Goodlad, had gone to normal school, were teaching, but didn’t have degrees. A collaborative effort between the University of Georgia and Emory University, this service helped many teachers earn full degrees. Goodlad spent two years assisting teachers with college courses and, at age 29, was named the head of Emory University’s Division of Teacher Education.
During the mid- and late-50s, Goodlad continued his teaching and administration at Emory and then at the University of Chicago, finding time to start a family and to publish several books and articles. The Elementary School (1956) and The Nongraded Elementary School (1959)—two books that Goodlad co-authored—were among the most influential education books of this period.
In 1960, Goodlad began his quarter-century association with UCLA, where he served first as a professor and director of the lab school and, later, for 16 years as dean of the Graduate School of Education. Goodlad was seeking to have more association with schools, and the lab school was particularly appealing. It was a fairly representative school, not an elite school for the faculty and a few other families, as were many lab schools around the country. “The combination to head the lab school at UCLA and the professorship was very compelling,” Goodlad told me, for many reasons, not the least of which was the need to move to a better climate for the health of one of his children.
More and more, Goodlad began to focus his work and the work of the university on the school as a “cultural entity.” In the 1960s and ’70s, most of the work on schools was focused on the individual student or the individual teacher. It is a mistake, Goodlad fervently believes, to look at “the individual mosquito instead of looking at the mosquito pond.” The school is a serious and complex ecosystem, and, to bring about change, teachers need to understand how that entire system works, the complex weave of the entire fabric. As Goodlad expressed it:
We address teacher education reform, we address curricular reform, we address teaching reform, we address restructuring—but we rarely address the school as a total entity. We don’t prepare teachers for school, but for classrooms.
In the 1970s, Goodlad’s was often a lonely voice, crying out to see each school as a unit of change. Visitors, as many as 5,000 in a single year, came to the UCLA lab school, said that it was wonderful, and then lamented, “We have no way of doing that back home. There’s no climate for change there.” Goodlad’s habitual response was to advise them to involve their principal, superintendent, and community; to look carefully at their own culture; and then to build an agenda for change.
Goodlad consistently opposed what he calls “the behaviorist excesses” of the time, especially those that narrowed the teaching role into a stimulus-response model. Even the late Madeline Hunter, whom Goodlad had brought in to be principal of the lab school in 1962, joined the behaviorist camp, said Goodlad. Hunter did much to correct some of the misapplied progressive methods in the lab school, and late in her career went to great lengths to distance herself from strict behaviorism, as did other talented educators whom Goodlad had debated for more than a decade.
Inventing a Program for Change
I pressed John Goodlad to summarize what he has stood for over the years, to envision what he would do if he were given a school to renew. His first response was indirect: a rousing cheer for Ted Sizer’s commitment to the autonomy of the single school:
Sizer has been remarkably successful at managing to convince people that there is no one model. Every one of the schools in the Coalition is different but all share some fundamental principles.
After some prodding and my promise not to identify this as a definitive list, Goodlad agreed to talk about some important things he would do. “First, you have to train people in how to carry on a serious educational conversation.” For example, on a topic like grade retention, you gather all the relevant data on the issue and ask, “What’s a better way?” At the University of Washington, Goodlad and his colleagues work with associates to learn how to ground their conversation in defensible arguments, how to make decisions and formulate actions, and, finally, how to appraise the consequences of their actions.
A second feature of an effective change program, said Goodlad, is an agenda. Without one, reform breaks down. It’s fine to study the situation, to ask questions, to do a simple inventory of what is worthwhile and what is problematic about a school. But, warned Goodlad, “It is a terrible mistake to go to your community blank.” The agenda can include a list of principles about which you feel strongly, or it can be a simple inventory of the local situation, but reform will descend into rancorous fighting, he cautioned, if it is based on a group of people expressing their pet peeves.
All successful reform is based on a compelling agenda. The Coalition of Essential Schools, Howard Gardner’s work, and the Center for Education Renewal, for example, are testimony to this fact. People need to buy into the agenda, Goodlad advised. They can then elaborate the agenda and even make interesting and serious changes, but there must be some template at the outset of sufficient complexity and promise to engage people.
Finally, Goodlad talked about the necessity of long-term and abiding commitment on the part of the staff. Too many change programs last only as long as one or two key people are interested. Goodlad cited instances where superintendents told him of their commitment and soon after applied for other jobs. The superintendent, the principal, and teachers are the initial key players in this effort. Almost no school can or should get a new staff. “The idea is not to restructure schools but to renew them,” Goodlad urged, a process that takes many hours of serious conversation.
After engaging in a dialogue, the staff can sit down and examine the work of Madeline Hunter, Ted Sizer, James Comer, and others and then decide what each can contribute to the agenda. The university can provide assistance if requested, but the emphasis is always on renewal and not on what Goodlad called “parachuting stuff in” that the school doesn’t need.
Charting a Personal Agenda
At this stage of his life, John Goodlad has no intention of slowing down. “We are entering the 10th year of a 15-year agenda at the Center for Educational Renewal,” he explained. “We have developed a strategy for change that’s based on more than a quarter of a century of research and other experiences, and we have managed to get people to buy into that voluntarily: the National Network for Educational Renewal.” With 16 settings in 14 states, the network is committed to the intense training of educators in the techniques of renewal, respect for the uniqueness of each school, and the simultaneous renewal of schools and teacher education. The network is now undergoing dramatic growth involving 25 colleges and universities, nearly 100 school districts, and more than 250 partner schools.
Goodlad continues to emphasize the importance, in a democratic society, of making it comfortable for schools to go beyond the custodial functions, the regulations, and other barriers that so bedeviled him in his first year of teaching. In fact, his eight years in Canadian public schools led to his belief that college educators who have a practical background can be the link between research and practice that is essential to overcoming these classroom obstacles to innovation. Goodlad has developed these and other concepts in his most recent book, Educational Renewal: Better Teachers, Better Schools (1994).
While planning an agenda for himself well into the next century, Goodlad does understand the stage of life that he has reached. Now is the time to write even more, to make the agenda for renewal ever clearer and more accessible, he told me. Paraphrasing Dewey’s words of 70 years ago, Goodlad reflected, “What the researcher in education must do is to get immersed in the complex phenomena, then withdraw and think about the issues.” Goodlad is thinking about them and for the rest of his career will continue his life’s work in school renewal.
“… Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the government. All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations … The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for … officials … to bind the employer … The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives …
“Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees. Upon employees in the federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people … This obligation is paramount … A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent … to prevent or obstruct … Government … Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government … is unthinkable and intolerable.”
~Letter From President Franklin D. Roosevelt
It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government. Unions, as well as employers, would vastly prefer to have even Government regulation of labor-management relations reduced to a minimum consistent with the protection of the public welfare…”
~George Meany, AFL-CIO
To the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees in 1937
14 Trillion – U.S. National Debt reaches $14 Trillion dollars, will NEVER be repaid
What life in America could be again WITHOUT the UAW and Unions! FORD PLANT CAMACARI
Ari Fleischer Says Obama Needs To Focus On National Debt In SOTU
Rep. Paul Ryan Gives Republican Response to State of the Union Address
Background Articles and Videos
Public Choice – Rent Seeking
Power of the Market – Labor
Ep. 8 – Who Protects the Worker [1/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980)
Ep. 8 – Who Protects the Worker [2/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980)
Ep. 8 – Who Protects the Worker [3/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980)
Ep. 8 – Who Protects the Worker [4/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980)
Ep. 8 – Who Protects the Worker [5/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980)
Ep. 8 – Who Protects the Worker [6/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980)
Ep. 8 – Who Protects the Worker [7/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980)
The New Face of the Union Movement: Government Employees
Published on September 1, 2010 by James Sherk
Abstract: Unions have been a familiar part of American working life for more than 70 years. Less familiar is the state of the union movement today: More union members now work for the government than for private employers. The above-market salaries and benefits that government employees receive are paid for by taxpayers. So, the union movement that began as a campaign to improve working conditions and salaries for workers in the private sector, now pushes for ever-higher taxes to increase the generous compensation that government employees enjoy. Heritage Foundation labor policy expert James Sherk details the changes in the union movement, and explains how Congress can react to this new reality.
“…The American union movement has reached a historic milestone—more union members currently work for the government than for private businesses. As a result, the union movement’s priorities have shifted. Because taxes fund government pay and benefits, unions are now pushing for tax increases across the country. The union movement that once campaigned to raise private-sector workers’ wages has transformed into a government union movement that campaigns to raise their taxes.How did this happen? Union organizing surged after the passage of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in 1935. But because union contracts raise costs, unionized businesses generally grow more slowly than non-union firms. Market competition has caused union membership to gradually fall in the private sector since the 1950s. The new government unions created in the 1960s could safely demand inflated pay without putting their jobs at risk. Now most union members work for the government.The early trade unionists did not believe that unions had a place in government. They believed the purpose of unions was to redistribute profits from business owners to workers—and the government makes no profits. The government labor movement has become a powerful special interest lobby to raise taxes on working Americans to raise the level of compensation for government workers. Taxpayers should not have to subsidize this lobbying. Congress should prohibit federal unions from using the federal payroll system to automatically deduct union dues from government employees’ paychecks. …”
In 2010, the union membership rate–the percent of wage and salary workers who were
members of a union–was 11.9 percent, down from 12.3 percent a year earlier, the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The number of wage and salary workers be-
longing to unions declined by 612,000 to 14.7 million. In 1983, the first year for
which comparable union data are available, the union membership rate was 20.1 per-
cent, and there were 17.7 million union workers.
The data on union membership were collected as part of the Current Population Sur-
vey (CPS), a monthly sample survey of about 60,000 households that obtains informa-
tion on employment and unemployment among the nation’s civilian noninstitutional
population age 16 and over. For more information see the Technical Note.
Highlights from the 2010 data:
–The union membership rate for public sector workers (36.2 percent) was
substantially higher than the rate for private sector workers (6.9 percent).
(See table 3.)
–Workers in education, training, and library occupations had the highest
unionization rate at 37.1 percent. (See table 3.)
–Black workers were more likely to be union members than were white, Asian,
or Hispanic workers. (See table 1.)
–Among states, New York had the highest union membership rate (24.2 percent)
and North Carolina had the lowest rate (3.2 percent). (See table 5.)
Industry and Occupation of Union Members
In 2010, 7.6 million public sector employees belonged to a union, compared with 7.1
million union workers in the private sector. The union membership rate for public
sector workers (36.2 percent) was substantially higher than the rate for private
sector workers (6.9 percent). Within the public sector, local government workers
had the highest union membership rate, 42.3 percent. This group includes workers in
heavily unionized occupations, such as teachers, police officers, and fire fighters.
Private sector industries with high unionization rates included transportation and
utilities (21.8 percent), telecommunications (15.8 percent), and construction (13.1
percent). In 2010, low unionization rates occurred in agriculture and related indus-
tries (1.6 percent) and in financial activities (2.0 percent). (See table 3.)
Among occupational groups, education, training, and library occupations (37.1 per-
cent) and protective service occupations (34.1 percent) had the highest unionization
rates in 2010. Sales and related occupations (3.2 percent) and farming, fishing, and
forestry occupations (3.4 percent) had the lowest unionization rates. (See table 3.)
Demographic Characteristics of Union Members
The union membership rate was higher for men (12.6 percent) than for women (11.1 per-
cent) in 2010. (See table 1.) The gap between their rates has narrowed considerably
since 1983, when the rate for men was about 10 percentage points higher than the rate
for women. Between 1983 and 2010, the union membership rate for men declined by almost
half (12.1 percentage points), while the rate for women declined by 3.5 percentage
points.
In 2010, among major race and ethnicity groups, black workers were more likely to be
union members (13.4 percent) than workers who were white (11.7 percent), Asian (10.9
percent), or Hispanic (10.0 percent). Black men had the highest union membership rate
(14.8 percent), while Asian men had the lowest rate (9.4 percent).
By age, the union membership rate was highest among 55- to 64-year-old workers (15.7
percent). The lowest union membership rate occurred among those ages 16 to 24 (4.3
percent).
Union Representation
In 2010, 16.3 million wage and salary workers were represented by a union. This group
includes both union members (14.7 million) and workers who report no union affiliation
but whose jobs are covered by a union contract (1.6 million). (See table 1.) Govern-
ment employees (783,000) comprised about half of the 1.6 million workers who were
covered by a union contract but were not members of a union. (See table 3.) http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.htm
The Fed’s Long and Winding Road Back To A Normal Monetary Policy Starting in June 2015 With a .75% Increase in The Federal Fund’s Interest Rate Target — Two Years Too Late — Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah — Imagine, Stand By Me — Videos
Posted on March 19, 2015. Filed under: American History, Banking, British History, College, Communications, Documentary, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, European History, Faith, Family, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government spending, history, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Money, Music, Natural Gas, Natural Gas, Oil, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Press, Radio, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Video, Water, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: America, articles, Audio, Breaking News, Broadcasting, capitalism, Cartoons, Charity, Citizenship, Clarity, Classical Liberalism, Collectivism, Commentary, Commitment, Communicate, Communication, Concise, Convincing, Courage, Culture, Current Affairs, Current Events, Deflation, Discretionary Monetary Policy, economic growth, economic policy, Economics, Education, Evil, Experience, Faith, Family, Fed's Balance Sheet, Federal Funds Rate, Federal Funds Rate Target, Federal Open Market Committee, First, fiscal policy, FOMC, free enterprise, freedom, freedom of speech, Friends, George Carlin, Give It A Listen, God, Good, Goodwill, Growth, Hope, Imagine, Individualism, inflation, Interest Rates, Janet Yellen, Jim Rickards, John Lennon, Knowledge, liberty, Life, Love, Lovers of Liberty, monetary policy, MPEG3, Music, News, Opinions, Peace, Peter Schiff, Photos, Podcasts, Political Philosophy, Politics, Price Controls, prosperity, Quantitative Easing, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Recession, Recovery, Representative Republic, Republic, Resources, Respect, rule of law, Rule of Men, Show Notes, Songs, Talk Radio, The American Dream, The Beatles, The Fed, The Federal Reserve System, The Long and Winding Road, The Pronk Pops Show, The Pronk Pops Show 428, Truth, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Virtue, War, Wisdom |
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts
Pronk Pops Show 428: March 17, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 427: March 16, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 426: March 6, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 425: March 4, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 424: March 2, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 423: February 26, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 422: February 25, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 421: February 20, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 420: February 19, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 419: February 18, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 418: February 16, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 417: February 13, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 416: February 12, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 415: February 11, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 414: February 10, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 413: February 9, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 412: February 6, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 411: February 5, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 410: February 4, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 409: February 3, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 408: February 2, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 407: January 30, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 406: January 29, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 405: January 28, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 404: January 27, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 403: January 26, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 402: January 23, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 401: January 22, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 400: January 21, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 399: January 16, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 398: January 15, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 397: January 14, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 396: January 13, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 395: January 12, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 394: January 7, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 393: January 5, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 392: December 19, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 391: December 18, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 390: December 17, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 389: December 16, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 388: December 15, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 387: December 12, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 386: December 11, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 385: December 9, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 384: December 8, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 383: December 5, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 382: December 4, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 381: December 3, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 380: December 1, 2014
Story 1: The Fed’s Long and Winding Road Back To A Normal Monetary Policy Starting in June 2015 With a .75% Increase in The Federal Fund’s Interest Rate Target — Two Years Too Late — Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah — Imagine, Stand By Me — Videos
The Beatles – The Long And Winding Road
Federal Reserve Open Committee – March 2015 Meeting
Jim Rickards on Fed Chair Janet Yellen and The Strong Dollar
Peter Schiff on Weak Economy, Fed, Inflation, Asset Bubbles
Peter Schiff on The Strong Dollar, U.S. market risk and Fed Chair Janet Yellen
Peter Schiff Janet Yellen Is Wrong! There Is A LOT Of Inflation! US Economy On Verge In Crisis
Federal Reserve and the IRS American Dream (Animation)
George Carlin – The American Dream
John Lennon – Imagine (official video)
JOHN LENNON – STAND BY ME – HD
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-428
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )