[Xmca-l] Re: The most, the best educated and the most dangerous

[Ulvi İçil]

Exactly, Aznar used the planes provided to him for his election campaign by
Cuban-American fascist mafia in Miami and he provoked EU against Cuba
around 2002 for a stance close to that of US. Cuba stood firm, very firm. *
But what is more important in my opinion is the following: During exit from
Franko, CIA (and this is public information, there are many books on this)
parachuted Felipe Gonzalez on top of PSOE in Spain for a smooth transition
in fear of communists. The main work was done by Willy Brandt and Socialist
International and SPD together with CIA. But there was no need for fear,
Carillo gave up resisting for a republic and admitted the king, he was
persuaded, this is a complete CIA political operation. Imagine this
trahison. Because, Spanish workers fought for a republic between 1936 and
1939. CPS adopted itself to the bourgeois democracy.


Not only Aznar etc are very dangerous but Gonzalez and today Iglesias,
Tsipras too.
Many years later, after several election rounds, it was being discussed who
will replace Gonzalez for PSOE presidency. One name was discussed in Spain
and in party circles. Then, that name was made known to Spanish people that
he will not be president of PSOE but general secretary of NATO!!!

He was Javier Solana. And what did he do? He executed German and US plan to
bomb Yugoslavia.

Can you imagine instead of PSOE presidency NATO general secretary. Origin:
PSOE.

It is for this reason that it does not matter too much, Aznar or Gonzalez.
Everything is turning according to the preservation of the capitalist order
from a possible revolution.

In Portugal the same, the same Willy Brandt (that he received money from
CIA is public information) put Soares in a train named liberty to Lisboa to
steal the revolution from CPP, from Alvaro Cunhal.

All these Gonzalez, Solana, Soares, Tsipras, Iglesias, Demirtas (in Turkey)
are modern Kerenskys.
It is easy to remember how Kerensky created a bourgeois enthusiasm during
the February Revolution.

They are all left. Tsipras and Iglesias are ex communists. This is almost a
rule.

It is for this reason that, October and Lenin - one of the best educated
and most dangerous in human history this time for capitalism and
imperialism- were great because this same Kerensky play repeated and
repeated the whole 20th century to prevent revolutions.

For instance today in Turkey there is Erdogan and many people in and out of
the country want that this crisis be overcome by a more acceptable person.

But I must ask: What do those generations who supported Felipe Gonzalez do
now and what do they think?
Taking into account that now their sons and daughters are unemployed in
couples with several children, and moving to their parents homes because
there , there is a pension salary and a house bought once upon a time.

Why Spain , Portugal, Turkey should not be another Cuba and should continue
with all these capitalist lies?

The same for Brazil.

Why to escape from revolutions (Revexits)?

What can be the future of humanity under capitalism?

And why best educated and non dangerous other people do not prefer to be on
the side of working masses , of the poor for a permanent egalitarian
society?

What prevents them from doing so?

I think to a great extent prejudices that are cultivated in people's minds.

I firmly believe that a better world is possible but the billions of poor
are impotent for an emancipation and they need the best educated on their
side.

Those best educated should leave the way of life of consumer societies
imposed on them and they should chose a more cultured one,more human.

Spanish people are in streets now again. Unless they dream a revolution the
same will happen again and this time it will be Iglesias who will deceive
them as it is by Tsipras in Greece.

It is the greatest merit of revolutionaries like Lenin and Fidel to stop
this vicious circle and put an end to it.
Aznar then PSOE then again PP then again PP then Iglesias then PP...= King
is there , capitalist exploitation is there for 50 years. In 50 years
Cubans created a paradise in 3rd world standards. per capita doctor per
capita teacher , the first in the world. lowest infant mortality.

What we work to do in Turkey is to prevent that the crisis be overcome by
some social democrat party.

It is centenary of October.

We are fed of good deceiving and well educated leftist Kerenskys.




On 7 March 2017 at 23:10, Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no> wrote:

> On the thread of 'most educated and the most dangerous', for those who
> read Spanish, here is an article on a religious school in Madrid, El Pilar,
> known for being the school were many figures crucial in Spanish Politics
> were educated, both during and after Franco, and including former president
> José María Aznar (who, together with Blair and Bush, and against their
> people's wish, threw us in a violet war in Irak). I can't say about Blair,
> but I remember that by that time almost everybody laughed about Bush'
> educational level, whereas Aznar has always been an intellectual. They all
> were very dangerous anyway.
>
> Here the link (Spanish): http://www.elconfidencial.com/
> espana/2012-02-19/el-pilar-un-colegio-de-dirigentes_232887/
>
> The question of level of education has been raised both in England with
> respect with Brexit voters, and in the US with respect to Trump's voters,
> as if the electoral outcomes could be understood only if one consider the
> voters poorly educated. But does actually knowing MORE or LESS of what is
> being taught at today's schools affect at all whether you are dangerous or
> not to human well being and rights? Evidence seems to suggest that 'not
> much'. Perhaps, instead of asking the voter's level of education, we could
> ask the schools' level of humanity. I think education is the question
> number 1, at all levels, and yet, starting by the salary people seem to be
> willing to pay (to teachers, TA's, etc), it is one of the lowest in the
> list (if a list of how much people is paid for what they do has anything to
> say about how much a practice is valued).
>
> Hope not to be taking the thread off track.
> Alfredo
>
> ________________________________________
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> on behalf of lpscholar2@gmail.com <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
> Sent: 07 March 2017 21:33
> To: Edward Wall; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The most, the best educated and the most dangerous
>
> Ulvi and others interested in this thread.
> I would like to recommend an article by Michael Cole and Katherine Brown
> titled :
> ‘A Utopian Methodology as a Tool for Cultural and Critical Psychologies :
> Toward a POSITIVE Critical Theory’.
> This article (2001) is located in the edited book by Martin Packer and
> Mark Tappan (Cultural and Critical Perspectives on Human Development).
>
> If you google the article a pdf is available. I tried sending the article
> but do not think it arrived.
>
> I found Martin’s *preview* in the introductory pages relevant to Ulvi’s
> question giving an overview of various cultural psychologies and various
> critical perspectives.
>
> Cole and Brown’s article is a *positive* critical response that refutes
> Adorno’s negative dialectics..
> It specifically addresses the public who do not benefit from reading
> academic texts through the engagement with those who do benefit from
> reading academic texts. Engaging the *interplay* between and within the
> traditions of cultural psychologies AND critical psychologies.
>
>
>
> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>
> From: Edward Wall
> Sent: March 6, 2017 9:20 AM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The most, the best educated and the most dangerous
>
> Ulvi
>
>      I have thought about your question and read what others have offered.
> Here are some thoughts
>
>      In most societies a purpose of education is to inculcate societal
> norms and. hence, in is not surprising that some of the better exemplars
> are those who place themselves on the side of the dominant class. However,
> those that often rise those critical decision points you mention are not
> necessarily the best educated. They are, what one might term, well
> educated. That is, they go to the ‘right’ schools, know the ‘right’
> [people, wear the ‘right’ clothes, eat the ‘right’ food. They often
> display, as Detienne and Vernant put it, "mental attitudes and intellectual
> behavior which combine flair, wisdom, forethought, subtlety of mind,
> deception, resourcefulness, vigilance, opportunism, various skills, and
> experience acquired over the years. That is, they display what the Greeks
> termed metis or cunning; Odysseys being the exemplar.
>
>     Metis, I happen to think (from the viewpoint of a teacher), is a very
> interesting and troubling trait.
>
> Ed
>
>
>
> > On Mar 4, 2017, at  1:41 PM, Ulvi İçil <ulvi.icil@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Well, given that education is a class issue in capitalist society, any
> > society,
> > that the best most educated are placing themselves en masse on the side
> of
> > the dominant class
> >
> > can we think that the most "educated" and also the "best" educated are
> > at the same time the most dangerous people for the humanity
> >
> > because they are located at the most critical decision-making points
> > of a social order.
> >
> > Well,  this can be a really trivial issue but since I could not meet it
> in
> > my country's intellectual life,communist and non communist, I needed to
> ask
> > it for world experience.
> >
> > It seems that the best educated seem to be en masse the most dangerous
> ones
> > to initiate wars etc whereas the least educated formally but the best
> > self-educated via working class instititutions seem to be the most
> > emancipatory and in fact best educated people in the real sense of the
> > world (e.g. José Marti)
> >
> > Erdogan is obviously not the most educated in my country, Turkey, nor was
> > Hitler nor Bush.
> >
> > But Obama, Clinton, Hollande, Javier Solana (who destroyed Yugoslavia
> with
> > Nato bombing) Merkel were and all well educated...and quite dangerous.
> >
> > I was really surprised to the self- gathered conscience of one of my
> > friends when he stated that Hillary Clinton was a very dangerous woman.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Ulvi
>
>
>