Hitler Used The Spoken Word To Oppress

A popular classroom management tactic is to use lecturing to oppress. We see it being encouraged in it's use HERE and HERE “This classroom management method [of lecture] seems to be preferred by a majority of teachers.” In this document, Michael Linson says “If I woke up every morning knowing that I had to rely on the creative use of language and speech—to intimidate, persuade, plead, demand, explain, and otherwise get through to my students—as a major tool in my classroom management plan, I probably wouldn’t get out of bed. I shudder at the idea of having to rely upon finding the right words to say and striking the right tone to convince my students to follow my directions. Yet many teachers get up in the morning and fight this uphill, no-win battle every day. And unless you’re Vince Lombardi, lecturing individual students is near the bottom of the list of effective classroom management strategies. It doesn’t change behavior—though it may temporarily suppress it—and it will make your goal of having a dream class made up of well-behaved students a more difficult proposition. Lecturing individual students isn’t an effective classroom management strategy because it doesn’t work in the long run, it creates resentment in your students, and it’s stressful to you.” Linson starts the article out by explaining how the role of “Lecturing placing the teacher in the role of an “expert” sharing knowledge with students”. The implied assumption is that they know more than you, and that you are inferior, and need to know the things that they know. I remember giving a lecture to some teachers at Seneca High School in Louisville, Kentucky about the Learning Pyramid, one of my two favorite triangles (the other being Maslow's Hierarchy), and they were not impressed. They didn't listen to me, they were disagreeable, and they argued with me. But that was the tactic they used to talk down to their students all of the time, but when faced with the same tactic being applied to them, they squirmed and wiggled, and fought back. I don't hate them for not being oppressed to me, but I do hate their hypocrisy.

Linson has another great article HERE about why teachers should care if their students like them.

In fact, to be lectured at is clearly disrespectful. Just listen to how that sounds. “I'm going to lecture you” about the 1855 Know-Nothing Riots, or whatever the subject may be. To lecture at somebody is to talk down to them, which is belittling. But more importantly, you're straight up just telling folks that you don't care about them, or their feelings, or thoughts, as if they do not matter. It's not a dialogue. It's not a conversation talking between two equals; instead, it's establishing hierarchy.

In Amerikan lexicon, we have phrases which clearly point out disrespectful the lecture style of teaching is to students. Whenever somebody “wins” an argument, they can say “Oh son... you just got schooled!”, which means that to be “schooled”, one was put in their place, and that's the end of the conversation. I've also heard the phrase, “He's need a nice lil' talking to”, which is clearly one person saying that somebody needs to be a rude dickhead to another person, who may or may not have deserved it. There's times in the classroom, since I have much money on the line, that I just shutdown, instead of standing up for myself, and retorting to the disrespect. The entire lecturing charade just seems to be disrespectful, but assholes do not like to be called for their assholery, and they do not like it whenever somebody points out their entire lives have been completely wasted. Teachers have been lecturing, and manipulating students for their entire careers, since that's how Teacher Training Schools taught them to do it, and most other teachers are doing the same, so they have plenty of validation for their abusive ways.

But the biggest way that Lecture is used to oppress is through filibuster. A student may have a strong point, but the teacher will roll their eyes, and keep on speaking their nonsense, even if it's not logical, not to convince the student, but to wear them down, until they just give up, because, what's the point? The autocratic monarchist dictators never meant for the conversation to be a dialogue. The point is: you're the slave, and they're the masters, so get in line boy.

The two main ways that the spoken word pisses me off, is whenever one uses it to order another around, or to accuse them of some allegation. To accuse somebody of an allegation, especially if others talk the allegation serious, has the ability to destroy lives. Emmitt Till was lynched for supposedly whistling at a white woman. Here, the allegation doesn't even matter, because it's not a crime to whistle at anybody. In fact, some folks could consider it flattering, since the point is to say you're sexy. But the point that others took that allegation serious, and considered it a crime, was enough of a justification to murder a 14 year old boy. There was no due process, nor any evidence whatsoever to convict Emmitt Till, for doing what white construction workers do all of the time Side note: I know many women are annoyed at this behavior, and I wouldn't encourage anybody to do it. But still, the fact remains, that allegations, true or not, can carry serious consequences, and so therefore, one shouldn't accuse another lightly.

Orders, on the other hand, are easier to debunk logically. For some reason, it seems like many men and women have a hard time empathizing with men (specifically, me), so I'll use an example in my life, and then I'll use another example to solidify my point. If an Oppressor orders me to “shut up” or to “sit down”, which are common phrases by Oppressor Molester Professors, I want to respond with “fuck you asshole. Kiss my ass.” Logically, I have given them an order too. If they didn't like my order, then they should understand how I do not like their order. Because I color my language with “curse” words, that'll be the point they'll use to fuck me over to higher up assholes, who only sees “education” as a one-way street of oppression. It's fine for Pat Todd to tell me to shut up in the middle of class, even though it was the folks in front of me talking, or for Karen Stone to tell me to sit down, even though I was getting supplies I needed to do in order to do my presentation. Oppressors wouldn't see that as insulting. It's commonplace, and therefore, nobody needs to question it. But it's shitty, and being shitty is the main classroom management tactic teachers use to gain compliance. Again, this parlance can't be stated as such, even though it's more honest, since it's fine for an Oppressor to be shitty, as long as they don't cuss... though, that's not always the case. WHAS11's Doug Profitt reported October 17, 2014 that at Valley High School, a science teacher, Mr. Pauley, in Louisville, Kentucky was caught on video saying “I'm trying to answer questions... I'm trying to prepare you for the test that's coming up on Thursday, and you guys won't shut your fucking faces.” … “I don't give a single care. You guys want to go home and tell your parents that Mr. Pauley is cussing, fine. Shut your mouths!” Ron Stephenson said that this incident isn't indicative of Valley High School, when I have first hand experience that proves otherwise. It's a fascist totalitarian oppressive regime, that even other teachers have complained about. Ron Stephenson also gave a cheerleader $5 just for the hell of it, which is particularly suspect. 

WHAS11 didn't have the video up on their website anymore,

but I found it HERE  and HERE.

But back on topic, the hypocrites use “being shitty” in order to gain compliance, and to make all of the students impotent and docile, so they can be lectured at, since they view education as a glass to be filled up, instead of a flower that needs to be nurtured, fertilized, and grown. Really, true educators exist as administrators to inspire students to preform their best work, or as referees, to make sure class dialogue doesn't become inane, or disrespectful. But not an Oppressor. Had I ordered Pat Todd to “shut up”, or ordered Karen Stone to “sit down”, all Oppressors would shit their pants as such rudeness. For hypocrites, it's fine for them to be shitty to you, but not if the roles were reversed.

While some folks may say “well, you should just comply”, another classroom management tactic to get compliance on small orders, so then you'll be trained in order to be compliant on big matters. One historical point of how oppression has been used to justify war, Woodrow Wilson, invaded and occupied Mexico for 7 months because of the “Tampico Affair” on April 9, 1914. Wikipedia explains:

“The Tampico Affair was set off when nine American sailors were arrested by the Mexican government for entering off-limit areas in Tampico, Tamaulipas. The unarmed sailors were arrested when they entered a fuel loading station. The sailors were released, but the U.S. naval commander demanded an apology and a twenty-one gun salute. The apology was provided but not the salute.”

The American sailors were in “off-limit” areas, and they were not in their own country, and therefore, were subject to the laws of Mexico. But that didn't stop well-known racist imperialist oppressor Woodrow Wilson from being outraged. Not only did he demand an apology, but he wanted a 21-gun salute to Amerika's flag. In essence, Wilson wanted the President of Mexico to capitulate to his demands, and bow down, and kiss his, and Amerika's, ass. If these roles were reversed, where Amerika arrested Mexican naval soldiers on their own land, and the Mexican President ordered Obama to not only apologize, but to salute the Mexican flag, with a 21-gun salute, clearly, that's wrong. For Oppressors, what is good for the goose, is not good for the gander. The gander is just an asshole that needs to be dominated over while the goose gets to parade around, with his flowing white feathers, just thinking he's hot shit. Fucking stuck-up gooses.

The best arguments I have about the spoken word being used to oppress comes from the world's favorite evil man Adolf Hitler, and from Reverend Jim Jones. Both Hitler and Jones used their charismatic speeches, with one microphone and many speakers, to compel the masses to do as they ordered.

A portion of the 3^rd chapter of Mein Kampf (whose copyright is owned by the Federated State of Bavaria, but ends at the end of 2015) is called “The Magic of the Word”, and another part is called “The Power of Speech”. In Chapter 2 of Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler writes:

“For let it be said to all knights of the pen and to all the political dandies, especially of today : the greatest changes in this world have never yet been brought about by a goose-quill! No, the pen has always been reserved to motivate these changes theoretically. But the power which set the greatest historical avalanches of political and religious nature sliding was, from the beginning of time, the magic force of the spoken word alone. The great masses of a nation will always and only succumb to the force of the spoken word. But all great movements are movements of the people, are volcanic eruptions of human passions and spiritual sensations, stirred either by the cruel Goddess of Misery or by the torch of the word thrown into the masses, and are not the lemonade-like outpourings of aestheticizing literati and drawing-room heroes.”

Chapter 6 of Mein Kampf (which just means “My Struggle”) is titled “The Struggle of the Early Days: The Significance of the Spoken Word”: Here's some excerpts:

“All epoch-making world revolutionary events have not been brought about by the written, but by the spoken word... For the bourgeois intelligentsia protests against such an opinion only for the reason that it obviously lacks the energy and the ability of mass influence by the spoken word, since one had turned more and more towards purely literary activity and renounced the really agitatory activity of speech. But such a habit, in the course of time, is bound to lead to what marks the bourgeoisie today, namely, the loss of the psychological instinct for mass effect and mass influence. While the speaker receives from the mass before which he speaks a continuous correction of his lecture, in so far as he can uninterruptedly read from the faces of his listeners how far they are able to follow his arguments with understanding, and whether the impression and the effect of his words lead to the desired goal, the writer does not know his readers at all. For this reason he will, from the beginning, not aim at a certain crowd before his eyes, but he will keep his arguments on quite general lines. By this he loses, to a certain degree, psychological finesse, and consequently suppleness. In general, therefore, a brilliant speaker will still be able to write better than a brilliant writer will be able to speak, unless he trains himself continuously in this art. To this must be added that the mass of people is lazy in itself, that they laziness remain within the course of old habits and that by themselves they do not like to take up anything written unless it corresponds to what one believes oneself, and furnishes what one hopes for. Therefore a pamphlet with a certain tendency will in most cases only be read by people who themselves must be counted on its side. At the utmost, only a leaflet or a poster, by their brevity, can count on finding attention for a moment with one who thinks differently. Far greater chances has the picture in all its varieties up to and including the motion picture. Here man has to work still less with his brains; it is enough to view, perhaps to read a few very short texts, and thus many will be far more ready to take in a pictorial presentation than to read a lengthy piece of writing. The picture in a far shorter time, I would almost say at one blow, furnishes man with an enlightenment which he receives from literature only after tedious reading.”

“But the most essential point is that a pamphlet never knows in whose hands it will come and that yet it has to retain its definite form. Generally, the effect will be the greater the more the form corresponds to the mental standard and the nature of just those who will be its readers. A book that is intended for the broad masses must therefore try from the beginning to have in style and standard an effect different from a work intended for intellectually higher classes. Only by this kind of adaptability the written word approaches the spoken word. The speaker may for instance, treat the same subject as that of a book, yet if he is a great and ingenious popular speaker he will hardly twice repeat in the same manner one and the same subject matter and material. He will always let himself be carried by the great masses in such a manner that he senses just those words that he needs in order to speak to the hearts of his respective listeners. But if he errs, no matter how slightly, he has always before him the living correction. As mentioned previously, he is able to read from the expressions of his listeners, firstly, whether they understand what he speaks, secondly, whether they are able to follow what has been said, and thirdly, in how far he has convinced them of the correctness of what has been said. If he sees firstly that they do not understand him, then he will become so primitive and clear in his explanation that even the least intelligent is bound to understand him, if he feels secondly that they are not able to follow him, then he will build up his ideas so carefully and slowly that even the weakest among them all does not remain behind any longer, and thirdly as soon as he guesses that they do not seem to be convinced of the correctness of what he has said he will repeat this so often and in so many new examples, he himself will bring in their objections which he feels although they have not been uttered, and he will refute them and disperse them till finally even the last group of an opposition, merely by its attitude and its expressions, lets him recognize its capitulation in the face of his argumentation.”

“Here one has to deal not infrequently with overcoming prejudices of people, which are not founded in their reason, but which are most subconscious, supported only by feeling. It is a thousand times more difficult to overcome the barrier of instinctive aversion, of hatred conditioned by feeling, of prejudiced rejection than is the correction of a faulty or erroneous scientific opinion. Wrong conceptions and inferior knowledge can be abolished by instruction, but never obstacles of sentiment. Here solely an appeal to these mysterious forces themselves can be effective; and this the writer can hardly ever do, but almost exclusively only the speaker.”

“The most striking proof of this is furnished by the fact that despite an often very skilfully made-up bourgeois press that swamps our people in unheard-of editions of millions, this press was not able to prevent the great masses from becoming the sharpest enemy of just this bourgeois world. The whole flood of newspapers and all the books that intellectualism produces year by year run off from the millions of the lowest classes like water from oiled leather. This can prove only two things: either the incorrectness of the contents of this entire written produce of our bourgeois world or the impossibility of penetrating to the heart of the masses merely by literature. True, especially in cases when this very literature is so little psychologically oriented as is the case here.”

“One must not reply (as was tried by a great German national newspaper of Berlin) that just Marxism itself furnishes the proof against this assertion by its literature, chiefly by the effect of the groundwork of Karl Marx. Hardly ever has one tried in a more superficial manner to support an erroneous opinion. What gave Marxism its astounding power over the broad masses is in no way the formal work of Jewish labor of thinking, put down in writing, but rather the colossal oratorical wave of propaganda that took possession of the masses in the course of the years. Of one hundred thousand German workers, not one hundred, on the average, know this work, which always has been studied by a thousand times more intellectuals and especially Jews than by genuine followers of the movement from the great lower classes. This work has actually not been written for the great masses, but exclusively for the intellectual leaders of that Jewish machine of world conquest; this, then, was fired with quite a different material; the press. For it is this which distinguishes the Marxist press from our bourgeois press: the Marxist press is written by agitators, and the bourgeois press would like to produce agitation by writers. The Grub-Street Social Democratic editor, who almost invariably comes from the meeting-hall into the publishing office, knows his customers as no other man does. But the bourgeois scribbler, who steps out of his study before the great masses, is sickened merely by their fumes and therefore he faces them helplessly also with the written word.” ~Adolf Hitler

Charismatic Jim Jones started a popular Christian cult in San Francisco call “The People's Temple”. Jim Jones alienated many folks in the United States, including the Communist Party USA, when they became critical of Josef Stalin. Here's a video biography of him HERE. Jim Jones eventually took his cult to South Amerika in Guyana.

Jim Jones is widely known for the “mass suicide” that his cult in Jonestown performed. In November of 1978, 909 of the People's Temple in Jonestown committed mass suicide by drinking poisoned Flavor Aid. This is where the phrase “drinkingthe Kool-Aid” comes from (even though Kool-Aid gets an unfairly bad wrap, since it was Flavor Aid that they drank). Over 300 children were murdered at Jonestown, almost all of them by cyanide poisoning. Jones died from a gunshot wound to the head; it is suspected his death was a suicide. It was the largest such event in modern history and resulted in the largest single loss of American civilian life in a deliberate act until the events of September 11, 2001.

Here's the haunting Jonestown Death Tape (FBI No. Q 042) (November 18, 1978): 

There's many lessons to be inferred from this weird story, but the main one I want to point out is Jim Jones' use of the spoken word. As a Christian evangelist, Jim Jones used the microphone in front of open air crowds while in San Francisco, but while in South Amerika, Jim Jones had supplanted a wide-use of the intercom system in Jonestown. Before the final mass suicide happened, Jim Jones would have mock “mass suicide” drills frequently. Jim Jones used the speaker system to manipulate those folks he called “his people”. That's how he controlled their behavior. I've heard the use of intercom systems in school systems many times. Sometimes it's just morning announcements, but other times, it's to brainwash and manipulate the students. I remember Rob Stevenson using the intercom system, and I just hated his bland stupid voice. He was interjecting thoughts into the entire school's mind, and it felt like Jonestown to me.

Then Congressman Leo Ryan flew to Jonestown to inspect the allegations of abuse going on there, and he was actually impressed. But watch the speech he gave at Jonestown again, and the people were too enthusiastic for Leo Ryan's kind words, and they were clapping too much. Eventually, Jim Jones has Leo Ryan executed, and uses his system of intercom speakers to control and manipulate his masses at Jonestown to commit “revolutionary suicide”, which virtually all did, with only one or two attempting some type of dissent. But like Uncle Tom House Negroes are, they quickly shouted the dissenters down, and then they all drank the Flavor Aid laced with cyanide.

I know some folks who refuse to type or write anything down, because they would rather bark out orders, or to talk down to folks, to compel them to do as they're being told, instead of having to painstakingly write things out, or down. So the point is, whenever anybody anywhere, is speaking, doubt them. Stay away from them. Soon enough, those words that you are listening to, will eventually become your goose-stepping marching orders to massacre masses of “inferior” peoples, or for you to commit suicide. While I type this in half jest, to suspect a person whose dictating in the front of the classroom—a Monologist Oppressor—doesn't have your best interests in mind, makes a ton of sense. It's up to those who give the orders to legitimate their commands, because if they cannot, then you should tell all of the Adolf Hitlers, or Jim Jones of the world, to go fuck themselves, and for them to kiss your ass.