NORMAN — Editor, The Transcript:
Thank you for the exemplary articles in Thursday’s edition of The Transcript, p. A1 “Design campaign promotes urbanity,” and p. A4 “Propaganda as pedagogy.” The second details the general intent of the first.
In the first article on urban planning, just look at all the elitist language being used to attempt to shape the thinking of the objects of such planning. We have become so inured to hearing such comments as “smart” this or that, e.g., smart city planning, that we fail to appreciate the intellectual bullying this represents. If it isn’t smart, what’s the antonym, “stupid?”
I’m quite certain one of our clever euphemises can invent some creatively disingenuous synonym. And if this doesn’t represent an attempt at pedagogy, what does?
Here we have representatives of an “Institute for Quality Communities” referring to properties such as “insight from world leaders,” “sustainability,” “neighborliness,” “where residents can understand the DNA...,” “transportation designed...to foster pedestrian traffic,” “avoiding the stigmatization of lower-income occupants,” and “urban-centric” that presumably accommodates “rural communities.” How much more haughtily pedagogical does it get?
This all sounds very much like something that might originate from a play book from one-world facilitators. What does “rural” mean?
Do individuals who prefer a genuinely rural mode of life actually want to be “urban-centric?” Will humanity ever be able to overcome its practically inherent sense of categorizing on the basis of a variety of perceived characteristics of others? Even Huxley accommodated this dilemma in his Brave New World!
George Will clearly illustrates how poorly we are being served, intellectually, in our so-call modern world by the educational establishment. It has been so penetrated by elements of progressivism that it is functioning to degrade our society with politically correct nihilism. This sort of educational establishment was seen recently on view in our Norman elections. Councilman Spaulding ran his campaign on issues, and to the best of my knowledge, did not engage in any negative campaign advertising.
His opponent, supposedly representing and being promoted by an educatorial establishment, was behind a scurrilous mailing that depicted Mr. Spaulding as some manifestation of evil lurking in the shadows. This represented “Propaganda and pedagogy” in it’s most negative manifestation!
Again, thank you for the lessons.