Lessons on democracy to be taught shortly

[AleG]

You asked: "does history teach us that military juntas can create more democratic societies?"

Then you stated: "... the fact that NO military dictatorship in the WORLD has created a more democratic society after a coup."

I said: "Thailand moved from absolute monarchy to a democratic system via a military coup."

Your statement, on the face of the fact I presented, is debunked.

no it is not. See post above. you don't understand basic English. you've debunked nothing and who cares anyway? Figure out how to read, please.

You can huff and you can puff, your "fact" was not factual.

The military coup of 1932 installed a military Junta that changed the political system from an Absolute Monarchy to a Constitutional one.

Your only counter argument is that I don't understand English, which is rather pathetic.

[rubl]

You've obfuscated the devil out of this point, but you've indirectly conceded that no military dictatorship has resulted in democracy, and that it is not the top priority of this dictatorship. Yet you support this dictatorship and accuse those who object to it of not being interested in democracy. It's always amusing debating you rubl.

Let's now get on topic and discuss a dictatorship that doesn't make democracy a top priority and that shuts down democracy discussions at one of Thailand's top university. Do you think this dictatorship is qualified to teach democracy lessons?

Oh come on Brucy, read my posts.

I wrote that there doesn't seem to have been a Military Dictatorship which had democracy as goal. Therefor it shouldn't be a surprise if no one can name a Military Dictatorship which lead to democracy by accident.

BTW doing a bit of reading a was reminded of an interesting coup leader turned PM, turned coup leader, PM and even democratically elected PM. Former PM Jerry Rawlings of Ghana.

Beautiful country and not only because I could read some of the gravestones in Elmina Castle. Had similar problems as Thailand and also 'needed' a few coups.

[3NUMBAS]

they need to practice what they preach first

[rubl]

for the last 5 decades, the coup-makers in Thailand have claimed that as the justification of their actions.

Try again, Rubl. Dodge the question one more time, please.

You're just as insincere as the late Samak who claimed only one person died in 1976. Furthermore you insult all those who died in October 1976 fighting and dying for democracy.

[rubl]

...

Regarding whether Thaksin's quote was interesting, I can't say if it's interesting without knowing what the quote is. Why won't you share it with us?

...

Only the first few lines. follow this link for the PDF file http://www.sathukit.com/edu-policy-en.pdf

"Policies of Ministry of Education

Prof. Dr. Suchart Thada-Thamrongvech

Minister of Education

25 January 2012

Philosophy

Police Lieutenant Colonel Dr. Thaksin Shinawatra has said about ... ..."

As I wrote the interesting part is that the quote is from a well known criminal fugitive and comes from an MoE handpicked by PM Yingluck.

[rubl]

double post, blanked on purpose

Edited October 8, 2014 by rubl

[tbthailand]

You asked: "does history teach us that military juntas can create more democratic societies?"

Then you stated: "... the fact that NO military dictatorship in the WORLD has created a more democratic society after a coup."

I said: "Thailand moved from absolute monarchy to a democratic system via a military coup."

Your statement, on the face of the fact I presented, is debunked.

no it is not. See post above. you don't understand basic English. you've debunked nothing and who cares anyway? Figure out how to read, please.

You can huff and you can puff, your "fact" was not factual.

The military coup of 1932 installed a military Junta that changed the political system from an Absolute Monarchy to a Constitutional one.

Your only counter argument is that I don't understand English, which is rather pathetic.

it seems that you know nothing about thai history, and your posting proves that you don't understand what is written.

Regardless, let me briefly reference baker who describes 1932 revolution. You might also want to note that the leader of the People's Party, Pridi, was not from the military.

Baker quotes:

"On 27 June, the People's Party promulgated a constitution that began, 'The supreme power in the country belongs to the people'.

which is not the stuff of military juntas.

I'm well aware of the political struggles and the events which followed 1932. Clearly your statement that they installed a military junta and the implication, that the revolution in 1932 is an example which responds to the questions and statements above, is incorrect.

Edited October 8, 2014 by tbthailand

[tbthailand]

...

Regarding whether Thaksin's quote was interesting, I can't say if it's interesting without knowing what the quote is. Why won't you share it with us?

...

Only the first few lines. follow this link for the PDF file http://www.sathukit.com/edu-policy-en.pdf

"Policies of Ministry of Education

Prof. Dr. Suchart Thada-Thamrongvech

Minister of Education

25 January 2012

Philosophy

Police Lieutenant Colonel Dr. Thaksin Shinawatra has said about ... ..."

As I wrote the interesting part is that the quote is from a well known criminal fugitive and comes from an MoE handpicked by PM Yingluck.

why not include the actual quote which - maybe - the Minister found to be applicable to education?

“Education will lead to the building of people’s vigour.

Vigorous and knowledgeable people are powerful capital to fight

with poverty.” “Emphases must be on distribution of benefits with equity,

and on regards of people with difficulties, in order to provide quality

education for everyone.” “Education is an important key, a starting

element that is necessary in making poverty become past.”

[tbthailand]

You've obfuscated the devil out of this point, but you've indirectly conceded that no military dictatorship has resulted in democracy, and that it is not the top priority of this dictatorship. Yet you support this dictatorship and accuse those who object to it of not being interested in democracy. It's always amusing debating you rubl.

Let's now get on topic and discuss a dictatorship that doesn't make democracy a top priority and that shuts down democracy discussions at one of Thailand's top university. Do you think this dictatorship is qualified to teach democracy lessons?

Oh come on Brucy, read my posts.

I wrote that there doesn't seem to have been a Military Dictatorship which had democracy as goal. Therefor it shouldn't be a surprise if no one can name a Military Dictatorship which lead to democracy by accident.

BTW doing a bit of reading a was reminded of an interesting coup leader turned PM, turned coup leader, PM and even democratically elected PM. Former PM Jerry Rawlings of Ghana.

Beautiful country and not only because I could read some of the gravestones in Elmina Castle. Had similar problems as Thailand and also 'needed' a few coups.

your claim :

I wrote that there doesn't seem to have been a Military Dictatorship which had democracy as goal. Therefor it shouldn't be a surprise if no one can name a Military Dictatorship which lead to democracy by accident.

ignores recent history, 2006, 1992, and several of the decades prior to that.

That you don know that makes it clear why you might hold out hope that this is the 'good coup'

[AleG]

You can huff and you can puff, your "fact" was not factual.

The military coup of 1932 installed a military Junta that changed the political system from an Absolute Monarchy to a Constitutional one.

Your only counter argument is that I don't understand English, which is rather pathetic.

it seems that you know nothing about thai history, and your posting proves that you don't understand what is written.

Regardless, let me briefly reference baker who describes 1932 revolution. You might also want to note that the leader of the People's Party, Pridi, was not from the military.

Baker quotes:

"On 27 June, the People's Party promulgated a constitution that began, 'The supreme power in the country belongs to the people'.

which is not the stuff of military juntas.

I'm well aware of the political struggles and the events which followed 1932. Clearly your statement that they installed a military junta and the implication, that the revolution in 1932 is an example which responds to the questions and statements above, is incorrect.

Haven't you left some details out? You know, the ones about the ruling military Junta appointing a parliament to deal with the transition and all that.

"'Democracy' for Siam was, however to be given to the people in installments, three to be precise. First, the Assembly members were to be appointed by no other than the Four Musketeers (the military). They would exercise the power on behalf of the people, and their first session was to last six months."

Why would you leave out the little details that prove, once again, that your statement is not factually correct?

[heybruce]

...

Regarding whether Thaksin's quote was interesting, I can't say if it's interesting without knowing what the quote is. Why won't you share it with us?

...

Only the first few lines. follow this link for the PDF file http://www.sathukit.com/edu-policy-en.pdf

"Policies of Ministry of Education

Prof. Dr. Suchart Thada-Thamrongvech

Minister of Education

25 January 2012

Philosophy

Police Lieutenant Colonel Dr. Thaksin Shinawatra has said about ... ..."

As I wrote the interesting part is that the quote is from a well known criminal fugitive and comes from an MoE handpicked by PM Yingluck.

Oh, this quote:

"Education will lead to the building of people’s vigour. Vigorous and knowledgeable people are powerful capital to fight with poverty. Emphases must be on distribution of benefits with equity, and on regards of people with difficulties, in order to provide quality education for everyone.

Education is an important key, a starting element that is necessary in making poverty become past."

Shocking stuff! What can you expect from an elected Prime Minister that was toppled by a military coup, charged by a military junta, and convicted under a military installed government. Better to go the with words of the latest coup leader (who has or is in the process of granting himself immunity from the crime of the coup):

The coup leader, Prayuth Chan-ocha, has been unapologetic. He views criticism of the junta as divisive and unhelpful. He said any group that wants to hold such seminars must get approval first, so the content can be screened — because "if it's about democracy or elections, or how the government is today, this they can't discuss." http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/10/03/junta-suppression-academic-talk-democracy-exposes-cracks-in-thailand-peaceful/

I'm glad we have that cleared up. Much more appropriate for a topic about lessons on democracy.

[tbthailand]

You can huff and you can puff, your "fact" was not factual.

The military coup of 1932 installed a military Junta that changed the political system from an Absolute Monarchy to a Constitutional one.

Your only counter argument is that I don't understand English, which is rather pathetic.

it seems that you know nothing about thai history, and your posting proves that you don't understand what is written.

Regardless, let me briefly reference baker who describes 1932 revolution. You might also want to note that the leader of the People's Party, Pridi, was not from the military.

Baker quotes:

"On 27 June, the People's Party promulgated a constitution that began, 'The supreme power in the country belongs to the people'.

which is not the stuff of military juntas.

I'm well aware of the political struggles and the events which followed 1932. Clearly your statement that they installed a military junta and the implication, that the revolution in 1932 is an example which responds to the questions and statements above, is incorrect.

Haven't you left some details out? You know, the ones about the ruling military Junta appointing a parliament to deal with the transition and all that.

"'Democracy' for Siam was, however to be given to the people in installments, three to be precise. First, the Assembly members were to be appointed by no other than the Four Musketeers (the military). They would exercise the power on behalf of the people, and their first session was to last six months."

Why would you leave out the little details that prove, once again, that your statement is not factually correct?

I guess that you did not read the top of the page;

This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states the Wikipedia editor's particular feelings about a topic, rather than the opinions of experts.

Baker and Phongpaichit, who I quoted above, are actually considered experts. They point out that the People's Party was a 50/50 civilian and military which is missing in your quote above.

[AleG]

Haven't you left some details out? You know, the ones about the ruling military Junta appointing a parliament to deal with the transition and all that.

"'Democracy' for Siam was, however to be given to the people in installments, three to be precise. First, the Assembly members were to be appointed by no other than the Four Musketeers (the military). They would exercise the power on behalf of the people, and their first session was to last six months."

Why would you leave out the little details that prove, once again, that your statement is not factually correct?

I guess that you did not read the top of the page;

This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states the Wikipedia editor's particular feelings about a topic, rather than the opinions of experts.

Baker and Phongpaichit, who I quoted above, are actually considered experts. They point out that the People's Party was a 50/50 civilian and military which is missing in your quote above.

I guess you didn't read the little numbers at the end of the paragraph, citing both the origin and the page number.

The quote in Wikipedia comes from Judith Stowe, her book (which cites plenty of references) states that after the military coup:

The first stage was to establish an Assembly nominated by the military controllers of the country -Phya Phahol, Phya Song and Phya Ritthi- who were said to be acting on behalf of the people. Pag. 26

The Khana Ratsadorn was a military/civilian affair, but the government dominated by the military leaders, after a military coup, which again proves that your statement was factually incorrect.

Now you would actually have to cite that Baker states the government that followed the coup in 1932 was not dominated by the military members, because so far you have been proven to play loose and fast with facts. Saying that the Khana Ratsadorn was 50/50 civilian and military doesn't tell anything about the leadership structure within it.

[khunjamesjohnson]

You asked: "does history teach us that military juntas can create more democratic societies?"

Then you stated: "... the fact that NO military dictatorship in the WORLD has created a more democratic society after a coup."

I said: "Thailand moved from absolute monarchy to a democratic system via a military coup."

Your statement, on the face of the fact I presented, is debunked.

no it is not. See post above. you don't understand basic English. you've debunked nothing and who cares anyway? Figure out how to read, please.

You can huff and you can puff, your "fact" was not factual.

The military coup of 1932 installed a military Junta that changed the political system from an Absolute Monarchy to a Constitutional one.

Your only counter argument is that I don't understand English, which is rather pathetic.

It's a pretend democracy where the elite let the elected government do the paperwork.

All the political turmoil is about the power vacuums at the very top of the Thai food chain.

Prem & his crowd is out and the General is in it appears.

[chongtak]

Respect of the others and civic spirit should be taught first.

[jdinasia]

...

Regarding whether Thaksin's quote was interesting, I can't say if it's interesting without knowing what the quote is. Why won't you share it with us?

...

Only the first few lines. follow this link for the PDF file http://www.sathukit.com/edu-policy-en.pdf

"Policies of Ministry of Education

Prof. Dr. Suchart Thada-Thamrongvech

Minister of Education

25 January 2012

Philosophy

Police Lieutenant Colonel Dr. Thaksin Shinawatra has said about ... ..."

As I wrote the interesting part is that the quote is from a well known criminal fugitive and comes from an MoE handpicked by PM Yingluck.

Oh, this quote:

"Education will lead to the building of people’s vigour. Vigorous and knowledgeable people are powerful capital to fight with poverty. Emphases must be on distribution of benefits with equity, and on regards of people with difficulties, in order to provide quality education for everyone.

Education is an important key, a starting element that is necessary in making poverty become past."

Shocking stuff! What can you expect from an elected Prime Minister that was toppled by a military coup, charged by a military junta, and convicted under a military installed government. Better to go the with words of the latest coup leader (who has or is in the process of granting himself immunity from the crime of the coup):

The coup leader, Prayuth Chan-ocha, has been unapologetic. He views criticism of the junta as divisive and unhelpful. He said any group that wants to hold such seminars must get approval first, so the content can be screened — because "if it's about democracy or elections, or how the government is today, this they can't discuss." http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/10/03/junta-suppression-academic-talk-democracy-exposes-cracks-in-thailand-peaceful/

I'm glad we have that cleared up. Much more appropriate for a topic about lessons on democracy.

Apparently you were not in Thailand for Thaksin or his sister's regimes.

[jdinasia]

You asked: "does history teach us that military juntas can create more democratic societies?"

Then you stated: "... the fact that NO military dictatorship in the WORLD has created a more democratic society after a coup."

I said: "Thailand moved from absolute monarchy to a democratic system via a military coup."

Your statement, on the face of the fact I presented, is debunked.

no it is not. See post above. you don't understand basic English. you've debunked nothing and who cares anyway? Figure out how to read, please.

You can huff and you can puff, your "fact" was not factual.

The military coup of 1932 installed a military Junta that changed the political system from an Absolute Monarchy to a Constitutional one.

Your only counter argument is that I don't understand English, which is rather pathetic.

It's a pretend democracy where the elite let the elected government do the paperwork.

All the political turmoil is about the power vacuums at the very top of the Thai food chain.

Prem & his crowd is out and the General is in it appears.

From your last statement I would suggest you have completely missed the plot.

[khunjamesjohnson]

Actually the Thaksin years were some of the best in Thailand.

Budget surpluses, record stock market, low unemployment, health care, slashing poverty. Things were booming.

Even the busses were even running on time.

That's why the invisible hand got rid of him.

The ten tears prior to Thaksin and the 8 years after have been a disaster.

[petercool]

A post with derogatory generalism was removed

[jdinasia]

Actually the Thaksin years were some of the best in Thailand.

Budget surpluses, record stock market, low unemployment, health care, slashing poverty. Things were booming.

Even the busses were even running on time.

That's why the invisible hand got rid of him.

The ten tears prior to Thaksin and the 8 years after have been a disaster.

LOL.

Hmmmm the world economy was booming. Democracy in Thailand suffered.

Then again I was here for it...

I watched household debt increase in an uncontrolled way upcountry. I watched cronyism increase. I watched corruption increase. I actually benefited from some of that, but was well aware that it was destroying a country I love.

[khunjamesjohnson]

From your last statement I would suggest you have completely missed the plot.

Prayuth is in position to oversee the upcoming, inevitable transition at the very top.

I predict he will be rewarded with head of the next Privy Council and run the country behind the scenes like Prem has.

[jdinasia]

From your last statement I would suggest you have completely missed the plot.

Prayuth is in position to oversee the upcoming, inevitable transition at the very top.

I predict he will be rewarded with head of the next Privy Council and run the country behind the scenes like Prem has.

You ,again, may want to look into your first statement.

Both it and your prediction are a bit silly.

[tbthailand]

Haven't you left some details out? You know, the ones about the ruling military Junta appointing a parliament to deal with the transition and all that.

"'Democracy' for Siam was, however to be given to the people in installments, three to be precise. First, the Assembly members were to be appointed by no other than the Four Musketeers (the military). They would exercise the power on behalf of the people, and their first session was to last six months."

Why would you leave out the little details that prove, once again, that your statement is not factually correct?

I guess that you did not read the top of the page;

This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states the Wikipedia editor's particular feelings about a topic, rather than the opinions of experts.

Baker and Phongpaichit, who I quoted above, are actually considered experts. They point out that the People's Party was a 50/50 civilian and military which is missing in your quote above.

I guess you didn't read the little numbers at the end of the paragraph, citing both the origin and the page number.

The quote in Wikipedia comes from Judith Stowe, her book (which cites plenty of references) states that after the military coup:

The first stage was to establish an Assembly nominated by the military controllers of the country -Phya Phahol, Phya Song and Phya Ritthi- who were said to be acting on behalf of the people. Pag. 26

The Khana Ratsadorn was a military/civilian affair, but the government dominated by the military leaders, after a military coup, which again proves that your statement was factually incorrect.

Now you would actually have to cite that Baker states the government that followed the coup in 1932 was not dominated by the military members, because so far you have been proven to play loose and fast with facts. Saying that the Khana Ratsadorn was 50/50 civilian and military doesn't tell anything about the leadership structure within it.

You realize the difference between a revolution and a coup, don't you?

You understand that the Peoples Party was not a military junta, don't you?

You know that the leader of the Peoples Party was not a general, don't you?

[Robespiere]

From your last statement I would suggest you have completely missed the plot.

Prayuth is in position to oversee the upcoming, inevitable transition at the very top.

I predict he will be rewarded with head of the next Privy Council and run the country behind the scenes like Prem has.

Kinda depends on who the new boss is.

[jdinasia]

From your last statement I would suggest you have completely missed the plot.

Prayuth is in position to oversee the upcoming, inevitable transition at the very top.

I predict he will be rewarded with head of the next Privy Council and run the country behind the scenes like Prem has.

Kinda depends on who the new boss is.

Not particularly.

[AleG]

I guess you didn't read the little numbers at the end of the paragraph, citing both the origin and the page number.

The quote in Wikipedia comes from Judith Stowe, her book (which cites plenty of references) states that after the military coup:

The first stage was to establish an Assembly nominated by the military controllers of the country -Phya Phahol, Phya Song and Phya Ritthi- who were said to be acting on behalf of the people. Pag. 26

The Khana Ratsadorn was a military/civilian affair, but the government dominated by the military leaders, after a military coup, which again proves that your statement was factually incorrect.

Now you would actually have to cite that Baker states the government that followed the coup in 1932 was not dominated by the military members, because so far you have been proven to play loose and fast with facts. Saying that the Khana Ratsadorn was 50/50 civilian and military doesn't tell anything about the leadership structure within it.

You realize the difference between a revolution and a coup, don't you?

You understand that the Peoples Party was not a military junta, don't you?

You know that the leader of the Peoples Party was not a general, don't you?

I understand you can't bear to be wrong and would rather clutch around for some more straws to hang on to than face facts that go against your opinions.

It was a military coup, or do you think the Absolute Monarchy was ended by Pridi knocking at the palace and asking pretty please can I have some Democracy? Just because sometime it's called a revolution doesn't make it less of a military coup.

[tbthailand]

I guess you didn't read the little numbers at the end of the paragraph, citing both the origin and the page number.

The quote in Wikipedia comes from Judith Stowe, her book (which cites plenty of references) states that after the military coup:

The first stage was to establish an Assembly nominated by the military controllers of the country -Phya Phahol, Phya Song and Phya Ritthi- who were said to be acting on behalf of the people. Pag. 26

The Khana Ratsadorn was a military/civilian affair, but the government dominated by the military leaders, after a military coup, which again proves that your statement was factually incorrect.

Now you would actually have to cite that Baker states the government that followed the coup in 1932 was not dominated by the military members, because so far you have been proven to play loose and fast with facts. Saying that the Khana Ratsadorn was 50/50 civilian and military doesn't tell anything about the leadership structure within it.

You realize the difference between a revolution and a coup, don't you?

You understand that the Peoples Party was not a military junta, don't you?

You know that the leader of the Peoples Party was not a general, don't you?

I understand you can't bear to be wrong and would rather clutch around for some more straws to hang on to than face facts that go against your opinions.

It was a military coup, or do you think the Absolute Monarchy was ended by Pridi knocking at the palace and asking pretty please can I have some Democracy? Just because sometime it's called a revolution doesn't make it less of a military coup.

Actually, I understand that you cannot bear being wrong and need to continue repeating the obvious errors that you hold dear.

Let's try another definition for coup d'etat, and here is one for revolution.

revolution (ˌrɛvəˈluːʃən)

n

1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the overthrow or repudiation of a regime or political system by the governed

Although I hold little hope for your reading skills and ability to understand this one either....

As for the rest of my earlier post, I would guess now that you just want to deny that the leader of the People's Party was not a general and that they were not a military junta.

See ya

[AleG]

I understand you can't bear to be wrong and would rather clutch around for some more straws to hang on to than face facts that go against your opinions.

It was a military coup, or do you think the Absolute Monarchy was ended by Pridi knocking at the palace and asking pretty please can I have some Democracy? Just because sometime it's called a revolution doesn't make it less of a military coup.

Actually, I understand that you cannot bear being wrong and need to continue repeating the obvious errors that you hold dear.

Let's try another definition for coup d'etat, and here is one for revolution.

revolution (ˌrɛvəˈluːʃən)

n

1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the overthrow or repudiation of a regime or political system by the governed

Although I hold little hope for your reading skills and ability to understand this one either....

As for the rest of my earlier post, I would guess now that you just want to deny that the leader of the People's Party was not a general and that they were not a military junta.

See ya

The 1932 coup was a small group of people that used army and naval units to seize power, which fits perfectly with the definition of a coup.

Your definition of a revolution, is exactly not what happened then, the governed, AKA, the bulk of the population were neither part of the ousting or particularly interested on it. There were no large demonstrations, the masses didn't rise or anything like that leading to the coup.

It's all in the historical record, which has a bit more weight than your Humpty Dumpty routine.

I'm starting to think your continuous references to my lack of reading skills may be some kind of projection.

[Robespiere]

From your last statement I would suggest you have completely missed the plot.

Prayuth is in position to oversee the upcoming, inevitable transition at the very top.

I predict he will be rewarded with head of the next Privy Council and run the country behind the scenes like Prem has.

Kinda depends on who the new boss is.

Not particularly.

Yes particularly.

Why else would they bother to go to all the effort?

It's not a "six of one, half a dozen of the other" situation.

It's an all or nothing gambit by the established elite to deny the rest of the citizenry an equal share in the nation.

Given recent headlines, I guess we'll know how it all pans out soon enough.

[tbthailand]

I understand you can't bear to be wrong and would rather clutch around for some more straws to hang on to than face facts that go against your opinions.

It was a military coup, or do you think the Absolute Monarchy was ended by Pridi knocking at the palace and asking pretty please can I have some Democracy? Just because sometime it's called a revolution doesn't make it less of a military coup.

Actually, I understand that you cannot bear being wrong and need to continue repeating the obvious errors that you hold dear.

Let's try another definition for coup d'etat, and here is one for revolution.

revolution (ˌrɛvəˈluːʃən)

n

1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the overthrow or repudiation of a regime or political system by the governed

Although I hold little hope for your reading skills and ability to understand this one either....

As for the rest of my earlier post, I would guess now that you just want to deny that the leader of the People's Party was not a general and that they were not a military junta.

See ya

The 1932 coup was a small group of people that used army and naval units to seize power, which fits perfectly with the definition of a coup.

Your definition of a revolution, is exactly not what happened then, the governed, AKA, the bulk of the population were neither part of the ousting or particularly interested on it. There were no large demonstrations, the masses didn't rise or anything like that leading to the coup.

It's all in the historical record, which has a bit more weight than your Humpty Dumpty routine.

I'm starting to think your continuous references to my lack of reading skills may be some kind of projection.

No one else, except maybe some bizarre royalists and you, calls 1932 a coup.

And yes, in spite of your inaccurate objections, it was a revolution in fact.