Category Archives: Education
What occurs to me about these delusional tools
- besides their mental conformity, their vanity, and their belief that the campus belongs to them and is theirs to disrupt
– is that their places could have been taken by students who don’t strive to silence facts and ideas, and who actually want to learn something. Perhaps even a skill that’s of value to others and will thereby earn them a living. There must be thousands of much smarter, more honest people – people who don’t imagine themselves as Maoist “revolutionaries” – who would eagerly use the opportunity that these obnoxious little parasites are squandering.
Found at AD: http://americandigest.org/
Posted on | July 23, 2014
“Can it be valid to conceptualize ‘girls’ as having certain personal attributes universally in common, except perhaps their youth relative to women? In grappling with this question, we need not to lose sight of the fact that, however different, girls’ actions are oriented toward the same or similarly structured objects that construct their bodies’ social meanings, values, and challenges as gendered. . . . Social rules and practices surrounding menarche construct gender as a principle both for division of labor and for compulsory heterosexuality, thus constituting girls in a relation of growing vulnerability to boys’ and men’s appropriation.” – Susan Laird, “Befriending Girls as an Educational Life-Practice,” Philosophy of Education, 2002
“It has been the political policy of lesbian feminists to present ourselves publicly as persons who have chosen lesbian patterns of desire and sensuality. Whether as individuals we feel ourselves to have been born lesbians or to be lesbians by decision, we claim as morally and politically conscious agents a positive choice to go with it: to claim our lesbianism, to take full advantage of its advantages. This is central to our feminism: that women can know their own bodies and desires, interpret their own erotic currents, create and choose environments which encourage chosen changes in all these; and that a female eroticism that is independent of males and of masculinity is possible and can be chosen. We claim these things and fight in the world for all women’s liberty to live them without punishment and terror, believing also that if the world permits self-determined female eroticism, it will be a wholly different world.” – Marilyn Frye, Politics of Reality: Essays in Feminist Theory (1983)
Last week, I mentioned that the American Association of University Women (AAUW) is pushing to introduce “gender studies” to the high school curriculum, “creating innovative spaces for young people to engage in feminism and activism, equity, and social justice in today’s classrooms.” The symposium on this AAUW program featured Ileana Jiminez, a lesbian English teacher from New York. What this indicates is that the radical theories of feminist academics are ultimately destined for the K-12 classroom — and any parent who objects can expect to be condemned as a sexist homophobe.
Consider the phrase “compulsory heterosexuality.” This phrase entered the feminist lexicon via an influential 1980 essay by Adrienne Rich, “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence,” which I discussed at length in April. Rich’s essay, asserting that heterosexuality is not natural for women, but rather is imposed as a condition of male supremacy, has been widely anthologized and incorporated in Women’s Studies curricula.
The phrase turned up in a Google search I did, appearing as the title of a book chapter, “Compulsory Heterosexuality as Mis-education.” The author speaks of “the psychological damage inflicted [on gay adolescents] by years of bearing witness to, or experiencing, anti–lesbian and gay prejudice in countless forms”:
They are the product of a lifetime of learning in the hegemonic ideology of heterosexism. In practice, heterosexist ideology is instilled through numerous mechanisms. Family members initiate children into heterosexist ideology almost from birth, teaching acceptable gendered conduct as well as uneasiness with cross-gendered behaviors. This education is reinforced and expanded by religious institutions, peer groups, and the media . . . By the time children have reached first grade, they have already compiled a significant amount of data about what it means to be gay in a heterosexist society, even though much of what they have learned may well be incorrect, born of fear and prejudice rather than factual information. Schools are in a unique position to correct much of this misinformation at an early age before it ripens into anti–lesbian and gay prejudice and violence.
So, the public schools are to be enlisted to counteract this “fear and prejudice” of “heterosexist ideology”? What kind of lunatic gibberish is this, and who wrote it? This is from Rethinking Sexual Identity in Education, a 2004 book by Susan Birden, and it was originally her Ph.D. dissertation at the University of Oklahoma’s College of Education. Birden expressed her gratitude to her mentor:
While all my committee members have been engaged and helpful, I owe a life-long debt to my committee chair, Susan Laird, for she has been not only an advisor, but also a mentor of the highest caliber. A brilliant scholar, her expertise in guiding me through this entire doctoral process has been a testament to her great skill as an educator. From her comments on my first seminar entry, written some seven years ago, to her comments on the final draft of my dissertation, she has guided me through a maze of philosophic thought, nurturing my interests, pressing me to think more broadly, challenging me to think more specifically. Through it all she has demonstrated profound patience with my leaming, a committed focus and respect for my interests, accomplishing it all with the good humor of a “liver” of life. Susan Laird is both a fierce warrior and a kind soul.
Go read Birden’s dissertation, and you will find it is crammed full of quotes and citations from an all-star lineup of lesbian feminists — Mary Daly, Marilyn Frye, Janice Raymond, Charlotte Bunch, and on and on. Which brings us back to the question of exactly what the hell is going on in the University of Oklahoma’s College of Education, where Professor Susan Laird supervised this dissertation.
In addition to her position in the College of Education, Professor Laird has been a member of the faculty of the department of Women’s and Gender Studies since 1995. And her 2002 journal article, “Befriending Girls as an Educational Life-Practice,” is worth careful study. This eight-page article has 33 footnotes and cites numerous lesbian feminists, including Audre Lorde, Janice Raymond, Judith Butler and Marilyn Frye, the latter an author whose works I’ve quoted as examples of the anti-male/anti-heterosexual themes that have become commonplace in academic feminism.
“Fucking is a large part of how females are kept subordinated to males. It is a ritual enactment of that subordination which constantly reaffirms the fact of subordination and habituates both men and women to it, both in body and in imagination.” –- Marilyn Frye, Politics of Reality: Essays in Feminist Theory (1983)
“Men have been creating ideologies and political practices which naturalize female heterosexuality continuously in every culture since the dawns of the patriarchies. . . . Female heterosexuality is not a biological drive or an individual woman’s erotic attraction . . . Female heterosexuality is a set of social institutions and practices.” – Marilyn Frye, Willful Virgin: Essays in Feminism, 1976-1992 (1992)
Professor Laird cited Frye (although not these passages) in her 2002 Philosophy of Education article about “befriending girls,” an article which begins by relating the plot of a novel in which the young female protagonist “responds . . . with shock upon discovering this teacher who so generously befriended her is lesbian, but feels a new compassion that challenges [her] to unlearn her own heterosexism.” Did I mention that Professor Laird teaches in the College of Education, and that the title of that article is “Befriending Girls as an Educational Life-Practice”?
Yeah, Oklahoma, OK.
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
“Communitarianism”, “Intersectionalism”, and Other Totally Worthless Shit Taught at our Universities
Posted on | July 8, 2014
Regular readers remember Witchwind, the radical feminist that commenters have nicknamed “Windy.” She’s a wacky man-hating disciple of Mary Daly and Dee Graham, and inspired worldwide laughter with her anti-intercourse rant: “PIV is always rape, OK?”
Last week, Witchwind made an announcement:
After a succession of intense and mind-blowing discussions with friends, recent events and several weeks of trying to get to the bottom of why I find radical lesbianism so misogynist, I’ve just experienced a major shift or breakthrough in my feminism. One thing led to another, and I realise that the essential problem i’m trying to talk about is much larger than radical lesbianism, and relates to separatist communitarianism as a liberation strategy — the idea we should form a small, elitist community separate from women as much as from men, rather than focus on our potential to bond with all women and on all women’s potential to wake up to our reality. . . . I do have the impression of having having found a missing link which now helps me to see the whole picture with much more clarity and depth. Therefore my focus will no longer be on radical lesbianism and identity politics as such, but on the wider phenomenon of separatist communitarianism, whether it be radical lesbian, lesbian feminist, radical feminist, “intersectionalist”, etc. When our bonding with women is based on the exclusion of other women, then we aren’t really bonding with women but erecting a fictitious shield of “us” vs “them” to protect ourselves from persecution (a threat in which we include women), but which prevents the spreading of feminism to other women by preventing our contact and bonding with such women. . . .
If that makes sense to you, seek psychiatric help immediately.
You can read the entire 2,500-word excursion into lunatic gibberish, but it doesn’t become any more coherent. Insofar as it is “about” anything, it is about Windy trying to find an anti-male ideology that, while understanding female heterosexuality as women’s brainwashed cooperation with their own oppression, does not have the effect of blaming/shaming women for their heterosexuality.
Having spent the past six months plowing through the radical feminist syllabus (“Fun With #RadFem: ‘You Magnificent Lesbians — I Read Your Books!’“), I could imagine an effective manifesto/agenda for their movement, and might even be worried about their potential for success — if they weren’t so hopelessly batshit crazy.
This has been an impediment to feminism for decades: It is a movement organized around the grievances of neurotic misfits, and has attracted to its banner every type of kook, weirdo and nutjob imaginable.
In this sense, a mentally ill Women’s Studies professor is simply following in the insane footsteps of Women’s Liberation pioneer Shulamith Firestone, who suffered a nervous breakdown after publishing the 1970 feminist classic The Dialectic of Sex and eventually died alone as a 67-year-old schizophrenic.
Majoring in Crazy Studies
One of the reasons that radical feminism is so influential on university campuses, but generally disdained outside academia, is that the campus environment is a consequence-free unreality. Tenured professors can (and do) preach all manner of impractical nonsense and, on campuses that are home to thousands or tens of thousands of impressionable young women, it is fairly easy for the tenured radicals to attract scores or hundreds of misfit followers.
For example, there are nearly 30,000 women enrolled at Ohio State University’s Columbus campus. How many of those students are majoring or minoring in Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies, or pursuing graduate degrees in that department? Suppose that the WGSS department enrolls just 2% — one in 50 — of women at OSU. That’s almost 600 students, a drop in the bucket relative to the total enrollment, but still a substantial force, if they can be organized and deployed as activist “shock troops” in protests, etc.
Anyone who questioned the legitimacy of Women’s Studies as an academic discipline would be shouted down as a misogynistic Neanderthal, and so this department is protected from outside criticism by a sort of force-field of political correctness. Within that protective cocoon, fanatical ideologues are permitted to promulgate the most astonishing radical nonsense. Consider, for example, the freshman-level course “Gender, Sex and Power” (WGSST 1110), which is the prerequisite to all other courses in Ohio State’s Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies department. A recent section of WGSST 1110, taught by Varsha Chitnis (a graduate student pursuing her Ph.D.) included in the course syllabus Andrea Smith’s article “Heteropatriarchy and the Three Pillars of White Supremacy”:
Heteropatriarchy is the building block of US empire. In fact, it is the building block of the nation-state form of governance. . . . As I have argued elsewhere, in order to colonize peoples whose societies are not based on social hierarchy, colonizers must first naturalize hierarchy through instituting patriarchy. In turn, patriarchy rests on a gender binary system in which only two genders exist, one dominating the other. . . . Just as the patriarchs rule the family, the elites of the nation-state rule their citizens. Any liberation struggle that does not challenge heteronormativity cannot substantially challenge colonialism or white supremacy.
From there, Smith goes on to complain about “the family being conceived of in capitalist and heteropatriarchal terms,” so that rhetoric about protecting the family leads to “increased homophobia.” Smith argues for challenging “the concept of the family itself,” in order to “reconstitute alternative ways of living together.” In case you were wondering about Andrea Smith, she is on the faculty of the University of California-Riverside, having received a Ph.D. from the infamous “History of Consciousness” program at UC-Santa Cruz (“The Worst School in America”). So, through the content of this Women’s Studies course, the crackpot radicalism of a fringe figure (Smith was denied tenure at the University of Michigan) is imported from California to Ohio, at taxpayer expense.
Lest any reader think that I have cherry-picked an isolated and anomalous example, let’s look at the syllabus for another recent section of WGSST 1110, this one taught by graduate student Sonnet Gabbard, who awards 15% her course grade for students’ “Transgressive Digital Art Project,” whatever that means. Among the assigned readings is “Homophobia: A Weapon of Sexism” by lesbian activist Suzanne Pharr, and “Desire for the Future: Radical Hope in Passion and Pleasure,” by Amber Hollinbaugh, who is (I’m not kidding) Executive Director of Queers for Economic Justice.
Paying the Radical Tax
Keep in mind that we are discussing the freshman level introductory c0urse, taught to 17- and 18-year-olds, and required — a mandatory prerequisite — for any Ohio State student who wishes to major or minor in Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies. Examine the syllabus for any section of this OSU course, and you will find it crammed with the writings of radical lesbians, inspiring any outside observer to wonder if any heterosexual woman has ever gotten a Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies degree from OSU.
Yet within the force-field of political correctness that surrounds this academic cocoon, there is no one who finds this radicalism unusual. The lesbian inmates are running the feminist asylum, and the fact that taxpayers are footing the bill for all this is something that apparently no one at OSU — nor anyone in the Ohio state legislature — can be bothered to notice. So it is nearly everywhere. When the Women’s Studies program at a state university in South Carolina was abolished after hosting a conference that featured the performance of a one-woman play called “How to Be a Lesbian in 10 Days of Less,” everyone was shocked because this had never happened anywhere else before.
In case anyone wondered why Ohio State University was singled out for scrutiny, the answer is: My choice was entirely random. Pick any major university, look up their Women’s Studies program and look up the syllabus for the introductory course, and compare your findings. This kind of radicalism is ubiquitous in Women’s Studies curricula, and it is no surprise that the most popular anthology of feminist writings — Feminist Frontiers, widely used as a standard textbook — is edited by radical lesbians.
Inside their taxpayer-funded campus sinecures, then, Women’s Studies professors are handsomely rewarded for promoting an ideology that strikes most people as fringe extremism. Yet the supply of Women’s Studies majors vastly exceeds the demand and, outside the elite circle of tenured professors and celebrity feminist authors, those who have spent their collegiate careers soaking up “gender theory” nonsense find themselves marginally employable, even as they are confronted with a reality harshly at odds with the worldview into which they were propagandized as undergraduates.
From this clash between academic theory and the reality of ordinary life emerges the ranting lunacy of radicals like Witchwind. What kind of jobs can these intellectual cripples find outside academia, if they can’t find some non-profit “activist” group to hire them? One imagines such women, disheveled and ill-groomed, standing at intersections and holding up crudely lettered cardboard signs:
“Gender Studies Major: Will Criticize Patriarchy for Food”
The saddest part is that this miserable man-hating madness is funded by taxpayers who have no idea what is being taught inside the Crazy Factories of the Feminist-Industrial Complex.
If the heteronormative patriarchy were as all-powerful as feminists claim, then surely there would Republican legislators calling attention to how tax dollars are being used to subsidize this nonsense at state universities across the country. There would be hearings to investigate this and committee reports to expose the truth: What is cost and what are the benefits of Women’s Studies programs? For example, what is the annual cost to Texas taxpayers of The Center for Women’s & Gender Studies at the University of Texas at Austin? What is being taught in this program, and what kind of careers are pursued by alumni of the program? I’d be willing to bet the average Texan doesn’t have the slightest clue what’s going on in Austin.
When we see occasional eruptions of madness — not just insane pronouncements by bloggers, but radical feminists unleashing anarchy in state capitols — there is no need to wonder where this craziness originates: It is acquired in the classroom, where it is taught by academic kooks who would be locked up in insane asylum if they weren’t tenured university faculty members.
by Doug Hagin
There’s a movement sweeping across college campuses according to the New York Times that should give anyone interested in the classics of Western canon, and potentially academic freedom itself, pause: students have been advocating for so-called “trigger warnings” to be placed on college reading materials.
What are “trigger warnings?” The Times describes them as:
“explicit alerts that the material they [students] are about to read or see in a classroom might upset them or, as some students assert, cause symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder in victims of rape or in war veterans…The term “trigger warning” has its genesis on the Internet. Feminist blogs and forums have used the term for more than a decade to signal that readers, particularly victims of sexual abuse, might want to avoid certain articles or pictures online.”
To give a sense as to how such warnings would be applied, the Times cited a draft guide from Oberlin College that would have required professors to put warnings in their syllabi:
“The guide said they [professors] should flag anything that might “disrupt a student’s learning” and “cause trauma,” including anything that would suggest the inferiority of anyone who is transgender (a form of discrimination known as cissexism) or who uses a wheelchair (or ableism).
“Be aware of racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, cissexism, ableism, and other issues of privilege and oppression,” the guide said. “Realize that all forms of violence are traumatic, and that your students have lives before and outside your classroom, experiences you may not expect or understand.” For example, it said, while “Things Fall Apart” by Chinua Achebe — a novel set in colonial-era Nigeria — is a “triumph of literature that everyone in the world should read,” it could ‘trigger readers who have experienced racism, colonialism, religious persecution, violence, suicide and more.’”
Hyper Sensitivity Syndrome! And of course this type of idiocy will be used to ban certain books/films/speakers, etc.
From TDG: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/#
Progressive Privilege in Action -
. Towson University won the 2014 Cross Examination Debate Association’s national championship on March 24, of this year. The team members inexplicably used the n-word repeatedly and babbled nonsense.
Pundit Press posted part of the debate transcript:
They say the n*****s always already qu***, that’s exactly the point! It means the impact is that the that the is the impact term, uh, to the afraid, uh, the, that it is a case term to the affirmative because, we, uh, we’re saying that qu*** bodies are not able to survive the necessarily means of the body. Uh, uh, the n***** is not able to survive…
…Uh, man’s sole “jabringing” object disfigure religion trauma and nubs, uh, the, inside the trauma of representation that turns into the black child devouring and identifying with the stories and into the white culture brought up, uh, de de de de de, dink, and add subjectively like a white man, the black man!
The topic this year was the War Powers Resolution.
Here’s the Towson Team in action:
This video is GOLD -
See video in the next post
From TDG: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
Dartmouth Students Demand Money, Race Quotas, Speech Restrictions, Sensitivity Brainwashing, and More
Here I was thinking of Ivy League colleges as bastions of unmitigated moonbattery. Turns out they are actually hotbeds of racist oppression — but not for long, thanks to liberal rebels:
A group of disgruntled students at Dartmouth College sent an 8-page protest letter to leaders of the Ivy League institution Monday calling for reparations for what they claim is the school’s oppressive and racist atmosphere – and threatened “physical action” if their demands are not met.
The list of demands, written by “concerned Asian, Black, Latin@, Native, Undocumented, Queer, and Differently-Abled students,” include:
• Racial enrollment quotas for Black and Latino students to “at least 10 percent each”
• “Ensure that 47 percent of post-doctoral students are people of color”
• “Ban the use of ‘illegal aliens, illegal immigrants, wetback’ and any racially charged term”
• Mandate cultural competency and sensitivity training for professors
• “Ask staff/faculty to use students’ and employees’ preferred gender pronouns”
• Enroll more students in the country illegally (undocumented students); and provide them free legal assistance and financial aid
• Convert ethnic studies programs into full-fledged departments
• Incorporate into each department at least one queer studies class
• Increase the interdisciplinary academic focus on sexualities
• Enact curricular changes to force students to study social justice and marginalization in depth
• Provide gender-neutral bathrooms in every building on campus
• “Create a policy with serious consequences against hate speech/crimes”
• Create a policy penalizing and discriminating against students who use the Indian mascot
• Require school’s conservative paper give up “Dartmouth” name if they use term “Indian”
At this point, no one could credibly deny that our liberal ruling class predominately features totalitarians who want to use force to impose their bizarre and nauseating ideology on every facet of human existence. I can hardly wait to see how Dartmouth incorporates a class extolling the sanctity of sexual perversion into math and engineering programs — assuming that useful fields of study still exist at top colleges.
The purpose of this grotesque list of demands is to “eradicate systems of oppression as they affect marginalized communities on this campus.” Yet if any groups are oppressed and marginalized on college campuses, it is the groups liberals demand systematic discrimination against: whites, men, normal people, et cetera.
The unnamed students go on to assert that by March 24 – the first day of spring term – Dartmouth administrators must publicly respond to each item raised in the letter with “its exact commitment to each one of its demands” and that reparations that require funds “have a monetary commitment in the 2014-2015 fiscal budget.”
If they don’t get their way, the moonbats “will be forced to physical action.”
Stop snickering. Similarly clownish liberal screwballs were a prominent feature of college campuses in the hippie era. For example, armed black students took over the Naval ROTC offices at Columbia, demanding that it be renamed the “Malcolm X Lounge.” They actually got their way. Today one of them is the Attorney General of the United States. His radical ideology has not perceptibly matured.
The thuggish nuts who drew up the list of demands above will one day hold powerful positions in the federal government. What other kind of job would they be good for?
On a tip from R F. Hat tip: Frontpage Mag.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
From American Digest
Hands off our children, Big Brother
Exclusive: Patrice Lewis warns parents of latest ‘evil curriculum’ pushed by government
Below is an except of this article. Read it all at the above Link.
Remember, follow the money. If schools are government-funded, then logically only government-approved attitudes and behaviors will be permitted. Students (and by extension, their families) must be tracked to make sure everyone falls within acceptable boundaries of thought and behavior. Dissenting opinions will be made known to officials, and corrective measures can be taken. I’m beginning to think the Planet Camazotz (with the megalomaniac “IT”) from “A Wrinkle in Time” was astoundingly prescient.
Are you freaked out yet? I know our friends are. That’s why they will soon be homeschooling their youngest son.
I can’t emphasize strongly enough the need to reject government education, if at all possible. It is your duty as a parent to raise children, not zombies. You’re raising the hope of the future, not its doom. It’s time to look outside the jail cell and see what educational alternatives you can find for your kids. Almost anything is better than putting them in prison for eight hours a day.
Don’t forget: Children are the currency of tyrants. You can see the evidence right in front of you. The government already takes too much of your income. Tell it to get its hands off your legacy.
The Bright Are Too White
Another jewel of degradation gleaming in the wan light of witlessness:
A school (should I say “school”?) in Brooklyn, more than two-thirds of whose students are black or Hispanic, has abolished its (I mean “it’s”) advanced courses for the intelligent. Why this salubrious excision? Why, because too many of the students therein are white. That is, classes for the intelligent contain the intelligent. My god. This cancer must be corrected lest it spread. Fred Reed — The Soul of a Curmudgeon
The indoctrination of innocent children with progressives’ unspeakably vile sexual ideology has encountered pushback in an unlikely place — liberal Hawaii:
State Rep. Bob McDermott, who enrolled his eight children in Hawaii’s public schools, doesn’t want his 11-year-old son exposed to a controversial taxpayer-funded sex education program.
That program is taught in 12 public schools across the state, and the Hawaii Department of Education is planning to expand the curriculum to others. …
The 10-hour program, called Pono Choices (pono is a Hawaiian word that translates to “the right way”), is designed for youth aged 11 to 13. It has been taught to 1,700 Hawaii middle school children through an $800,000 pilot program.
McDermott said the program is “medically inaccurate” and not biology based, and that it teaches children about topics such as anal sex, sex with multiple partners and how to put on a condom — using a cucumber or wooden replica of a penis.
Only Big Government could manage to waste $800,000 of other people’s money telling little kids about the glories of anal sex.
Kudos to McDermott, who has produced a report entitled “The Pono Choices Curriculum: Sexualizing the Innocent.”
“The program normalizes a homosexual lifestyle and anal sex, while failing to warn students of the extreme dangers of anal sex; it references multiple sex partners, while failing to inform students about the health benefits of monogamy; it fails to warn students about the ineffectiveness of condoms against HPV, herpes, and anal sex; and fails to educate students on the stages of human reproduction,” McDermott said, providing Hawaii Reporter with an early copy of his report.
“Any talk of anal sex — which the curriculum does frequently — is instinctively repulsive for pre-pubescent children. Additionally, calling the anus a genital — as Pono Choices does — is just plain medically wrong,” McDermott said.
Uh oh. I think we have a thought criminal on our hands. Doesn’t McDermott realize that thousands of years of history and even biology itself have been overturned by liberal decree, and that homosexuality is now officially normal? Acknowledging that anal sex is instinctively repulsive is hurtful to those for whom indulging in this instinctively repulsive activity comprises the cornerstone of personal identity.
Once he obtained a copy [with some difficulty] and reviewed it with his staff attorney and others, McDermott felt the curriculum fails to inform children of the exponentially increased risks [of sexually transmitted diseases, some lethal] of male on male anal sex.
“Such omission renders the entire document questionable at best and agenda-driven social engineering at worst,” McDermott said.
But spreading AIDS, hepatitis, syphilis, et cetera is a small price to pay to advance the homosexualization of America, which must be crucial to our country’s well-being or the liberal establishment wouldn’t place so much emphasis on it.
“The curriculum treats sexual activity before the age of 14 as a viable choice, despite the state sexual assault law, which puts the age of consent at 16,” McDermott said.
First you change the culture through indoctrination. Then you change the laws. Cultural Marxists seized control of education and the media long ago, but even now are still consolidating control of the government.
On a tip from Dean D.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
Egalitarian educrats understand that you cannot have a smooth-looking lawn unless every blade of grass is the same height. Some blades cannot be made to grow very tall, but all blades can be cut short. Therefore, to achieve the sacred objective of equality, all blades must be prevented from growing above the minimum achievable height. In other words, excellence must be sacrificed to “diversity”:
A popular gifted program will get the axe after Ditmas Park school officials chose diversity over exclusivity.
Citing a lack of diversity, PS 139 Principal Mary McDonald informed parents in a letter that the Students of Academic Rigor and two other in-house programs would no longer accept applications for incoming kindergartners.
“Our Kindergarten classes will be heterogeneously grouped to reflect the diversity of our student body and the community we live in,” McDonald told parents in a letter posted on the photo-sharing site flickr.
This solves an ideologically embarrassing problem: most of the school’s students are black or Hispanic, but most of the gifted students are white or Asian-American.
The suppression of excellence hurts those who excel regardless of their race:
One mother, a Sudanese immigrant, said the program was brimming with white students — but she was looking forward to her daughter joining after years of high test scores.
“Where are they going to put the higher-level students?” asked the woman, who declined to give her name. “Sometimes, there are different levels, and teachers can’t handle all the levels in one class.”
Tough luck. You can’t achieve equality through universally mandated mediocrity if you don’t trim each blade of grass down to size. Instead of developing her mind, the gifted daughter will spend her days watching the teacher fight a losing battle to impose order despite federal restrictions.
But she will still learn the most valuable lesson of all: the government will make us all equal in the end, so there is no point exerting any effort whatsoever.
On a tip from Sean C.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
This is why we need to spend even more on public education:
That’s NYC principal Marcella Sills enjoying the warmth of a luxurious fur coat. She is known for tooling around in a pricey BMW. Meanwhile at her school,
Students at PS 106 in Far Rockaway, Queens, have gotten no math or reading and writing books for the rigorous Common Core curriculum, whistleblowers say.
The 234 kids get no gym or art classes. Instead, they watch movies every day.
“The kids have seen more movies than Siskel and Ebert,” a source said.
The school nurse has no office equipped with a sink, refrigerator or cot.
The library is a mess: “Nothing’s in order,” said a source. “It’s a junk room.”
No substitutes are hired when a teacher is absent — students are divvied up among other classes.
A classroom that includes learning-disabled kids doesn’t have the required special-ed co-teacher.
About 40 kindergartners have no room in the three-story brick building. They sit all day in dilapidated trailers that reek of “animal urine,” a parent said; rats and squirrels noisily scamper in the walls and ceiling.
Principal Sills spends very little time at her job. Who can blame her? The school sounds like a real dump. Her home in Westbury, Long Island is no doubt far more pleasant.
Since no math or reading program has been provided, students spend much of their time watching “Fat Albert” and “Alvin and the Chipmunks.”
Sills receives a salary of $128,207 per year, and despite putting in very few hours at the school, manages to collect overtime. PS 106 is a Title 1 school, so it gets extra federal funds. How those funds are allocated is a mystery, shrouded from the public by Obama-esque transparency.
Clearly the funds are insufficient, or kids wouldn’t be watching cartoons in rat-infested trailers instead of learning. Education funding much be increased to the point that useless educrats like Sills can live in the opulence to which they have become accustomed, with enough left over to at least buy a few books.
Alternatively, we could get inherently corrupt and inefficient Big Government as far away from education as possible. But union-funded Democrats would never go for that.
On a tip from Just TheTip. Hat tip: Gateway Pundit.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
One of the most crucial duties of universities is to preserve and pass on our cultural heritage, for we can only reach new heights if we stand on the shoulders of those who came before us. Unfortunately, this conflicts with liberal ideology, which dictates that anything that does not support political correctness as it is currently defined is at best irrelevant and most likely ideologically unclean. Heather Mac Donald does not exaggerate when she writes that the corruption of the English program at UCLA “is part of a momentous shift that bears on our relationship to the past — and to civilization itself”:
Until 2011, students majoring in English at UCLA had to take one course in Chaucer, two in Shakespeare, and one in Milton — the cornerstones of English literature. Following a revolt of the junior faculty, however, during which it was announced that Shakespeare was part of the “Empire,” UCLA junked these individual author requirements. It replaced them with a mandate that all English majors take a total of three courses in the following four areas: Gender, Race, Ethnicity, Disability and Sexuality Studies; Imperial, Transnational, and Postcolonial Studies; genre studies, interdisciplinary studies, and critical theory; or creative writing.
In other words, the UCLA faculty was now officially indifferent to whether an English major had ever read a word of Chaucer, Milton or Shakespeare, but the department was determined to expose students, according to the course catalog, to “alternative rubrics of gender, sexuality, race, and class.”
Such defenestrations have happened elsewhere, and long before 2011. But the UCLA coup was particularly significant because the school’s English department was one of the last champions of the historically informed study of great literature, uncorrupted by an ideological overlay. Precisely for that reason, it was the most popular English major in the country, enrolling a whopping 1,400 undergraduates.
Instead of studying the great minds of the past, students will be brainwashed with shallow left-wind psychobabble that has no enduring value.
UCLA’s undergraduates can take courses in Women of Color in the U.S.; Women and Gender in the Caribbean; Chicana Feminism; Studies in Queer Literatures and Cultures; and Feminist and Queer Theory.
Imagine anyone a hundred years ago or a hundred years in the future giving a thin dime for any of that crap.
This is the mentality liberal educrats eagerly pander to:
[A] Columbia University undergraduate … had been required by the school’s core curriculum to study Mozart. She happens to be black, but her views are widely shared, to borrow a phrase, “across gender, sexuality, race and class.”
“Why did I have to listen in music humanities to this Mozart?” she groused in a discussion of the curriculum reported by David Denby in “Great Books,” his 1997 account of re-enrolling in Columbia’s core curriculum. “My problem with the core is that it upholds the premises of white supremacy and racism. It’s a racist core. Who is this Mozart, this Haydn, these superior white men? There are no women, no people of color.” These are not the idiosyncratic thoughts of one disgruntled student; they represent the dominant ideology in the humanities today.
According to political correctness, a savage beating a hollow log with a bone is of equal value to Mozart at his most majestic — or rather of greater value, because Mozart was white and therefore presumably a racist.
Explaining the value of Western Civilization to liberal ideologues would be like explaining to termites why they should not chew their way through the last remaining volume of Shakespeare — except that termites aren’t actively hostile to Shakespeare and everything he represents. Yet we have entrusted the preservation of our civilization to these people.
Griping about Mozart and ignoring Shakespeare will not be the last step. Totalitarian ideologies like political correctness cannot permit anything to exist that challenges them by suggesting alternative viewpoints. Remember the centuries-old Buddhist statues Muslims destroyed in Afghanistan? The same mentality might well be applied to Mozart, Shakespeare, and all the other hated dead white males who bequeathed to us the greatest civilization that ever existed. They might disappear from history, the way disfavored party members were erased from photographs under Stalin.
On a tip from Varla.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
Academia is better called Doomedemia…
everything leads to disaster… are these the people we really want making policy, rules, laws, and so on? has everyone not realized that these people are afraid of the implication of everything? they don’t like the free market, that’s chaos and can’t be good… don’t like guns… don’t like kids thinking of guns… don’t like religion, maybe god don’t like them… don’t like nature, it’s going to kill them.. don’t like living, it will also be the death of them… don’t like food, its all toxic… don’t like sex, too boring without perversion… and on it goes… on it goes…. Comment at neo-neocon Robert Frost on the science is settled
From AD: http://americandigest.org/
From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
If a bill introduced by four Democrats in the Ohio Senate last week becomes law, it would be the most radical homeschooling law in the country, stripping parents of their constitutionally guaranteed right to direct the education of their children and requiring interrogations by social workers before homeschooling is permitted. Home School Legal Defense Association’s Michael Donnelly said SB 248 is “breathtakingly onerous in its scope” and called it the “worst-ever” homeschool law that has been proposed.
The proposed law would require parents desiring to homeschool or enroll their children in an online school (public or private) to pass a background check. [For the sake of simplicity I will use the term "homeschooling" to refer to both homeschooling and e-schooling as they both have the same requirements under this bill.] A finding that a parent or anyone else in the home had “a record or report of any investigation at any time” could result in denial of the right to homeschool. Note that the standard is not guilt, merely a “record or report of an investigation.” This could be from a vindictive ex-wife, a busybody neighbor who is concerned about seeing children in the yard during school hours, or simply someone at the grocery store who doesn’t approve of the way you scolded your irritable child.
In addition to the background check, the parent requesting “permission” to homeschool must submit to an
interrogationinterview by a “public children services agency.” The law would require children to be interviewed separately from their parents. Based upon the interview, the request for permission to homeschool could be denied if the social worker decides that home education would not be “in the best interest of the child.” According to ParentalRights.org, the “best interest” standard is a severe departure from American law. ”[E]xcept in cases where a parent has been proven to be “unfit,” American law presumes that the parent is acting in the best interests of the child, and defers to that parent’s decision.”
If parents (and children) manage to pass the background check and the initial interrogation, they will still need to pass two additional “interviews” during the school year until they can go four straight years without arousing the suspicions of social workers before they are free from the intrusive investigations.
In addition to the interrogations and the background checks, anyone in the home who pings the statewide automated child welfare information system must submit to an intervention program. The intervention would include behavioral counseling sessions and classes on “parenting, decision-making, personal or household finance, and homeschooling.” Oh, and also, “any other services the department and the state board determine to be necessary for the success of the program.” Participants will be assessed to “determine successful completion of the program.” That should effectively counteract most of that right-wing brainwashing.
…my anger is barely controllable, but, also, I want to declare that it’s time to take up arms and do whatever it takes — whatever. it. takes. — to physically remove these bastards at the national, state, and local levels from their offices.
But I do not do this….
Will Posterity forgive me?
New “Lynching” Art at One of Our Cesspools of Higher Learning – I Question How Wonderful it Would Have been if the “Hangees” Would Have Been Black?
The campus radicalism of the 1960s resulted a generation later in President Barack Hussein Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder. The long-term consequences of the campus radicalism that holds sway today are too horrific to imagine — but this story indicates the direction we are heading in:
Students got an eyeful walking on the campus of Sacramento State University earlier in December. Two males dangling from a tree with nooses around their necks, portraying a time that many African Americans wish they could forget – lynchings, all because of the color of their skin.
Wish they could forget? What a preposterous lie. They could not possibly try any harder to remember something that hasn’t happened on any noticeable scale since generations before the vast majority of them were born.
“I think it’s more impactful when you use actual people, sends a stronger message that just a painting,” said Sac State student Alexander Richmond.
That was the message the artist wanted to get across.
An African American woman, Christina Edwards – a senior at the university – defended her project.
“The purpose of this performance was to bring to light social injustices and the issue of inequality that impacts me and my community as a whole,” Edwards said.
Sure it does, Christina. It must be awful to be so oppressed that you will rarely be held accountable for your behavior, and can be promoted all the way to the White House on the strength of your lucky skin.
For real impact, examine the effect Christina’s ideology will have on the white minority our rulers have been busily engineering. You won’t have to wait long.
On tips from Dean D and DJ. Hat tip: The College Fix.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
This graph displays the mean of the Math, Science, and Reading test scores from the OECD’s 2012 Programme for International Student Assessment. American scores are red, white countries are blue, East Asians countries are yellow, Muslim countries are green, and Latin American countries are brown.
So, Asian Americans outscored all large Asian countries (with the exception of three rich cities); white Americans outperformed most, but not all, traditionally white countries; and Latino Americans did better than all Latin American countries. African Americans almost certainly scored higher than any black majority country would have performed.
Note: The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is a worldwide study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in member and non-member nations of 15-year-old school pupils’ scholastic performance on mathematics, science, and reading. It was first performed in 2000 and then repeated every three years. It is done with view to improving education policies and outcomes. The data has increasingly been used both to assess the impact of education quality on incomes and growth and for understanding what causes differences in achievement across nations.
From Blazing Cat Fur: http://blazingcatfur.blogspot.com/
What follows is the transcript of the speech I delivered at the second National Policy Institute’s conference, which was held at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, DC on October 26th.
(Ed.Note: Emphasis mine. ZTW)
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is not always easy to tell the difference between destiny and chance.
I discovered the “Alternative Right” three years ago, by a link posted on a Swiss blog. It was a perfect illustration of a famous line in Simon and Garfunkel’s song The Sound of Silence: “The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls, and tenement halls.”
I was going through a period of questioning at that time. I had been working for a couple of years for the “conservative movement” in Paris and I couldn’t fail to notice that all my efforts had been invested in a cause that was not really mine, that had never really been mine actually.
Until that fateful day of July 2010, I had always centered my attention on France. My only knowledge of the other Western countries was through history books, movies or touristic trips.
Regarding politics proper, I wasn’t much interested in what was going on outside France. Though I was involved with the Right, I had always been wary of the American Right. For me, being right-wing in America meant worshipping the Holy Scrap (also known as “the Constitution”), waving a stars and stripes flag in the garden of a generic white-picket-fenced house, and making boring, tired jokes about the French who “always surrender.” I had still not digested my dish of freedom fries.
Discovering the Alternative Right was an Epiphany for me, as I think the discovery of the European New Right was for many Americans present in this room today. I’m thinking particularly of Richard Spencer and of John Morgan, the editor-in-chief of Arktos Media.
I discovered that though I wasn’t feeling at home in the French “conservative movement,” there were “people like me” on the Web, all over the Western world, who shared my hopes and concerns.
Ironically enough, I even discovered French authors thanks to American publications like AlternativeRight.com or Counter-Currents.com. Of course, the name “Alain de Benoist” was familiar to me, but he was not very popular, let alone read, in my corner of the Right.
Now, it seems that more and more Western people (White people as you say in America) are aware of the fact that what brings them together is much stronger than what divides them. And I’m not only talking about activists like us here. When this British soldier was beheaded in London by two African Muslims last Spring, I could see many manifestations of solidarity by average Western people. It’s something that would have been unthinkable a mere decade ago. As this example shows, reasons for this growing awareness among Western people are often negative ones: Westerners face the same danger of being displaced in their historic homelands.
There are positive reasons too, the first of which being the fact that we are the heirs of a great civilization. But although it is important to focus on the positive more than on the negative, it’s about a problem that is remarkable but not often commented on that I want to talk today: the generational divide.
When I say that this problem is not often commented on, it is not quite true. Actually, the liberal narrative about generational relationships is that the baby-boom generation, thanks to a courageous revolution, managed to put an end to an oppressive, reactionary, boring society.
There is some truth to that liberal narrative. But the generational divide applies differently to nationalist movements, and this is what I want to dedicate my attention to today.
More than a generational divide, there is, first off, a generational gap in right-wing movements. If the generation of my grand-parents (born between the two world wars) was rather conservative in the right sense of the word, the baby-boom generation is, in my experience, much more liberal in its outlook, hence the lack of right-wing activists from this generation. This is what explains “gerontocracy,” i.e. government of the old, in many right-wing movements, especially in Europe.
Even self-defined right-wingers born during the baby-boom are liberal in their views.
The most striking thing that I noticed, in France, Europe and America, was the inability of baby-boomers, even when they see themselves as dissidents, to completely break away from the institutions. The desire of recognition, the fear of social rejection makes the right-wing baby-boomer gives legitimacy to the very institutions that are willing to destroy him.
For instance, right-wing baby-boomers show a great deal of respect to Academia. They are very proud of their PhD when they hold one, and when they don’t, they are all the prouder to mention that an author they publish does. Well, at a time when there are PhDs in queer, gender, black, and even chicano studies in America, is it so important to mention that? Wouldn’t we be better advised to give as little legitimacy to university degrees as we can, given the circumstances?
This PhD cult among right-wing baby-boomers is related to their own rationalistic, scientistic delusions. Since conservatives are outmoded liberals — and many White nationalists are conservatives: they just want to conserve their people as it is, as if it were possible to save said people without becoming a new one in the process — they still believe in the Enlightenment myth that one would just have to show “the truth” to people to gain credibility and support. (And trying — in vain — to gain credibility from an Establishment that despises or hates them is an important trait of right-wing baby-boomers.)
But this idea that people would just have to know “the truth” to support the cause of saving Western civilization and the White race is fallacious. People have to be inspired rather than convinced, and they won’t be inspired by a set of bell curves, IQ tables and cranial measurements. Furthermore, it reduces “the truth” to the only things that can be numbered and quantified. The problem with that idea is that our struggle is a qualitative one. We can’t “prove” that architecture has become ugly since the 20th century, for example. Yet it’s something that has to be said.
I mentioned the PhD cult because it is one of the most obvious problems in right-wing intellectual circles. But this excessive respect of right-wing baby-boomers is granted to institutions in general, chiefly to the State, the Nation-State.
Since I was born in the 1980′s, at a time when the main Western countries had already been “enriched” with mass immigration, I understand that it is easier for me to dissociate myself from my own Nation-State.
Here, I’m reminded of an American friend I met in Paris a few weeks ago. He was born in the 1960′s, and when I mentioned to him the idea of an Ethnostate, he chuckled: for him, up to ten years ago, he had always considered he was already living in an Ethnostate: the United States.
And in day-to-day life, it remains common to hear people say “we” and “us” when they talk about the State. “We went to Iraq.” “Our troops are bringing democracy there.” “Syria’s chemical weapons threaten us.” I’m using silly examples here to make a point, but if you listen to people around you, you will inevitably notice that they keep saying — and thus thinking — that the State is them. That the State is the Nation.
But it’s getting more and more necessary to get rid of this false consciousness. Since the end of the 18th century and the American and French revolutions, the Nation-State has monopolized the way Westerners see themselves. This triumph is so complete that even multiculturalists use the Nation-State as a comforting reference to impose their dogma on the West. In every Western country, you can hear the same mantra that “Our [national] identity is diversity.”
Some people in our movement suggest that we should likewise use the Nation-State as a means to make people aware of our goals. The problem is that we can’t use the same tactic, for two reasons: first, we are obviously not in charge of the State. Second, a strict national consciousness leads to serious errors of interpretation. It is common in countries that used to have colonies and slaves to hear people say that our problems are rooted in colonization and slavery. In my homeland, the troubles with the Algerian community are thus attributed to French colonization and civil war there.
But Sweden, which never had any colony nor slaves, is facing similar, if not graver threats than Britain, America or France. We are not attacked for what our ancestors did, or allegedly did, but for what we are: White, Western people.
From my understanding, it is easier for my generation to see a brother or sister in another Westerner than it is for the former generation, which was born in the aftermath of the Second World War. In France, Front National is still anti-German, as well as it is anti-British and anti-American. But for the young generation, all these grudges are fading into irrelevance. A Briton might dislike the Germans or the French, wrongly or rightly, but those are unlikely to drug and pimp his daughters, behead a soldier in broad daylight, or burn the city down when a drug dealer is killed by the police.
In case you are wondering, I’m talking about things that actually happened in Britain in the last years.
Young Westerners know that they are more and more becoming one nation, the same way that other races, as Jared Taylor had noted in his book White Identity, are more and more seeing themselves as one people when they live in the West.
The right-wing baby-boomer is not able to fully understand what is happening in other Western countries, since he relies solely on national, liberal media, unlike young right-wingers who get information via alternative, Pan-Western websites. The liberal media gives him a distorted image of reality. As he knows that mainstream journalists are liberal, he basically inverts their depictions of other “far-right” movements in other Western countries to make his own opinion of them. Right-wingers, most often, only define themselves in opposition to the Left. What the Left likes, they hate. What the Left loathes, they love. It is thus easy to manipulate them into supporting a controlled opposition, given that their only justification to support is: “Since liberals hate it so much, it must be doing something right.” By this false standard, George W. Bush “was doing something right” when he made up the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to invade this country.
Generally speaking, the right-wing baby-boomer is subject to the bourgeois dream, which has been known as the “American dream” since the end of the Second World War: a world of peace, trade, and boredom.
Right-wing baby-boomers share the project of two American politicians (both born before the baby-boom though), Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan, whose similarities are more obvious than their differences. Their common motto can best be summed up as “Leave us alone.” Well, we of the New Guard don’t want to be “left alone.” We want to rule. We want to rule not only because we want actual power to get ourselves out of the present situation, but because we know that the “leave us alone” idea, which was behind the White flight phenomenon, is precisely what has led us to our current dispossession. Baby-boomers wanted to be “left alone,” so they fled to even further suburbs, moving further and further away from their own responsibilities. It is this process, White flight, that guaranteed that the ongoing dispossession could go on without being too painful.
The “good news” is that it is becoming impossible to continue the White flight process. Rising housing costs, growing gas prices, the concentration of jobs in city centers are putting the bourgeois dream to an end. It is now almost impossible for a generation that can only wait tables after a masters degree to keep fleeing. Problems will have to be faced, and dealt with.
At this point, I realize that I might seem unfair to the previous generation, but keep in mind that baby-boomers did what everyone else would have done if given the choice. This choice no longer exists. The quiet, suburban life has become impossible for the reasons mentioned before.
What is to be done, then? As of now, nobody, including myself of course, has a genuine solution to offer. Many in our circles claim that it is “five to midnight,” but I would argue that it is “five past midnight.” Not because it is too late, but because it is too soon. A mere decade ago, many people in this room, including, again, the foolish 20-year-old liberal that I was, were not aware of what was going on. Our awakening is too recent to find political solutions to our current problems now. For politics as we would like it to be to become possible, we have to win the intellectual and cultural battles, which right-wing baby-boomers have never really considered worth fighting. It is time we do so.
What we can thus do in the meantime is to get intellectually prepared as a movement (for the individual and practical aspects of this preparation, Piero San Giorgio and Jack Donovan are more competent than I am). The first task would be to get rid of intellectual debates dating back to the Cold War, with the false dichotomies between libertarianism and socialism, conservatism and progressivism, etc.
This necessity to go beyond these false dichotomies seems obvious to activists like us, but it is still in these terms that politics are debated today.
When I say that we have to go beyond Left and Right, I don’t mean that we have to reject both notions altogether — our ethno-national project obviously belongs on the Right — but the way they have been defined and falsely opposed for these past seventy years. The alternative is not between the kolkhoz and IKEA, the best reason for that being that the kolkhoz and IKEA are two sides of the same materialistic coin. We have to find a way out of here, a way forward and upward, and that implies rising above these irrelevant debates.
As a radical movement, we need to attract intelligent and educated young men, who are the future.
Crime statistics and differences of achievement between races are important, to be sure, but no snowboarding session on the bell curve will attract young men to us. We need to show them a way out, and thus to remind them of the need to gradually withdraw from the prevailing disorder, but we also have to show them a way into, and that is what the Old Guard has been unable to do so far.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not trying to bury the Old Guard, or even to dispute its achievements. We wouldn’t be here today if the Old Guard had not taken the first step in the past. But we can’t keep doing the same things for decades.
It is now clear why we want to found a new society, now is coming the harder part: what we want and how we are going to achieve it.
The answer is not sure at this point. What is sure is that the powers of creation, not only of reaction, will have to be summoned.
Thank you for your attention.
From Alternative Right: http://alternativeright.com/blog/category/children-of-oedipus
First, I’d like to treat you to a look at a few snippets of some emails I received yesterday, after a certain “controversial” segment on my show:
“I never realized you were so anti-education…”
“It figures that a teabagger would hate education so much…”
“….so it seems you would rather have a nation full of illiterates…”
“….I get tired of your anarchist propaganda…”
“I’m sure Hitler would be very proud of you…”
That last one — the obligatory “you’re as bad as Hitler!” charge — is especially ironic, considering the subject that prompted these responses: public education. Specifically, my belief that government education is an unmitigated disaster, and can only be remedied by more and more families deciding to remove government from the equation and educate their children themselves. That last emailer is, predictably, a proud product of public school. But you already knew that, in light of his hilarious historical ignorance.
Contrary to his claims, Hitler would not have been very “proud” of my pro-home school rhetoric. In fact, he would have been quite displeased. In fact, he probably would have expressed that displeasure in a manner which would have left no room for interpretation. That’s because Hitler actually outlawed home schooling (a law that’s still enforced in Germany today, and passionately endorsed by our own Justice Department). The Fuehrer was a huge proponent of public schooling — and that’s not an attempt to compare modern public school proponents to Nazis.
But, you know, if anyone comes close to mirroring the National Socialist Party on this particular subject, it obviously isn’t the home schooling folks…
Every day, people send me stories about madness in the public school system. Recently, I’ve had a lot of folks asking me to rail against the Common Core Standards, and Zero Tolerance Policies, and the efforts to “remove God from education.” Of course, I find all of these things repulsive and I have ranted and raved about all of them countless times. I was actually in the process of writing yet another piece lambasting a school in Indiana for actively promoting eugenics and population control, and a few other schools for expelling or suspending students who “brought” imaginary weapons to class. I made it about three paragraphs into my spiel, and then I stopped. And then I sighed. And then I hit ‘delete.’
I’m done. Seriously. I’m not going to complain about these things anymore. I’m not going to complain about bureaucracy and propaganda in government education, for the same reason that I won’t write a scathing blog post admonishing water for being moist, or criticizing heroin for being addictive. I won’t criticize a thing for being exactly what it’s meant to be, and doing exactly what it’s designed to do. Instead, if it’s warranted, I’ll attack the thing in it’s entirety. See, when you take something that is bad, and you randomly chastise a few of its essential parts and properties, you have succeeded only in perpetuating the myth that said parts can somehow be removed from the sum.
They can’t. Sorry. It’s not going to happen.
Government education is designed to be an instrument of propaganda and bureaucratic control. This isn’t a side effect –it’s the whole point. If you don’t want your kid subject to government propaganda and government control, then don’t send him to a government facility 6 hours a day, 5 days a week, for 13 years of his life. Or go ahead and send him — perhaps you have no choice, I understand that — but confront the reality of the situation.
Many of us screamed from the hilltops when Obama set forth on his plan to seize control of health care. Yet we seem to have taken it for granted that the government ought to control education. We don’t want any bureaucrat telling us what pills to take, but we’ll sure let them tell our kids what thoughts to think. We don’t want them controlling what we put in our body, but we don’t seem too intent on disabling their ability to control what’s put into our child’s mind. This failure to fundamentally question government education, is, itself, a major victory for government education. It’s also brought us into this mindless, numbing state where we generally approach every issue by arguing about the color of the leaves, and the lengths of the branches; yet we never discuss the tree itself, or dig down to look at its roots. Perfect example: all of the well-meaning conservatives who, in light of recent news, insist that we must now “reform” the IRS. Reform it for what purpose? To take away its power to steal, manipulate, punish, bribe, invade, cajole, and blackmail? Well, seeing as how the agency was invented for the express purpose of doing all of those things, perhaps we ought to be instead insisting on it’s complete and total destruction.
The Prussians were on the forefront of compulsory government education. Horace Mann studied the Prussian model of education in the 1840′s, and came away quite impressed. In Prussia, State education was devised as a means to develop obedient soldiers, subservient workers, and subordinated citizens. Our own system works toward the same end, and with striking results.
Sure, take a look at your Facebook newsfeed and you’ll find that most of us can’t write coherently, or express a formed thought on any topic, but government education has still been enormously successful. Decipher these ramblings and what do you find? Not much, and that’s the point. Score one for Government Education. Now try this: write something really outside of the mainstream box. Write something that questions our cultural values and societal priorities. Post it, and see what happens. The trolls came out of the ground like Lord of the Rings to viciously attack, probably wishing death and destruction upon you, right? Score two for Government Education.
Oh, it’s working alright.
And this is why people hate home schooling. They hate it because it’s against the grain. It’s too far “out there.” Almost every human being was “home schooled” for most of human civilization, but now many can’t even fathom the concept. These people have no rational or empirical case against it. By any standard or academic indicator, home schooled kids outperform their public schooled peers by wide margins. The critics might babble about how public schools are good for “socialization,” but in the next breath they’ll complain of the bullying “epidemic.”
So I’ll send my child to public school during her formative years, watch as her attention starved peers attempt to tear her to emotional shreds for the next decade, and then, at the end of it all, she’ll be “socialized”? Really?
What’s next? Should I soak in a tub full of sewage and hepatitis for the sake of “health and hygiene”? Thanks, but I’ll pass, on both counts.
“Oh, but you don’t want to be too protective of your kids,” I’m told. “You don’t want to shield them.”
Yes. Yes I do. That’s my job. I will shield them and I will protect them, because they are my children and that’s why I’m here. Again, I understand that not everyone can home school, but it’s truly insane, and dangerous, and appalling to pretend that a child benefits from the sort of bullying and social torment that is rampant in modern public schools.
Good Lord, look around you. Are you surrounded by well adjusted, mature, “sociable” individuals?
Where are they? Where are these “socialized” people I hear about so often? I don’t see many of them, but I do see a lot of narcissists, and substance abusers, and people on psychotropic medication, and people who have never been in a healthy relationship in their entire lives. I see a lot of dependency and insecurity. I see a lot of desperation and confusion. I’m not blaming all of this on public schools, but public schools certainly haven’t helped matters.
It’s very chilling to think that parents are sending their children to government facilities for the express purpose of being “socialized” by government workers. It’s one thing to send your kids there IN SPITE of the social “lessons” he’ll learn. It’s quite another to send them specifically FOR those lessons. I went to public school, and my parents spent most evenings trying to undo the “socialization” that so many other parents seem to embrace.
In any case, education is really supposed to be about, well, education. Have you ever looked up the definition of “education”? I have. Here it is: “the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, and developing the powers of reasoning and judgement.” Only in America (and other Socialist nations) could we look at that definition and think: “Hmmmm, that sounds like something that requires trillions of dollars and millions of bureaucrats!” Only in America (and other nations where the family structure is disintegrating) could we decide that parents are incapable of helping their children “develop the powers of reasoning and judgement.” In fact, in more primitive times, folks would have been crazy enough to think that ONLY parents are suited for that job.
Good thing we’re more enlightened now. Here in Kentucky, we spend about 5 billion dollars on “education.” That’s enough to buy 17 thousand Lamborghinis, or 50 round trips to the moon; it’s enough to construct another Large Hadron Collider, or purchase 84 million tickets to King’s Dominion, but apparently it isn’t enough to teach half a million kids how to read and write. Our education budget was “slashed” by a whopping .005 percent, and that’s prompted the predictable apocalyptic reaction from left wingers and politicians. “AHHHH THE CHILDREN ARE DOOMED! HOW SHALL WE TEACH THEM WITH ONLY A SMIDGEN LESS THAN FIVE BILLION DOLLARS?!”
But here I am, doing what I said I wouldn’t. I’m complaining about the insane amount of money wasted on “education,” as if there’s any chance that government education could ever be anything but expensive and wasteful. It can’t. It won’t. It’s not possible. This is how it is designed.
The problem with the government school system is that it’s a government school system. There are many good teachers and honest people who work inside these buildings, but that doesn’t change the fact that the State shouldn’t be indoctrinating our kids. A public system for youth-indoctrination shouldn’t exist in a supposedly free society. Period.
You might wish to think that, with proper reforms, the schools could be prevented from indoctrinating; restricted, instead, to simply educating. But indoctrination and education are dimensions of each other. Indeed, indoctrination can be defined as “teaching or inculcating a doctrine, principle, or ideology, especially one with a specific point of view.” Doctrines and principles are inexorable parts of the process of passing on knowledge and information. The question before us is: who ought to be in charge of this task?
I know my answer to that question.
Or maybe I just hate education. Yeah, that’s probably it.
From Matt Walsh: http://themattwalshblog.com/
Found at MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
A ham-fisted socialist maneuver Obama employed against traditional America that should have caused much greater alarm is the nationalization of the student loan industry. In the short term, this was an act of looting to help finance ObamaCare. But in the long term it is a step toward universal coercively financed college education, just as ObamaCare is a step toward socialized medicine. John Hawkins has collected some quotations from college professors that help explain why Obama et al. would want every American to go to college. A few examples:
“We need to think very, very clearly about who the enemy is. The enemy is the United States of America and everyone who supports it.” — Haunani-Kay Trask, University of Hawaii at Manoa
“The people of the Third World need our sympathetic understanding and, much more than that, they need our help. We can provide them with a margin of survival by internal disruption in the United States. Whether they can succeed against the kind of brutality we impose on them depends in large part on what happens here.” — Noam Chomsky, MIT
“The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military… I personally would like to see a million Mogadishus.” — Nicholas De Genova, Columbia University
“As to those in the World Trade Center… Let’s get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. … If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I’d really be interested in hearing about it.” — Ward Churchill, University of Colorado at Boulder
“I live to harass white folks.” — Derrick Bell, Harvard
“My experience traveling the last ten years has been that the majority of people who are activists have stayed the course in a way, in a variety of ways, devoted to overthrowing everything hateful about this government and corporate structure that we live in; capitalism itself, herself, himself, and determined to try to keep open and figure out how to move on…We who are, as we used to say, in the belly of the beast, it again means not that it’s the only purveyor of violence in the world, but that we have an extraordinary special responsibility, not necessarily the most enviable one, of how to act here, inside the heart of the monster.” — Bernardine Dohrn, Northwestern University
“Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, Kill your parents.” — Bill Ayers, University of Illinois at Chicago
Note that nutty professors Ayers and Dohrn are personal friends of Obama, and literally launched his political career from their apartment. Obama has urged us to open our hearts and minds to the racist communist Bell.
These evil lunatics don’t just run academia. They run the government too now. We are witnessing a coup d’état by the radical left.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
Liberals like the idea of a “living Constitution” — that is, a Constitution that says whatever they want it to say at the moment. Here is what the Second Amendment says:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Here is what advocates of statist tyranny want it to say:
Horrifyingly, the falsified version above was taken from United States History: Preparing for the Advanced Placement Examination. From Amazon:
This text is designed for a one-semester or one-year United States history course for students preparing to take the AP U.S. History Exam. Teachers can assign the book as the course textbook or as a supplement to a college-level textbook.
At the rate liberal educrats have been dumbing down their victims, kids might actually grow up believing that the Founding Fathers placed second only to the freedom of speech and religion the freedom to live under a government that has weapons.
On tips from Son of Taz and Snake Plissken.
From Moonbattery: http://moonbattery.com/