Archives For Indocrintation

The disturbing ease and security from which some anti-conservatives operate on social media often helps reveal cracks in the Left’s masquerade of sinless benevolence.

Overconfident statements, built on the self-righteous belief that they the majority shares their views, often leads to unintended consequences.

Such forthright statements can take the form of confessions showing just how far to the Left, many anti-conservatives have gone.

It’s a form of “Dutch courage.” Where instead of dealing with actions and confessions drawn out by alcoholic inebriation. Actions and confessions are spawned from an intoxicating sense of entitlement to power over others.

This was demonstrated by Philadelphia teacher, author, and columnist, Matthew R. Kay, who tweeted concerns about virtual learning, on the grounds that “conservative” parents might overhear, and therefore interfere with what he was teaching their children.

The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh explained that Kay was ‘worried conservative parents would be able to interfere with the “messy work” of indoctrinating children into critical race theory, gender theory, and other left-wing dogmas.’

The apt Dennis Prager asserted, “They know it’s propaganda. A teacher, who teaches, NOT INDOCRTINATES, wants their class recorded. Why wouldn’t they? […] It’s a betrayal of parental trust to indoctrinate rather than teach.”

WBCK, Michigan talk show host, David Renkiewicz posted a series of questions on air about the assumptions behind Kay’s tweets.

‘Why would a teacher who teaches English be teaching “equity and inclusion work”?’

‘Why is he so ashamed at what he said or why keep it hidden from the world?’

‘What exactly are you doing with or to those children that you must hide your thoughts?’

‘Why would a teacher, any teacher be concerned about parents watching their class lesson on-line?’

‘Why would a teacher, any teacher be worried about “what happens here stays here”? ‘

‘We all know that phrase is commonly used as “what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas”.  When someone says what happens here stays here it is usually someone who is up to no good.’

Renkiewicz shared Walsh’s conclusion.

In essence, Kay telling the world that he wanted to keep parents away from discovering what their kids are being taught in the class room, in particular about sexuality, sounded like a predator, grooming children for sex.

Kay’s “Dutch courage” is a good example of how far to the Left anti-conservatives have gone. His words weren’t a mindless midnight post, later regretted, then deleted. They were a graphic exhibition of the fear, cognitive distortions, hatred and totalitarianism that defines so much of what exists as anti-conservativism today.

With a shared knowledge of 20th Century history, both sides of the political isle should be concerned about this revelation. They’re not. After going viral, conservative media were the only organizations to carry and discuss the implications of Kay’s comments.

Townhall wrote, ‘conservatives have been sounding the alarm about public school indoctrination for years. Kay’s unwitting admission not only shows that these concerns are warranted but demonstrates just how entitled many teachers have become to indoctrinating other people’s children.’

The Nazis epitomized the criminal distortion of a child’s mind through State control, and parentless education.

During the final weeks of the siege of Berlin, war-weary veterans were kept away from the Hitler Youth for fear of “interfering and destabilizing” their fanaticism.

The Nazis wanted to maintain the fanaticism it had created in children raised on SS propaganda, by keeping those children from the truth about how the war was going. [i]

Likewise, Communist Chinese indoctrination of children coincides with learning to read.

The aim, as Jacques Ellul explained,

‘is fixed and precise. The people must become Marxist. Appropriate education for a Marxist is to teach children a Marxist catechism, to give them a Marxist conception of the world in history and science…Child education is completely integrated into propaganda…Little children are conditioned so as to make their subconscious receptive to the verities of Socialism.’ [ii]

Kay’s tweets admit that there are propagandists parading as educators. Such comments echo the dangers of statist control and parentless education.

Homeschool where you can, when you can, if you can.

Education begins in the home.


References:

[i] Best, N. 2012. Five Days That Shocked the World, Osprey Publishing, & Guido Knopp, 2017. Documentary: The Hitler Youth, Amazon

[ii] Ellul, J. 1965 Propaganda

First published on Caldron Pool, 15th August 2020.

Photo by Morning Brew on Unsplash

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

We learn a lot from Indigenous Australian history about how good, well-intentioned, government can go wrong (and get it wrong) when said governments go too far by removing the rights of parents, and assume the role of father and mother in the community; more specifically in a child’s life.

Leftist bureaucrats and activists know this history, yet only seem to pull it out when it suits their mood, or when they see some political opportunity to advance their agenda.

The Left’s hypocritical push for more governmental control over families/children in education, should raise alarm bells about the ideology they seek to build their utopian society upon.

Why push for programs they know are harmful?

Why support this push, when we know from our Indigenous Australian brothers and sisters, the complications caused by pride, dismissive contempt and programs of dependency?

Why agree with the Left when they demand similar programs for Australian society today?

For example, under the “Pride” movement’s corrosive hegemonic power, we’re all but legally forced to lie to children about their own biology, as well as who their biological parents and siblings are.

The LGBTQAII+ worldview imposes on everyone around it the demand for complete silence towards the child, with threats of legal action if anyone dares to break with the pseudo-religious, LGBTQAAI+ ideological paradigm.

If a child asks who, or whether they have a father or a mother, and a person answers “yes”, they’ll be tried before the convert, pay a tax or die crowd. Then shouted down as “homophobic” or “transphobic”.

As we’ve seen with Israel Folau, and doctors who raise truths about abortion, all are forced to take the Mark, or face “cancellation” or a denial of trade. The love is love lie must be maintained at all costs.

Likewise, if a doctor innocently asks about a child’s paternal or maternal medical history (as they tend to do), could find themselves slapped with a suspension. The ironic charge? “Psychologically harming a child with heteronormative assumptions”, and/or a law suit because they’ve presented themselves as an “enemy of the LGBT community” for seeking scientific facts.

Doctors who require essential background medical information in order to provide the best available care, may be forced to break their “do no harm” oath by conforming to this big business backed, legally supported culture of silence.

The final solution from Radical Feminists and LGBTQAAI+ “Pride” industry is to remove father and mother altogether. Hence the blueprints for non-gender specific labels such as “parent one and parent two.”

Biological facts, a child’s genetic medical history, a healthy self-identity and the opportunity to function properly in a society, through equally shared male and female parenting roles are not just cancelled, they’re outlawed.

This is part of the radical feminist belief that a gender segregated society, where neither man nor woman meet, is the true feminist – truly tolerant society (via Mary Daly et.al).

Thus, making Mark Latham’s proposed bill to counter curriculum revisions in educational institutions of huge importance.

In talking to Alan Jones about the proposed legislation, Latham cited the helpful role of the “many good teachers out there”, but called the revisions ‘a massive insult to the millions of parents in NSW,” because the revisions basically say to mums and dads, “you’re no longer on the scene, schools have got to do this job. For someone to say that schools should be the main unit of passing on social values and morality in our society, is what my bill wants to address. Parents must have that role and should be [enshrined] in law.”

Should curriculum revisions that impose Leftist, LGBQAAI+ ideology (for example: safe schools, intersectionality, critical theory; Marxism) not be critiqued properly and stopped, “parents will be written out of the education system.”

Latham’s proposed addition to the education act should halt this, and at the same time remind those running the education industrial complex that enrolment in kindergarten doesn’t mean a transferal of parental responsibilities to the state, where kids are handed over to activists to be made in its image.

The bill gives a voice to the majority, who, based on voting trends since 2016, want to see a strong “no” to the creeping bureaucratic takeover of parenting by the state. (Along with strong protections against ideological indoctrination by Leftist dominated institutions, and their now infamous herd thinking.)

As Latham states, “the role of schools is to serve the family, not the other way around…Teaching kids that boys can be girls and girls can be boys is political indoctrination and it’s got to end.”

Education begins in the home. Parenting involves the gift of passing down a life story.

Home is where kids first interact with the world; first interact with story; first encounter what is means to be human.

Children learn that they belong. They learn patience. They learn through experience that human freedom has limitations through anatomy and biology – that humans need to crawl before they walk.

They learn the difference between a loving “no” and a responsible, gracious “yes.”

Denying men and women the right to remember and be remembered, turns children into strangers, parents into aliens, and robs people of their shared stories.

Latham’s bill will hope to set in stone the role of parents in teaching kids ‘values and morality’, by re-emphasising that a child’s ‘social and emotional development’ are the domain of parents, not government funded institutions.

Though the bill doesn’t mention historical mistakes, the very existence of it acknowledges them. When NSW politicians go to vote on it, the lessons available to them from Indigenous Australian history should give good reason for their complete support.

Mark is to be applauded for his stand.


First published on Caldron Pool, 15th July, 2020.

Photo by Karina Halley on Unsplash

© Rod Lampard, 2020.