MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Education’

Getting to Galt’s Gulch: Everyday Secession | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on July 23, 2021

The political pendulum brings hope or disappointment for those loyal to a particular party. Instead, journal the grievances against Uncle Sam and hypothetically block him from dominating your life. 

Secession is needed daily, especially in education and healthcare. The immense suffering of individuals in 2020 caused by government bureaucracy and politics illustrates the importance of personal independence. 

https://mises.org/wire/getting-galts-gulch-everyday-secession

Felicia A. Jones

This month, the United States once again celebrated her independence on the Fourth of July. After a year of lockdowns, masks, and now even mandatory vaccinations in workplaces and universities, the idea that the USA is a beacon of freedom to the rest of the globe seems far-fetched. This attitude was reiterated in the new Toby Keith song “Happy Birthday America.” Keith’s downtrodden lyrics reflect on his observed disappearance of the American patriotism which had been present not long ago. 

The problem with the version of national pride of the singer of “Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue” is that it equates love for his country with approval of imperialist tendencies. When invading foreign countries and toppling their governments is the source of pride in one’s country, then diminishing military power and a disrespected flag at the Olympics feels crushing.

For the libertarian with a foundation in property rights, personal responsibility, and financial literacy, the way forward is not joining in left-right political boxing matches, but secession. When the rule of law fails Derek Chauvin and common sense regarding gender-based separation in sensitive spaces disappears, libertarians need not wallow in their pillows and chocolate like after a devastating breakup. The political pendulum brings hope or disappointment for those loyal to a particular party. Instead, journal the grievances against Uncle Sam and hypothetically block him from dominating your life. 

Secession is needed daily, especially in education and healthcare. The immense suffering of individuals in 2020 caused by government bureaucracy and politics illustrates the importance of personal independence. 

Education

The character of the public education system revealed its true colors. Many teachers protested over returning to in-person teaching in the classroom despite the unsubstantiated fears that children are superspreaders. Where schools resumed formally, administrations and states masked children without evaluating secondary consequences such as extended exposure to bacterial growth on masks. 

The outcomes of virtual schooling were worse. Accusations of virtual truancy prompted Child Protective Services visits, especially where internet access was problematic. The “learning loss” disparity was largest in low-income communities, hurting academic outcomes for black and Hispanic students.

Unfortunately, the priority is not the health outcomes of children even now, a year later. With covid vaccination being required for school attendance, there is concern that for children, the vaccines are statistically more deadly than the illness. In Washington, DC, minors may be coerced by school administrators into vaccination without a parent’s consent or knowledge.

The public education system is failing children and, thankfully, school secession provides a silver lining. Homeschooling rates approximately tripled during the pandemic, when public education options were unsatisfactory. In 2021, a plethora of options for home education are present, ranging from self-paced curriculums to more community-based plans. Support for this lifestyle can be obtained through formal online communities, co-ops, and homeschool groups. 

“Unschooling” for the elementary grades supports flexible education styles where children are free to discover and obtain skill proficiency based upon their interests. This early learning supports specialization and entrepreneurial tendencies from youth, benefitting children far into adulthood.

If the purpose of education is to enrich the whole child, public schooling clearly falls miserably short of this goal. Secession enables primary caregivers to raise their children with their values, over those of government overlords, and keep them safe physically from bullying, emotionally, and socially from teachers and students with misplaced priorities alike.

Healthcare

Similar to public education, American healthcare already had preexisting conditions of inadequacy. The pandemic clearly demonstrated the problems that plague the US medical care system, directly covid related or otherwise. Mothers suffered poor birth outcomes resulting from the policies of hospitals and government bureaucrats. Inexpensive, unpatented drugs such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin were either made unavailable altogether or certainly more difficult to obtain despite having positive success at treating the manifested illness. 

In the current healthcare system, doctors, even those with good intentions, are restricted by hospital procedures and follow the recommendations given by larger authorities, both public and private. The reality is that the American medical system is not free market in any sense of the word, no matter how often the claim is countered.

Doctors in mainstream medical care do not have the autonomy to make specialized decisions for their patients. For example, insurance companies require that a certain percentage of children be fully vaccinated according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) recommended vaccine schedule, otherwise the pediatrician may not meet the threshold for quality of care bonuses. Unyielding support for these one-size-fits-all recommendations comes not only from the governing agency and the health insurance company, but also from the major professional organization for pediatricians, the American Academy of Pediatrics. Swimming counter to the stream is neither financially nor reputationally wise for physicians, even if specific patients have a higher risk of adverse reactions.

In the specific treatment of covid, procedure dictated that hospitalized patients be placed on ventilators (with a death rate for covid patients on ventilators being approximately 58.8 percent). Oxygen supplementation, a noninvasive treatment, should have been provided initially for low oxygen levels but there were financial incentives to diagnose for covid-19 and ventilate. Thanks to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) bureaucracy, doctors were limited in their ability to prescribe drugs with high success rates to patients earlier in the pandemic. How many lives were needlessly lost due to red tape?

With the release of Dr. Tony Fauci’s emails, the public may now observe that the CDC pandemic recommendations were not based on “science” or concern for the public’s health. Fauci understood masking was inefficacious at halting viral spread, kept successful treatments from becoming widely practiced, and knew that the covid death rate was similar to that of a severe influenza season. Shutting down the economy was never warranted.

Under a system bogged down with the conflicting interests of regulating agencies, medical practice procedures, and health insurance companies, patients may have a simple solution: fire the doctor. Demand more midwives and home births because of better health and birth outcomes. Visit alternative care providers who prescribe highly successful vitamin C and zinc treatments. Take business to noninvasive practitioners like chiropractors and naturopaths, who desire to treat the underlying conditions rather than purely symptoms.

Fear is sadly associated with taking this leap. But the overlooked reality is that preventable medical error persists as the third leading cause of death in the US. Secession from health insurance networks may not only provide better overall health outcomes but may be more affordable as practitioners resort to refusing health insurance payments to gain greater autonomy.

Getting to Galt’s Gulch

The success of libertarianism is independence from the state’s influence. Increasing one’s reliance on free markets, where personal responsibility and decision-making prevail over complacency, makes for an effective patriotism. Stopping the Randian motor of the world so that libertarians may thrive in the hypothetical Galt’s Gulch beyond government’s grasp (i.e., in external markets) requires exit. Leave a school or healthcare system which does not deliver desired ends.

Finally, be brave. Courage is not restricted to standing in the public square at Tiananmen. The defense of liberty is often more mundane: removing your children from the influence of tyrants in schools or exiting a job where an employer requires injections, which violate your moral principles. While these actions seem daunting, and they indeed are, those who love liberty are the ones who will be the impenetrable bulwark against evil. In the words of Mises’s favorite motto by Virgil, “Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito.” (Do not give in to evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it.) Author:

Contact Felicia A. Jones

Felicia Aileen Jones works as the registrar and student services coordinator at the Mises Institute. She is a former summer fellow and a Troy University graduate, earning her MA in economics in 2020 and her BBA in economics in 2017.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Three Libertarian Principles for Education – The Future of Freedom Foundation

Posted by M. C. on March 1, 2021

1. The federal government should have absolutely nothing to do with education.

2. All education should be private education.

3. Education should not be funded by the state.

https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/three-libertarian-principles-for-education/

by Laurence M. Vance

Although the presidency and both Houses of Congress are now controlled by Democrats, some conservatives still think that they can have some influence on the federal government’s education polices.Whether Washington could help promote conservative principles of education is irrelevant because Washington shouldn’t even be trying.
[Click to Tweet]

A case in point is a new report by Michael Q. McShane of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), “Where Conservatives Should Lead on Federal Education Policy in 2021.” McShane is an adjunct fellow in education policy studies at AEI and director of education policy at the Show-Me Institute, where he studies and writes about K–12 education policy, including private and religious schools and the politics of education.

His key points are:

  • Conservatives have an opportunity to play a productive role in federal education policymaking. They have to do more than just say no.
  • Early childhood education policy should center on family and work to make family life in America easier.
  • Federal K–12 policy should focus on deregulating existing programs and broadening their eligibility to allow new and different providers to access federal funds.
  • Higher education policy should diminish the power of existing gatekeepers and open the field for more innovation, with new means of ensuring that dollars are spent well.

McShane has also joined with Frederick M. Hess, a resident scholar and the director of Education Policy Studies at AEI, where he works on K–12 and higher education issues, in writing an op-ed titled “Three Conservative Principles for Education.”

McShane and Hess mention an AEI collection of more than two dozen education proposals called “The Next Conservative Education Agenda.” This includes proposals like

  • Rethink the School Day and Year
  • A Three-year Bachelor’s Degree
  • Three Perspective Shifts to Advance Choice
  • Third-Party Credentialing for Higher Education
  • Two Steps to Restoring School Safety
  • A Constitutional Right to a High-Quality Public Education

But as McShane and Hess point out: “These varied ideas have much to recommend them but are all, quite intentionally, policies—not principles. As we set forth on a new decade, in a time of massive social and political disruption, it’s worth considering what principles ought to undergird conservative policy, in 2021 and beyond. Here, we offer three:

First, the family is the foundation. We understand that parents know their children better and care for them more than any bureaucrat, and that’s why we should fight to put parents in the driver’s seat when it comes to choosing the best options for child care, preschool and K-12 education.

Second, schools are formative, not performative, institutions. Schools are supposed to be formative institutions. They’re supposed to shape students into young adults who can reason, think and grow into responsible citizens. Teachers and professors are to serve as mentors, role models and sources of insight and wisdom, moderating the hubristic zeal of young people.

Third, conservatives should be confident pluralists. We should allow parents and educators in varied situations and different communities to create the schools that best meet the needs of their children. Public dollars for education should equitably support a wide array of options.

The authors then ask the questions: “Can Washington help promote these principles? Should it?”

Their answer is that the federal government “can, and it must, in a limited way—mostly by expanding eligibility for existing federal programs and loosening the regulatory vise governing the use of those funds.”

They conclude: “As conservatives look to help hard-hit families recover from the dislocations of COVID-19 and gear up for the policy debates of the Biden era, we need to think about what we offer when it comes to schools and schooling. A tough-minded examination of our core principles is a good place to start.”

I think a better place to start would be a tough-minded examination of the libertarian core principles of education. As a counter to McShane’s and Hess’s “Three Conservative Principles for Education,” here are three libertarian principles for education.

1. The federal government should have absolutely nothing to do with education. Nowhere does the Constitution authorize the federal government to have anything to do with education. What James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 45 is still applicable today:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

This means not only no Department of Education, but no Higher Education Act, no Elementary and Secondary Education Act, no bilingual-education mandates, no math and science initiatives, no Title IX mandates, no school accreditation, no anti-discrimination policies, no standardized-testing requirements, no Common Core standards, no Race to the Top funds, no No Child Left Behind Act, no desegregation orders, and no special-education mandates.

2. All education should be private education. Every state has a provision in its constitution for the operation of K-12 schools, colleges, and universities. Therefore, if there are to be any public schools; that is, government schools, they should be limited to state-government schools, fully staffed and supervised by state governments. Although this is preferable to the federal government being involved in education, it is still not ideal. It is an illegitimate purpose of government to establish public schools or provide educational services to anyone. Education is a service that should be provided on the free market by private entities. There is nothing inherently unique about education which necessitates that the government provide it.

3. Education should not be funded by the state. Neither the federal nor the state governments should fund education in any way, even if they are not involved in the operation or regulation of schools. This means no vouchers, no charter schools, no school breakfast and lunch programs, no Pell Grants, no student loans, no research grants to colleges, no scholarships, and no Head Start funding. Education is not a constitutional right. It is the responsibility of parents to educate their children. No American should be forced to pay for the education of any other American or their children.

So, to answer the questions posed by McShane and Hess, whether Washington could help promote conservative principles of education is irrelevant because Washington shouldn’t even be trying.

This post was written by: Laurence M. Vance

Laurence M. Vance is a columnist and policy advisor for the Future of Freedom Foundation, an associated scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and a columnist, blogger, and book reviewer at LewRockwell.com. He is the author of Gun Control and the Second Amendment, The War on Drugs Is a War on Freedom, and War, Empire and the Military: Essays on the Follies of War and U.S. Foreign Policy. His newest books are Free Trade or Protectionism? and The Free Society. Visit his website: www.vancepublications.com. Send him e-mail.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Why Do So Many Intellectuals Hate Free Markets? | Mises Institute

Posted by M. C. on August 25, 2020

The key to the hostility of intellectuals to capitalism is the expansion of education, particularly higher education.12 This creates unemployment, or underemployment, of the university-schooled classes; many become “psychically unemployable in manual occupations without necessarily acquiring employability in, say, professional work.” The tenuous social position of these intellectuals breeds discontent and resentment, which are often rationalized as objective social criticism. This emotional malaise, Schumpeter asserts,

https://mises.org/library/why-do-so-many-intellectuals-hate-free-markets

Ralph Raico

[This article is excerpted from chapter 3 of Classical Liberalism and the Austrian School. Footnote numbering differs from the original.]

Hayek on the Intellectuals and Socialism

F.A. Hayek was acutely concerned with our problem, since he, too, was wholly convinced of the importance of the intellectuals: “They are the organs which modern society has developed for spreading knowledge and ideas,” he declares in his essay “The Intellectuals and Socialism” (Hayek 1967). The intellectuals—whom Hayek characterizes as “the professional secondhand dealers in ideas”1—exercise their power through their domination of public opinion: “There is little that the ordinary man of today learns about events or ideas except through the medium of this class.” Among other things, they often virtually manufacture professional reputations in the minds of the general population; and through their domination of the news media, they color and shape the information that people in each country have of events and trends in foreign nations. Once an idea is adopted by the intellectuals, its acceptance by the masses is “almost automatic and irresistible.” Ultimately, the intellectuals are the legislators of mankind (178–80, 182).

With all this, Hayek’s view of the intellectuals is flatteringly benign: their ideas are determined by and large by “honest convictions and good intentions” (184).2 In “The Intellectuals and Socialism,” Hayek does mention in passing the intellectuals’ egalitarian bias; the analysis, however, is basically in terms of their “scientism.” With his characteristic emphasis on epistemology, Hayek sees the revolt against the market economy as stemming from the methodological errors he identified and investigated at length in his brilliant study of the rise of French positivism, The Counter-Revolution of Science (1955).

Thus, in Hayek’s view, the chief influence on the intellectuals has been the example of the natural sciences and their applications. As man has come to understand and then control the forces of nature, intellectuals have grown infatuated with the idea that an analogous mastery of social forces could produce similar benefits for mankind. They are under the sway of “such beliefs as that deliberate control or conscious organization is also in social affairs always superior to the results of spontaneous processes which are not directed by a human mind, or that any order based on a plan beforehand must be better than one formed by the balancing of opposing forces” (186–87). Hayek even makes the following astonishing statement (187):

That, with the application of engineering techniques, the direction of all forms of human activity according to a single coherent plan should prove to be as successful in society as it has been in innumerable engineering tasks is too plausible a conclusion not to seduce most of those who are elated by the achievements of the natural sciences. It must indeed be admitted both that it would require powerful arguments to counter the strong presumption in favor of such a conclusion and that these arguments have not yet been adequately stated….The argument will not lose its force until it has been conclusively shown why what has proved so eminently successful in producing advances in so many fields should have limits to its usefulness and become positively harmful if extended beyond those limits.

It is exceedingly difficult to follow Hayek’s reasoning here. He appears to be saying that because the natural sciences have made great advances and because innumerable particular engineering projects have succeeded, it is quite understandable that many intellectuals should conclude that “the direction of all forms of human activity according to a single coherent plan” will be similarly successful.

But, in the first place, the advances of the natural sciences were not brought about in accordance with any overall central plan; rather, they were the product of many separate decentralized but coordinated researchers (produced analogously in some respects to the market process; see Baker 1945 and Polanyi 19513). Second, from the fact that many particular engineering projects have succeeded it does not follow that a single vast engineering project, one subsuming all particular projects, is likely to succeed; nor does it seem likely that most people will find such a claim plausible.

Why, then, is it natural, or logical, or easily comprehensible that intellectuals should reason from the triumphs of decentralized scientific research and of individual engineering projects to the success of a plan undertaking to direct “all forms of human activity”?4

In his review of Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom, Joseph Schumpeter (1946: 269) remarks that Hayek was “polite to a fault” towards his opponents, in that he hardly ever attributed to them “anything beyond intellectual error.” But not all the points that must be made can be made without more “plain speaking,” Schumpeter declares.5

Schumpeter here implies an important distinction. Civility in debate, including the formal presumption of good faith on the part of one’s adversaries, is always in order. But there is also a place for the attempt to explain the attitudes, for instance, of anti-market intellectuals (a form of the sociology of knowledge). In this endeavor, “politeness” is not precisely what is most called for. As regards the positivist intellectuals who argued from the successes of natural science to the need for central planning: it may well be that this false inference was no simple intellectual error, but was facilitated by their prejudices and resentments, or perhaps their own will to power.6

In any case, Hayek’s gentlemanly deference to anti-market intellectuals can sometimes be downright misleading. Consider his statement (1967: 193):

Orthodoxy of any kind, any pretense that a system of ideas is final and must be unquestioningly accepted as a whole, is the one view which of necessity antagonizes all intellectuals, whatever their views on particular issues.

This, of a category of persons that in the twentieth century has notoriously included thousands of prominent apologists for Soviet Communism in all western countries, is indeed politeness “to a fault.”7 There was, after all, good reason, as late as the 1950s, for Raymond Aron (1957) to have written on The Opium of the Intellectuals and for H.B. Acton (1955) to have entitled what is probably the best philosophical critique of Marxism-Leninism The Illusion of the Epoch.8

Nor was Communism the only nefarious orthodoxy to claim the loyalty of numerous intellectuals, as is shown by the cases of Martin Heidegger, Robert Brasillach, Giovanni Gentile, Ezra Pound, and many others. For a less complimentary but more realistic view of the integrity of modern intellectuals we may turn to the memoirs of the German historian Golo Mann (1991: 534), who quotes from his diary of 1933: “18 May. [Josef] Goebbels in front of a writers’ meeting in the Hotel Kaiserhof: ‘We [Nazis] have been reproached with not being concerned with the intellectuals. That was not necessary for us. We knew quite well: if we first have power, then the intellectuals will come on their own.’ Thunderous applause—from the intellectuals.”9

Schumpeter on the Intellectual Proletariat

In chiding Hayek, Schumpeter suggested (1946: 269) that he might have learned a useful lesson from Karl Marx. Schumpeter’s own interpretation reflects his lifelong engagement with Marxism. Like Marx, he offered a highly pessimistic prognosis for the capitalist system, though for mainly different reasons (1950: 131–45). But while Schumpeter holds that intellectuals will play a key role in capitalism’s demise, he in no way relies on the scenario set forth in the Communist Manifesto.

There, Marx and Engels (1976: 494) announced that as the final revolution approaches, a section of the “bourgeois ideologists” will go over to the side of the proletariat. These will be the ideologists “who have worked their way up to a theoretical understanding of the historical movement as a whole.”10 Such a laughably self-serving description could hardly appeal to an inveterate skeptic like Schumpeter. Instead, his “Marxism” consisted in examining capitalism as a system with certain attendant sociological traits, and exposing the class interests of the intellectuals within that system.11

Compared to previous social orders, capitalism is especially vulnerable to attack:

unlike any other type of society, capitalism inevitably and by virtue of the very logic of its civilization creates, educates, and subsidizes a vested interest in social unrest. (1950: 146)

In particular, it brings forth and nurtures a class of secular intellectuals who wield the power of words over the general mind. The capitalist wealth machine makes possible cheap books, pamphlets, newspapers, and the ever-widening public that reads them. Freedom of speech and of the press enshrined in liberal constitutions entails also “freedom to nibble at the foundations of capitalist society”—a constant gnawing away that is promoted by the critical rationalism inherent in that form of society. Moreover, in contrast to earlier regimes, a capitalist state finds it difficult, except under exceptional circumstances, to suppress dissident intellectuals: such a procedure would conflict with the general principles of the rule of law and the limits to the police power dear to the bourgeoisie itself (1950: 148–51).

The key to the hostility of intellectuals to capitalism is the expansion of education, particularly higher education.12 This creates unemployment, or underemployment, of the university-schooled classes; many become “psychically unemployable in manual occupations without necessarily acquiring employability in, say, professional work.” The tenuous social position of these intellectuals breeds discontent and resentment, which are often rationalized as objective social criticism. This emotional malaise, Schumpeter asserts,

will much more realistically account for hostility to the capitalist order than could the theory—itself a rationalization in the psychological sense—according to which the intellectual’s righteous indignation about the wrongs of capitalism simply represents the logical inference from outrageous facts… (1950: 152–53)13

A major merit of Schumpeter’s argument is that it elucidates an abiding feature of the sociology of radicalism and revolution: the hunt for government jobs. The interconnection between over-education, an expanding reservoir of unemployable intellectuals, the pressure for more bureaucratic positions, and political turmoil was a commonplace among European observers in the nineteenth century.14 In 1850, the conservative author Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl (1976: 227–38) offered a remarkable analysis, in many ways anticipating Schumpeter, of the “intellectual proletariat” (Geistesproletariat). Even then Germany was producing each year much more “intellectual product” than it could use or pay for, testifying to an “unnatural” division of national labor. This was a general phenomenon in advanced countries, Riehl maintains, resulting from the enormous industrial growth that was taking place. But the impoverished intellectual workers experience a contradiction between their income and their perceived needs, between their own haughty conception of their rightful social position and the true one, a contradiction which is far more irreconcilable than in the case of the manual laborers. Because they cannot “reform” their own meager salaries, they try to reform society. It is these intellectual proletarians who have taken the lead in social revolutionary movements in Germany. “These literati see the world’s salvation in the gospel of socialism and communism, because it contains their own salvation,” through domination of the masses.15 Later revolutionary movements, whether of the left or the right, can be understood to a large extent as the ideologically camouflaged raid on the great state employment office. Carl Levy (1987: 180) has linked the expansion of the state from the later nineteenth century on to the growth in the numbers of the university-educated, who sought government jobs and utilized positivism as a facilitating ideology. Positivism

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Education Is Offensive and Racist and so is America – PaulCraigRoberts.org

Posted by M. C. on June 13, 2020

America is said to be a superpower, but its inhabitants collapse in excruciating pain over a mere word. The pain felt by mental and emotional weaklings is so severe that it has caused universities to overthrow academic freedom.  At UCLA, once a university and now a propaganda ministry, a faculty member is under investigation for reading Martin Luther King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” to the class he teaches. 

They are having a fit over Jefferson Davis, who for 3 or 4 years of his life was president of the Confederate States of America. Much more of Davis’ life was spent serving the United States of America as a military officer, a US Senator and as US Secretary of War (they were more honest in those days; today they call it “defense”).  Davis was a West Point graduate. As an officer in the US Army he fought for the US empire in the Mexican-American war. It was Davis who led the sucessful charge on the La Teneria fort in the Battle of Monterrey.  He was married to the daughter of US President Zachary Taylor. He argued against secession.  These are the reasons that there is a statue of him.

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/06/12/education-is-offensive-and-racist-and-so-is-america/

Paul Craig Roberts

Years of teaching blacks to have grievances against white people for things that happened centuries ago have come to fruition. Rioting and looting are not enough, the violent thugs and ignorant woke creatures are pulling down historic monuments in public parks and defacing public buildings while police and public authorities stand down.

In Richmond, Virginia, a statue eight feet tall of Christopher Columbus in a public park has just been pulled down and rolled into a lake by a group of thugs.  Why?  “Columbus represents genocide.”  What the barbarians mean is that by discovering America, Columbus exposed the inhabitants to invasion from abroad, which is what the US has been undergoing since 1965.

Who hasn’t suffered invasions?  Why of all the countless invasions in history is European entry into the new world so upsetting.  Columbus wasn’t looking to invade any country.  He was testing a theory and hoping to find a shorter route to the spice trade.

Any number of Confederate memorials are being pulled down.  Not even Robert E. Lee will be spared.  Are public authorities  so stupid that they do not understand that their acquiescence to lawlessness and destruction of property lets the genie out of the bottle?

The new word for racist is white.  By definition a white person is a racist.  The two words are synonyms.  Every stature of every white person is a statue of a racist and can be pulled down. The Republican-led Senate Armed Services Committee has amended the defense bill to require the US military to rename bases named after anyone who served under the Confederate flag. They don’t understand that as white is a synonym for racist, all whites, including Union officers, are racists. All US military bases will have to be named after blacks or it will be racist.  Grant and Lee were both white and served together fighting for American empire in the war against people of color in Mexico. The only difference between Grant and Lee is that in addition to fighting for American empire against Mexico, Grant also fought for American empire against the South.

History is also being pulled down.  Future historians will be perplexed to find no signs of the racism on which the NY Times says America was founded.

Ignorance is everywhere. RT describes Columbus as “another notorious figure in the history of slavery.”  What!? The year 1492 was long before the black Kindgom of Dahomey created the black slave trade and long before there were any colonies needing a labor force.  But facts no longer matter.  Truth is whatever is emotionally satisfying.

America is said to be a superpower, but its inhabitants collapse in excruciating pain over a mere word. The pain felt by mental and emotional weaklings is so severe that it has caused universities to overthrow academic freedom.  At UCLA, once a university and now a propaganda ministry, a faculty member is under investigation for reading Martin Luther King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” to the class he teaches.  The letter (April 16, 1963) was King’s reply to black pastors who expressed their concern to him about his arrival as an outsider to their community to stir up confrontation when they were working to negotiate the achievement of the same goals peaceably. King’s answer was that confrontation sharpens the issue and will aid their negotiations. Creating a crisis, King told the pastors, fosters tension and forces a community to deal with the issue.

What did the professor do wrong by reading King’s own explanation of his strategy?  The professor is in trouble because King in his letter used the word “nigger” and in reading King’s letter to the class, the professor read the word “nigger.”  OhMyGod, a white man said “nigger.”

Oh, the hurt, the offense!  University administrators have denounced the professor. To keep the controversy going students are urged to come forward with complaints. A town hall will be held to outline future next steps.

Think about this for a minute. According to reports “numerous students plead (sic ) with Professor Ajax Peris to not use the n word.”  But it was King, not Peris, who used the n word. What is the message here?  Does it mean that a white person cannot read out loud Martin Luther King’s letter?  If the professor wanted students to be aware of the letter, would he have to bring in a black guest lecturer to read the letter?  Would the professor still be accused of insensitivity if he gave  Martin Luther King’s letter to the students as a reading assignment?  Does it mean that King himself committed an offense by using the n word?

The professor also showed the class a documentary about lynching. The documentary had graphic descriptions that distressed and angered the students.  Do we have here the plight of what sounds like a leftwing professor trying to rile up blacks against whites and finding that he cannot succeed because the necessary words and images cause them paroxysms of pain?

In our oh-so-sensitive-times, no one is concerned about giving offense to Southerners.  White Republican senators are leading the charge to rename military bases. Not to be outdone, black members of the House want to remove what they call Confederate statues from the vicinity of the Capitol as part of the protest against police violence in Minneapolis. They are having a fit over Jefferson Davis, who for 3 or 4 years of his life was president of the Confederate States of America. Much more of Davis’ life was spent serving the United States of America as a military officer, a US Senator and as US Secretary of War (they were more honest in those days; today they call it “defense”).  Davis was a West Point graduate. As an officer in the US Army he fought for the US empire in the Mexican-American war. It was Davis who led the sucessful charge on the La Teneria fort in the Battle of Monterrey.  He was married to the daughter of US President Zachary Taylor. He argued against secession.  These are the reasons that there is a statue of him.

Davis, like Robert E. Lee, and so many others from Southern states spent their life in service to the United States. They rallied to the Confederacy only because Lincoln invaded their states.  People are so ignorant today, especially those who go around shouting “racist,” that they are unaware that in those days people regarded their home state as their country.  The US Constitution gave governing power to the states, reserving to the states all powers not ennumerated to the federal government.  All of this was changed by Lincoln’s war which consolidated power in Washington and eventually turned largely independent states into vassals of Washington.

Robert E. Lee, a West Point Graduate, spent his life in the US military fighting wars for the US empire. He served as Superintendent of the United States Military Academy. He was so highly regarded that he was offered a Union command in Lincoln’s war. Lee’s response was that as a Virginian, he could not lead an army to invade his country.  If the US was going to invade Virginia, he would have to resign his commission in the US Army.

An ignorant person once wrote in CounterPunch that Lee had 200 slaves.  Lee had no plantation. He spent his life fighting against Indians and Mexicans for the American empire. It did not occur to the peabrain at CounterPunch what a person fighting Indians on the frontier and Mexicans in Mexico would do with 200 slaves.  But as I have often observed, it you are out to demonize someone—Trump, Putin, or Lee—you say whatever does the job.

Lee had to take a leave from the US army for 2 years in order to settle his father-in-law’s estate, which had land holdings and slaves on one side of the ledger and massive debts on the other. The aim was to emancipate the slaves. Knowing that, some slaves pushed it before it could be done. They were punished, and ever since it has been used to blacken Lee who had fiduciary duties.

The current line is that Confederate memorials “pay tribute to white supremacy and slavery,” as the most ignorant Barbara Lee (D, CA) put it.  So, according to a person regarded by people in California of sufficient intelligence and integrity to represent them in Washington, a Southerner who resists the invasion of his country is a white supremacist.

As has been proven so many times, the so-called “Civil War” was fought over economics, not slavery. Lincoln himself intended to send the blacks back to Africa, judging them unfit to live among white people.  Lincoln said over and over that the war was fought to preserve the Union. He gave assurances to the South that they could have slaves as long as they stayed in the Union and paid the tariff. Historians have researched the letters and diaries of participants on both sides of the war and found that soldiers were not fighting for or against slavery. The North was fighting for the Union, and the South was fighting because the South was invaded.  There is a famous book in which the contents of the wartime letters and diaries are recorded.

Yet the real documented history has been replaced with a false made-up history that serves the sole purpose of creating dissention and hatred in a vulnerable and fragile multicultural society.

As I recently wrote using Richard Weaver’s title, ideas have consequences. The stand downs of police and public authorities while criminals loot and destroy are consequences of the false history that has been created for the United States.

The United States is a Tower of Babel from which white people should flee. The state of collapse is advanced. With mayors and governors refusing to protect property from black looters, President Trump threatened to call out the US military.  His own Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, and his own Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, Mark Milley, quickly informed the US military that their duty was to the Constitution, not to the President. The two made a show of this to undercut President Trump and to present him as a tyrant for trying to fulfill his constitutional obligation to protect private property and the lives of citizens.  Apparently, both Esper and Milley are too dumbshit to understand that it is a constitutional duty to protect property.

Trump is not Establishment, but his government is. Trump is a President surrounded by his enemies. Trump attempted to be a president of the people, but the Establishment will not permit it.  Trump will be the last president who attempts to represent the American people.  All future presidents will have learned the lesson in advance. An American president serves the ruling elite and no one else.  The elite have worked long and hard to acquire a divided population that cannot unite against them.  They have succeeded.

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Mississippi Democrat introduces bill to force homeschoolers to use govt-approved courses | News | LifeSite

Posted by M. C. on February 17, 2020

While homeschool parents and non-public schools currently have considerable freedom to teach children under their care according to their values, Mississippi House Bill 188 would mandate that the same courses on Mississippi History and American Government currently taught in public schools would also be required of homeschool families, as well as private and parochial schools.

Mr. Hines appears to be missing the pint. But then we know his point, it is all about …

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/mississippi-democrat-introduces-bill-to-force-homeschoolers-to-use-govt-approved-courses?fbclid=IwAR3GNhf5OEdUH5Q_Zb68yKJwtuibzP4Eatkg87x_FUToR2ctUULrt_lr6iE

Martin M. Barillas By Martin M. Barillas

JACKSON, Mississippi, February 14, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A Mississippi Democrat introduced a bill in the state House that would force parents who homeschool their children to “provide the same curriculum” as government schools in Grades 9 through 12.

While homeschool parents and non-public schools currently have considerable freedom to teach children under their care according to their values, Mississippi House Bill 188 would mandate that the same courses on Mississippi History and American Government currently taught in public schools would also be required of homeschool families, as well as private and parochial schools.

Introduced by state Rep. John Hines Sr. (D), the bill proposes:

The Mississippi History course must provide students with an examination of the history of the State of Mississippi from the age of discovery and colonization to the present with particular emphasis on the significant political, social, economic and cultural issues of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries which have impacted the diverse ethnic and racial populations of the state. All private, parochial and home-based school programs shall provide the same curriculum requirements to students enrolled in Grades 9 through 12.

According to the Mississippi Center for Public Policy (MCPP), if passed, the bill “would give the state authority to dictate what parents teach their children and how they teach it.” The pro-family, pro-life organization argued that homeschool parents have the right to educate their children. It said that homeschoolers “generally make that choice because they want to set the curriculum that’s appropriate for their children free of state mandates.”

“Whether or not homeschool families in Mississippi teach Mississippi history or government – and we know most do – that is the choice of the parents, not the state,” the group stated.

Mississippi has numerous private and parochial schools, many of which are sponsored by various churches and Christian communities.

In a conversation with LifeSiteNews, MCCP communications director Brett Kittredge said that the “freedom to teach children belongs to private schools that parents opted into and are paying to send their children there, and it belongs to the parents who have chosen to make the sacrifice to homeschool. They are the ones ultimately responsible for the education of their children.”

Even though the bill is ostensibly limited to mandating courses in Mississippi History and American Government, Kittredge argued that, nevertheless, it would involve the state “where it has no business being in homeschool and private school curriculums.” He said that the bill could start a trend.” Kittredge added that Mississippi has very good laws regarding educational freedom for private schools and homeschools. “This just pushes the state into private lives and private schools. We don’t like that and we think that it sends a bad message.”

The Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) has also condemned the legislation and has formulated a petition for parents to send to Mississippi legislators.

HSLDA stated that while “homeschooling parents embrace teaching History and Government, this bill gives the state the authority to dictate curricular content, which undermines parents’ freedom to tailor their child’s educational program.” It is parents who have the “right and responsibility” to oversee the education of their children, and it is a right that is prior to a “governmental interest in promoting and requiring education.”

Declaring that compelling homeschoolers to educate their children according to government dictates is neither necessary or appropriate, HSLDA said: “The state ought not to compel homeschooling parents to teach specific course content developed by the state or teach subjects a certain way.”

Currently, the Mississippi House has a Republican majority. Past attempts in the legislature to mandate homeschool and private education have failed.

Be seeing you

?u=https1.bp.blogspot.com-21je6qbGpuYWbP_oknTIQIAAAAAAAApsg37eDfz-Vh8oZXOSlTzcqR2lMNJLWUs_RwCLcBGAss1600Uncle-Sam-in-Control-Sans.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

What to watch for in governor’s budget proposal – Erie Times E-Edition Article

Posted by M. C. on February 2, 2020

http://erietimes.pa.newsmemory.com/?publink=24e52dd54

What to watch for in the (PA) governor’s budget proposal

“It is laboring under an estimated $67 billion debt in its two large public sector pension systems”

The Tom Ridge legacy.

“Persistent cost increases for health care, prisons and pensions can be expected to absorb much of the state’s natural growth in tax revenues.”

We have had a national health department since 1939. We might as well have called it the war on health as cost wise it has had the same result as the wars on drugs, poverty and terrorism. We should expect better after 80 years.

We have the highest per capita prison population on the planet. Manly due to the failed war on drugs filling prisons with non-dangerous offenders. Illegal drug trade has turned Mexico into a disaster.

Education

“Wolf is expected to continue his five-year push to give more money to public schools amid a lawsuit accusing the state of harboring deep inequities in how it funds the poorest public schools.”

It is no secret a major education expense is the skyrocketing administration load which surpasses enrollment rates.

It is time to trash all the “Therian studies and acceptance” programs, safe rooms and the plethora of administrators and get back to being grownups.

The state runs these programs, not grownups, and that is why the hole keeps being dug deeper. The solution will never come from the “state”.

Be seeing you

facebook_1574076533302.jpg

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Conspiracy to Control and Dominate Education in the United States has Caused the Downfall of Society – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on November 23, 2019

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/11/gary-d-barnett/the-conspiracy-to-control-and-dominate-education-in-the-united-states-has-caused-the-downfall-of-society/

By

What a normal human being often fails to see in light of everyday struggles and strife, of political upheaval, of commitment to false national pride, is the unbelievable majesty of life. In order to discover this singularly unique beauty, love must be present, but love alone cannot sustain the tragedy of life that is the division consuming the human mind, body, and spirit today. Intelligent thought is necessary. The destruction of learning, with the inadequate replacement of commonality, has bred by design a society steeped in an ignorance of life, and an unnatural contempt for others. This intentional eradication of individual intellect brought with it a hostile prejudice toward the sanctity of our souls, and left emptiness in its place.

The emptiness I speak of is evident in all of modern society, and fulfillment of lost desires seems out of reach in this current state of chaos. But why did this happen? Why have people come to hate one another? Why has conflict and anger become commonplace, while the golden rule is virtually ignored?

An evil exists in our midst, and this evil entity created a nationwide system that allowed a process of mass indoctrination to take root. In order for this phenomenon to capture the psyche of an entire people, a diabolical plan was necessary, and implementation of that plan had to be sold to the public in order to gain popular support. In other words, collusion by the controlling elite and the government was necessary for this deception aimed against the American populace to succeed. And succeed it has.

As I wrote in my article: The Ongoing Destruction of the Minds of Children, The experiment called compulsory schooling, now referred to as “public education,” began in Massachusetts in 1852, and became widespread just after the turn of the twentieth century. By 1910 the majority of children were in public schools. Since that time “education” as administered by the state has been a horrible failure, if learning was the desired end. But learning and knowledge were never the goals of forced schooling; training the young to honor authority, discipline, and nationalism were the true goals sought.”

Compulsory schooling began in the mid-nineteenth century, and was the brainchild of the ruling elite monopolists of the day, those led by John D. Rockefeller. The goal was to limit the intellectual growth of the general population in order to create an obedient society of workers without the motivation to question the ruling class. This was necessary in order for the corporate oligarchs to gain and keep control over the people, and by the early part of the twentieth century, this plan was in high gear.

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace while plotting this deception had decided after the end of World War I, “they must control education in the United States” in order to accomplish their mission. They realized this was “too big a project to do alone,” so the “Rockefeller Foundation was approached,” and the two began working together to take over the education system. The Rockefeller Foundation was to handle the domestic side, and the Carnegie Endowment was to handle the international side. As time passed, the Ford Foundation and the Guggenheim Foundation were also involved.

This conspiracy was revealed by the Reese Committee investigation headed by Norman Dodd in 1953. The Committee’s inspection of the Carnegie minutes was staggering to say the least, and exposed the goal sought by tax-free foundations that “America’s future should be one of collectivism administered with characteristics of American efficiency.” In other words, build a mediocre society that could function only at a level that would allow for an elite monopoly control of war, the economy, politics, and education, all with little interference by the voting public.

It should be noted that according to Mr. Dodd, “These policies, the foundations’ allegiance to these un-American concepts, are all traceable to the transfer of the funds into the hands of trustees. It’s not the men who had a hand in the creation of the wealth that led to the endowment for what we would call public purposes.”

What has happened to this country since the founding is a grim reminder of the fact that evil forces are always with us, and without the capability to think critically or to understand real history, we are left with an ignorant and confused populace. Any society that falls to this level does not have the capability to stop the onslaught of power that will always rise up at every opportunity. The controlling monopolies will most always gain control of the governing system as a way to control the common people. When these elites design the education system, and their puppets in government run it, the commoners have little chance of retaining any freedom or control of their own destiny. That is the state of this country today.

The saddest part of this conversation is that all this information, and much more, is available for any to see and understand, but few have any desire to seek out the truth. It seems obvious to me that if people understood the truth, and were able to comprehend the conspiracy that has been used against them, a revolution of sorts would be possible. The tyrants who now control the system are able to do so because they took measures to stifle the natural intellect of individuals. If that dynamic could be reversed, so could the current state of slavery that has a hold on all of us.

Be seeing you

Cheng Ruijie - APA340 Blog: Indian Boarding School ...

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Quotes From Dead Guys

Posted by M. C. on October 17, 2019

…For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match…President John F. Kennedy
Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York City
April 27, 1961

“The most urgent necessity is, not that the State should teach, but that it should allow education. All monopolies are detestable, but the worst of all is the monopoly of education.” – Frederic Bastiat

“Armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.” – James Madison

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Was Trump Right About Baltimore? – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on August 7, 2019

The lesson for black people is that politicians and government handouts are not solutions. If they were, at a public expenditure that tops $22 trillion over the past half-century, black people would not be confronted with today’s problems.

Like I said in another forum – I am having troubling coming with an instance where a government program actually helped poor people.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/08/walter-e-williams/was-trump-right-about-baltimore/

By

Here’s what President Donald Trump tweeted about Baltimore’s congressman and his city: “Rep. Elijah Cummings has been a brutal bully, shouting and screaming at the great men & women of Border Patrol about conditions at the Southern Border, when actually his Baltimore district is far worse and more dangerous. His district is considered the worst in the USA.”

“As proven last week during a congressional tour, the border is clean, efficient and well run, just very crowded,” Trump added. Cumming’s “district is a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess. If he spent more time in Baltimore, maybe he could help clean up this very dangerous & filthy place.”

President Donald Trump’s claims suggesting that Rep. Elijah Cummings’ Baltimore-area district is “considered the worst run and most dangerous” has been called racist. But whether Trump’s claims have any merit is an empirical matter settled by appealing to facts. Let’s look at a few.

In 2018, Baltimore was rated one of the “Rattiest Cities” in the nation by pest control company Orkin. According to Patch Media, although there has been progress in the last few years, Baltimore ranks ninth in rat infestation, down from its sixth position two years ago on Orkin’s list.

What about safety? In 2017, St. Louis had the nation’s highest murder rate, at 66.1 homicides per 100,000 residents. Baltimore came in second, with 55.8 murders per 100,000 people. The unpleasant fact is that predominantly black and Democratic-run cities have the worst records of public safety. The Trace, an independent nonprofit news organization, using 2017 data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting program, listed the 20 major U.S. cities with the highest homicide rates. After St. Louis and Baltimore, Detroit was third, with 39.8 murders per 100,000 people. Other cities with high murder rates included New Orleans; Kansas City, Missouri; Cleveland; Memphis, Tennessee; and Newark, New Jersey. With 24.1 murders per 100,000 residents, Chicago ranked ninth in the nation, followed by Cincinnati and Philadelphia. Washington, D.C., was 17th.

What about education in Baltimore? In 2016, in 13 of Baltimore’s 39 high schools, not a single student scored proficient on the state’s mathematics exam. In six other high schools, only 1% tested proficient in math. In raw numbers, 3,804 Baltimore students took the state’s math test and 14 tested proficient. Citywide, only 15% of Baltimore students passed the state’s English test. Money is not the problem. Of the nation’s 100 largest school systems, Baltimore schools rank third in spending per pupil.

Baltimore’s black students receive diplomas that attest that they can function at a 12th-grade level when in fact they may not be able to do so at a sixth-, seventh- or eighth-grade level. These students and their families have little reason to suspect that their diplomas are fraudulent. Thus, if they cannot pass a civil service exam, they will accuse the exam of being racist. When they get poor grades in college and flunk out, they will attribute their plight to racism. The information that these black students have is that they, just as white students, have a high school diploma and the only explanation they see for unequal outcomes is racism. The same story of poor education outcomes can be told about most cities with large black populations.

The problems that black people confront are immune to who is the president of the U.S. Those problems were not ameliorated when Barack Obama was president. Those problems are not going to be ameliorated by Trump’s presidency, though the black unemployment rate is considerably lower. The lesson for black people is that politicians and government handouts are not solutions. If they were, at a public expenditure that tops $22 trillion over the past half-century, black people would not be confronted with today’s problems.

Be seeing you

lab rat

Trapped

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

NYC Department of Education: ‘Individualism’ Is ‘White Supremacy Culture’

Posted by M. C. on May 22, 2019

He looks, as well as speaks, like Lenin.

Don’t stand out, don’t question, do what you are told.

The school yard likely reminds him of a collective farm.

What is it about this de Blasio/Occasional Cortex thinking that keeps New Yorkers voting these people into office? What is it about New Yorkers?

https://www.breitbart.com/author/tomciccotta/

by TOM CICCOTTA

The New York City Department of Education has instructed its teachers that “objectivity” and “individuals” are “white supremacist” concepts.

New York City Schools Chancellor Richard Carranza

According to a report from the New York Times, Schools Chancellor Richard Carranza gave a presentation about “white supremacy” culture. In the lesson, Carranza claims that concepts like “perfectionism,” “paternalism,” and “objectivity” are part of “white supremacy culture.”

Surprisingly, documents from Carranza’s presentation do little to tie these concepts to “white supremacy.” A graphic from Carranza’s lesson explains why “objectivity” is a negative concept. “This can lead to the belief that there is an ultimate truth and that alternative viewpoints or emotions are bad, it’s even inherent in the ‘belief that there is such a thing as being objective,’” the graphic reads.

A separate section of the graphic explains why Carranza lumps “individuality” into with “white supremacy culture.” “This idea is found among people who have ‘little experience of comfort working as part of a team.’ It can lead to isolation, and emphasize competition over cooperation,” the graphic reads.

Some employees who have attended Carranza’s training session have claimed that they were labeled “fragile” when they defended themselves against the accusation that they hold racial prejudices. “It’s good work. It’s hard work,” Carranza said in a comment to the New York Post. “And I would hope that anybody that feels that somehow that process is not beneficial to them, I would very respectfully say they are the ones that need to reflect even harder upon what they believe.”…

Be seeing you

Vladimir Lenin - Wikiquote

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »