American Education: Teaching Kids or Criminal Conspiracy?
This is not an anti-education post...in fact it's anything but. I'm very much pro-education providing that by education you mean teaching children. I've written many times that I believe most teachers are very good people whose hands have been tied... as are most of the good people on local school boards. Unfortunately, under the administration of Jimmy Carter in the late 1970's education was hijacked by the Federal Government, driven by what I consider a criminal conspiracy to defraud the taxpayers by the politically powerful teachers union (NEA) who have an agenda that as I will show IS very much anti-education and has been from the very beginning. I've been researching this for over 20 years (in fact most of this comes from a book I was working on 20 years ago) and will, in the next few posts, show what I found.
What if the American public education was never intended to perform the function we all assume that it is, but a mechanism for indoctrination Humanists. In fact Horace Mann, widely regarded as the "Father of American Education" in his own words states the real intentions he had in mind when he designed it. Mann's intent was to, "...establish a new religion, with the state as its true church, and education as its Messiah." He goes on to say:
"What the church has been for medieval man the public school
must become for democratic and rational man. God will be
replaced by the concept of the public good...The common
schools... shall create a more far-seeing intelligence and a
pure morality than has ever existed among communities of men."
John Dewey, psychologist, widely given credit for modern education in America believed that the purpose of the public school system was to be "social unification" and "to promote state consciousness." This has been the intent of the Humanists that control the school system all along. John Dunphy wrote in the Humanist in 1983: " "The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and thenew- the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its
adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism." These are the principles underlying the American public education system, infiltration and indoctrination... creating good little global citizens rather than critical thought- in fact, critical thought is inimical to the Humanist purview.
Dr Chester Price professor of Education and Psychiatry at Harvard goes even further stating: "Every child in America entering school at age five is mentally ill because he comes to school with certain
allegiances toward our founding fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It's up to you teachers to make all of these sick children well by creating the international children of the future." This was in a speech given at the International Education Seminar in 1973.
Charles Sykes, Senior Fellow at the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute and specialist in educational issues, concludes ,"that it is no longer the duty of schools to educate. Instead the focus has been shifted by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development of the NEA who call for
"...refocusing the schools away from intellectual pursuits to a new agenda of 'life adjustment.' In the new school, social values were given far more weight than traditional subject matter. From now on, the (NEA) yearbook declared, the school must put 'human relationships first' and must provide 'a school environment where the satisfactory adjustment of all pupils is of primary
Given that the Humanist philosophy, introduced into education by Mann and Dewey and later
incorporated into NEA policy, is one of Statism- satisfactory adjustment must merely be a polite euphemism for brainwashing children into accepting an alien set of norms. This is the worst
form of child abuse imaginable. In this case, these alien norms would necessarily be the Global Statism advocated by Humanists. The Humanist programs embraced by the NEA and by extension the educational infrastructure should by now be evident- state sponsored child abuse. We must now examine how they are able to get these programs and policies implemented.
The NEA possesses an inordinate amount of political power. It has been characterized by Charlene K. Haar, President of the prestigious Education Policy Institute and teacher of 11 years, as "a huge political machine-far larger and more powerful than most people know... [who] uses deceptive tactics to make policymakers and members of the public accept their agenda." Ms. Haar further asserts that "[a]t the local, state and national level, NEA revenues are about $1 billion every year (1996 figures) and it spends most of that money on political programs, political consulting, communications with political messages [the acquisition and manipulation of information], and various campaign activities. [Moreover], NEA-PAC is nearly a $6 million operation; in addition, a network of NEA state and local affiliate political action committees (PAC's), pour millions into races at every level of government; after all buying allegiances pays off."
Americans care deeply for their young people... This "weakness" is not lost upon the pseudo-advocates of the NEA. Just as the competent pitchman will incorporate children's programs into his pitch, the NEA, according to the EPI study, "...is deceitful even to its own members. Catchy advertising and warm fuzzy pictures are paid-for images which create another myth, that unions care about kids.
Unions don't care for children! If you doubt this, look at the new business items- review the candidate questionnaires. They are all about MONEY- how to get more." Moreover, the EPI study posits that "[b]y successfully defining the education reform debate in 'care-more pay-more' terms instead of outcomes and accountability, the NEA is trying to convince politicians and the public, that more money must be spent for education. In fact, thousands of NEA officers and staff
are paid over $100,000 a year in salary and benefits. They are the beneficiaries of NEA programs; the children of the United States [and by extension their families] are the losers."
It should be clear that the NEA does not have the interest of children at heart, but something far more nefarious (not to mention lucrative). More later.
GIF by @papa-pepper