SUBVERSIVE EDUCATION

The ruling elite who have gained power over the past few years appear to be increasingly, and acquiescently wedded to ideologies that not too long ago used to called treasonous:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/424860/New-York-City-Honors-Communist-Monster-Ethel-Rosenberg?target=author&tid=903320

Why are we, the ordinary people, the large 'silent majority' allowing such subversive doctrines to be openly disseminated and promoted by the new polysexual 'chatterati?'

I accept that it has something to do with what the late, great, Francis Schaeffer called; 'the drive towards personal peace and prosperity', but it has increasingly become much more than that alone.

I would contend that we have been seduced by our educational authorities (experts?) to not think critically about issues, but to follow the 'expert opinion' of our 'betters'(the experts?). And I would also posit that it has not only been the curricula of our primary, secondary and tertiary educations that are the culprits (though they do share some of the blame), but to echo Marshall Mcluhan's pithy educational mantra: 'the message is the medium', a significant portion of the blame can be laid at the feet of the actual educational systems.

I did not begin home-schooling out of an ideological conviction, it was a purely practical response to our circumstances at the time. However, the more I pursue it, the more convinced I am that home-schooling is the best way to educate and civilize a child. Anecdotal references would be that we have sent two children through the school system and are home-schooling our third.

One of the first questions I have to field when I mention that I homeschool is: "how well is your child socialised?"....generally meaning: "does home-schooling deprive the child of other children's acceptance/enjoyment/company etc". It is instructive that this is always the first question that is thrown at me. (I wonder if it is the same for others...I do believe I shall indulge in a small poll in the future!)

Whilst my early response used to that I would point out how school was originally intended as a place of learning rather than socialising, I would then defend our decision with the fact that we are fortunate to have a number of children in our neighbourhood that my son is friendly with, plus that he has made some good friends at church and within the sports clubs that he participates in. In other words my response would be defensive..............I have changed my response.

I now counter with the fact that schools were indeed intended to be places of education but that the original intent was so much more than that; that the early systems were also intended to train the children for participation in the factories, mills and workhouses of the industrial revolution. That both sociological statistics and anecdotal reference indicate that bringing children up together in a 'closed system' adds power to such issues as bullying, peer pressure, conforming to the groups 'accepted' norms, shaming, dislocation of loyalties, distrust of authority outside the peer group, rebellion against those who would seek to control or dissipate the impact of the peer group etc, etc......all of which were articulated brilliantly in William Golding's book Lord of the Flies. Here is another authors view of what takes place on 'educational' campus's all over the West:

Everyone will conform to the predetermined mindset of the school – a mindset determined by the loudest and most fascist minority groups – and no dissent will be permitted. ‘We are not here to teach you how to think, but what to think.’ Welcome to modern education in the West.

This is commonplace now, not just in Australia, but throughout the once free West. I have now documented heaps of these cases where faith, freedom and family are all under attack as our PC schools act as thought police, banning any recalcitrants from offering a differing spin from the party line.

Meredith wrote that the concept of political correctness is not about “promoting respect for others” but is “rapidly being turned into a weapon of intolerance to silence those whose views or actions don’t chime with a liberal-fascist agenda”.

“This isn’t about protecting the vulnerable and the marginalised. It’s not about ‘duty of care’. In fact, it’s censorship masquerading as enlightenment. If in doubt, ban it: that’s the prevailing credo”, she commented.  [B.M. 8.10.15]