Recently I read an article on http://mrctv.org/blog/ dealing with the public school system’s contention that they really know what’s best for our kids more so than we do.

The article noted the comments of one Debbie Squires, an “education official” for the Michigan Elementary and Middle School Principals Association. Ms. Squires, in her infinite wisdom, has observed that parents “may want what’s best for their child, but they may not know (what’s best for the child.”) The article continued: “During a Michigan House Committee meeting determining parents’ school choice, she claims that educators know better than parents when it comes to children.” Suffice it to say that I beg to differ.

Squires noted that “educators go through education for a reason.” Now there’s a profound statement! Most of us of somewhat normal intelligence have figured that much out. What many may not have figured out, however, is what the reason is. Squires contends that parents or “individual residents” simply lack the real vision of what’s best for the kids from an “education standpoint.” Makes you wonder just what poor, benighted parents did before the public school system burst upon the scene to show them the way, the truth, and whatever.

The implication here is that the school system and the teacher should have the right to tell the parents what’s best for their kids and then have the authority to enforce that ruling, regardless of parental disagreement or not. Squires did not come right out and state that, but knowing the way the minds of educrats work, that is undoubtedly where she was headed.

Unfortunately, most parents with kids in public schools fail to realize the true mindset of the educrats–power and control. This is not a new attitude with those people. It has been there from the beginning. Why else do you think they pushed for compulsory attendance so strongly?

Tammy Drennan, in an article on http://educationconversation.wordpress.com back in October, 2007, told us that “Horace Mann is often called the Father of Public Education. He was a tireless crusader who won the battle of compulsory state schooling in Massachusetts and set it on its path of devastating reproduction.” Drennan informed us that Mann wanted a student that was peaceful, hardworking, and “disinclined to make trouble–one who wouldn’t rock the boat, wouldn’t make trouble for the ruling class”–in other words, a mental zombie–keep your mouth shut, work hard, pay your taxes, exorbitant or not, and don’t dare to question anything any ruling authority tries to enforce on you.

Drennan noted that: “Mr. Mann and his cohorts were a determined lot, and they weren’t afraid to use the power of the state to force their ideas down the throats of the entire country. The people, they believed, were ill-equipped to produce the proper future for themselves or for the United States. Mr. Mann, et al, knew what the future should look like…Citizens would be compliant and would live to serve the state. Instead of freely educated citizens keeping the state in line the state works to keep its subjects in line.” Somehow, I don’t think the men who fought our War for Independence signed on for that agenda, yet we’ve had it for 160 years now and just didn’t realize it. Do you think we may have been dumbed down so we wouldn’t know?

So you can see from the start, those who pushed public education were first concerned with power and control and producing the proper mindset in students to ensure that control was gained and maintained. The parents couldn’t be trusted. They might have an alternative vision both for their kids and the country, and so control had to be removed from them as much as possible and awarded to a public education system that would produce–a mental zombie.

Parents have got to start realizing that this whole scenario is NOT about education, it is about control and the power to force your kids into a mindset you may not want them to have, in the interest of the state–the same mindset that was prevalent in the Soviet Union under Communism. It has been alive and well here in public schools for over 160 years now. Where do you think the Communists got the idea?

Don’t be naive enough to think you will “reform” this situation. That has not happened in 160 years. You need to remove your children from the authoritarian mindset and agenda of the public education system and either find a good private school, preferably a Christian one, or teach the kids at home.

It should come as no surprise to those who understand the rationale for government or public schooling that the teaching of real American history is not something that has a real high priority. In most cases, what passes for “history” today in public schools is little more than politically correct propaganda that reeks of multiculturalism, diversity, environmentalism and a host of other “isms” that have nothing to do with accurate history and everything to do with making sure students never come close to the real truth.

One of the most critical (if not the most critical) periods in our history is that period embracing the War of Northern Aggression, the real reasons for that War, and the shameful period after that War which was euphemistically labeled as “reconstruction”–a term advocated by Karl Marx when he talked about the “reconstruction of a social world” (the South).

For our young folks to correctly understand and interpret our history, what happened in that time period must be correctly understood by them. If they are not taught to grasp all that happened at that point then none of the rest of it will make any sense and we will end up with the skewed version of “Americanism” and patriotism that exists in our day, even among Christians.

Most public school history books teach fables for history. They teach that the “Civil War” was fought by the North to free the slaves in the South. Seldom, if ever, is it mentioned that up to a few years before the War slavery also existed in the North. Archaeologists have been unearthing evidence of slave-holding plantations in Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey that plainly give the lie to the myth that slavery in this country only existed in the Southern states. Cheryl LaRoche, a historical archaeologist from the University of Maryland noted: “America was a slaveholding country–North and South–Over the years that reality has been lost, stolen, or just strayed from the history books.” Stolen would be more like it–down the memory hole if you will.

Even some historians and journalists don’t seem to know or realize much of this truth today. Author Douglas Harper wrote: “I had written one book on Pennsylvania history and started a second before I learned that William Penn had been a slaveowner.” Why do you suppose that information was not in the “history” books Mr. Harper studied?

Historian Joanne Pope Mellish wrote a perceptive book on race relations in ante-bellum New England, and she recalls how it was possible to read American history textbooks at the high school level and never know there was such a thing as a slave North of the Mason-Dixon Line. Mr. Harper started a web site dealing with slavery in the Northern states, only to notice after awhile that one of the major search engines had, somehow, “lost” all his references to slavery in the Northern states. He contacted them, and soon his comments about Northern slavery were back up–only to disappear again in a few days. That memory hole again–great place for disposing of inconvenient truths.

If our children are only taught that this War was fought over slavery they will have no real grasp of the other, more important issues involved–tariffs, cultural differences between the two regions, even theological differences between the two regions.

They will never be taught to understand the concept of the rights of the individual states within the framework of a confederated Union. Hence they will never learn the limitations that were placed on the federal government. That being the case they will see no problem today when a runaway federal government does whatever it feels like doing, recognizing no restraints whatever. To them such will be normal if they do not know our real history and they will think it has always been like this, when, in fact, it has not.

“History” books today spend almost no time showing how the War of Northern Aggression actually changed the country we live in from a representative republic into a consolidated democracy where Washington runs the whole show. Most people, educated in public schools, don’t know the difference between a republic and a democracy, and neither our history books nor our politicians are about to enlighten them.

Here in Louisiana the last time students learn the history of the War of Northern Aggression is in the 7th grade. Nothing about it in high school at all. Honestly, how much of what you learned in the 7th grade do you remember. I can’t recall anything from 7th grade that has stuck with me. And most kids today can’t even tell you what century the War was fought in. They are not sure whether it came before or after World War 1.

The War of Northern Aggression was our French Revolution, from which we have never recovered–and until our children have been taught to understand that, we never will. If our view of the past is faulty, then our vision for the future will be also–and our children and grandchildren will be forced to live with the results.

Ever since Karl Marx advocated “Free education for all children in public schools…” socialists of all stripes have literally tripped all over themselves trying to be first in line to support the institution of public education–government run education. Public schools are government schools. The socialists know this. They just hope it takes you generations to figure it out. By then they will have completely propagandized your children enough that you won’t even recognize them.

To grasp the socialist support for and promotion of public schools all you have to do is read their literature and statements posted on their web sites. The platform of the Socialist Party USA is very explicit. It is posted on http://socialistparty-usa.org and says, in part, “We support public child care starting from infancy, and public education starting at age three…” Public child care from infancy means they support the idea of some federal child care service taking care of your child until he or she is three and then shipping them off to the local government school. Total government involvement in the child’s upbringing from infancy. This program is designed to make sure the government educrats have your child in tow from when he or she is weaned right on through;. And this is supposed to be “good”???

Among other things opposed by socialists is merit pay for teachers. This would guarantee that the mediocre will get as much as the teacher who excels at his or her vocation and would eventually guarantee mediocrity because what teacher will want to take the trouble to excel if their lazy counterpart across the hall will always get just as much as they do for doing little or nothing?

The socialists also support “…vigorous affirmative action programs so that the faculty and student body reflect the community at large in terms of race/ethnicity, gender…We support multicultural, multilingual, experimental education at all levels.” Wonder what they mean by “experimental” education–possibly some of the “gender liberation” psychobabble now going on in public schools under the guise of education?

Another group, the New York Citiy socialists, http://www.nycsocialist.org takes pretty much the same tack. They tell us that “Public education is under unprecedented attack. The powerful people who want to privatize our schools are using many different means: charter schools, mayoral control, high stakes standardizing testing, school closures, merit pay and attacking teacher unions are all part of the assault.” As for charter schools, they are still basically public schools. They may operate on a little higher standard then most and the funding may operate a little differently, but they are still public schools, not private ones. And the socialist are very concerned about who is behind the effort to “privatize” education. These folks dread the concept of private education. It means that the kids enrolled in private schools or taught at home will not be subjected to the subtle brainwashing program that the public school kids are and so they will think differently. That bothers the socialists no end. Everyone has to think the same to satisfy them. Kids who learn to think differently will ask questions, they may question authority, they will want to know why the educational and political systems in this country operate so poorly, etc. These are questions the socialist mindset does not want asked–at any level. And their wish to control education from infancy on will guarantee that the youngsters under their care will never ask the wrong questions.

And the Socialist Labor Party http://slp.org has posted a statement titled “What’s Behind the Attack on Public Education?” These folks also support public schools and they believe the problems with those schools are caused by capitalism. They note the problems with public schools as well as growing parental disillusion with them and feel these problems are being exploited by “reactionary politicians and self-interested promoters who urge people to shun the public schools land opt for ‘home schooling’ or more often their own ‘private schools’ not infrequently ‘religious schools.’” I suppose that makes me a “reactionary.” Over the years I have advocated to many people that they home school their kids and I have not made a thin dime out of it but I suppose I’d still be a “self-interested” promoter because I dared to disagree with their agenda. Religious schools or home schools–horror of horrors–can’t have that kind of thing out there undermining the socialist dogma the public schools present, can we? Might upset the apple cart, or, worse yet, some people might begin to find out what really goes on in public schools and be more than willing to consider other options for their kids–and that would be the kiss of death for the Public School Movement.

Jacob Hornberger, writing on http://www.fff.org has observed of public schools that: “The public school system, like all coercive redistributive programs is founded on the Marxian concept of ‘from each according to his ability to each according to his need.’ The political system is used to plunder the wealth and savings of everyone, even those who don’t have children, to pay for the schooling of other people’s children.” Over the years, I, along with several others, have advocated the idea that only those who use the public schools should be forced to pay property taxes to support them. Maybe that is an idea whose time has come.

Although the socialists attempt to blame the capitalists for the “failure” of public schools, Mr. Hornberger correctly notes that: “The tragic failure of socialism in public schooling is as well known as the failure of socialism all over the world.” While I agree with Mr. Hornberger’s intent here, I have to disagree with his conclusion. Public schooling has not been a failure. It has been a resounding success at doing what it was intended to do from the beginning–indoctrinate instead of educate.

The real name of the game is anti-Christianity.

Over the years, as I have written articles about the public schools I have taken pains to note that their foundation was Unitarian and socialist and not Christian. In an article on http://www.seekfind.net entitled “Horace Mann, John Dewey, and the NEA” the author tells his readers that Horace Mann was credited with starting government-run education in this country and that he learned his techniques from Prussia. The author stated “His motivation was to end education by Christians. Horace Mann was a Unitarian, did not believe in the inspiration of the Bible, or the Trinity. Horace Mann’s religion was secularism.” This author bears out my contentions, so it isn’t just me.

The author then told us about John Dewey who brought in the idea of “Humanistic education as a religion.” Dewey was the President of the American Humanist Association. He signed the first Humanist Manifesto. According to the author, Dewey “…saw Christianity as a huge problem that needed to be solved. Dewey’s religion was secularism.” The author also noted that “The President of the NEA contends that there is no such thing as a Humanist, yet there is a Humanist Association, a Humanist Manifesto, and Humanist Dogma.” The NEA President was probably trying to practice a little damage control.

The author of an article, “The Influence of the Frankfurt School on Modern Liberal Thought” which can be found at http://www.ukapologetics.net has observed: “Many factors have contributed to the liberal, permissive and anti-Christian philosophical approach which underpins much of modern life in Europe and North America. Some of these influences–without any doubt–go back even beyond the Enlightenment to the Renaissance…But typically–these influences have continued to be refined over many centuries…It may come as a surprise to some to learn that many of the philosophical/social/economic assumptions inherent throughout modern life became focused and refined in Germany within the last hundred years…One such influence…is the so-called Frankfurt School. The Frankfurt School had a huge influence in the 1920s through the 1930s, and even beyond that as its main theorists and philosophers fled Nazism and took their subversive teachings abroad–mainly to the United States.” Interesting that the country of Martin Luther had apostatized to such an extent.

The author continued: “These men believed that there was much good in Marxism and that it could be used to develop an advanced social theory. But, even beyond that, they were committed to developing and formulating an entire theory of life, human history, and social ethics which would eventually need no recourse to European Christian civilisation in any area of life. They were avid admirers of the Marxist principles of equality which they felt would eventually even replace the “Golden Rule” of the Sermon on the Mount, as delivered by Jesus (Matthew 5-7) as the highest and most noble expression of ethics.” So their aim was to be more “noble” than the Lord. Judging by the millions they butchered in the 20th century I don’t think they quite made it. Frederich Nietzsche is mentioned as having had some influence on these people. It was Nietzsche’s goal all the remnants of Christianity from the life of Europe. So you can understand where the Frankfurt School, Dewey, and the NEA were and are coming from.

On http://alettertothetimes.wordpress.com author Cassandra Goldman quoted columnist William Lind, who I have quoted on several occasions. And she noted that Lind said that Cultural Marxism did not begin in the 1960s as many assume, but in 1919, after World War 1. Lind noted that two Marxist theorists, Antonio Gramsci and Georg Lukacs came to this conclusion: “Western culture and the Christian religon had so blinded the working class to its true, Marxist class interest that Communism was impossible in the West until both could be destroyed.” So for Communism to succeed you must get rid of Christianity–or neutralize it to the point where it no longer poses a problem to your agenda.

No matter how you cut the mustard, as you analyze the people all the way from Horace Mann to John Dewey to the Frankfurt School to the National Education Association, you are forced to conclude that these people who have exerted so terribly much influence on education in this country were unapologetically  and energetically  anti-Christian.  Their agenda was, and still is, to eradicate the truth of the Christian faith from the world at large and especially from public schools.  These people hate the Lord Jesus and His Word and all that he stands for–and nowadays these are the people America is paying to educate the majority of our kids–and then we sit back, scratch our heads,  and wonder why we have problems. Folks, we should have figured it all out by now, except that this same crowd has worked at subverting education for generations now, and most of us have probably been subtly influenced by their agenda without even realizing it.  Therefore, if often becomes difficult to see the problem when we have mostly been educated to be part of the problem.

The only thing that will begin to reverse this process is an exodus of Christian people from the public school system and our being willing to learn the history of what has happened and what has been done to us, and making sure our children also learn it.  We need to begin to have a Christian worldview of education, each generation teaching their children of the absolute necessity of a Christian education so they can teach their children.

To begin the re-education process I would recommend some material which will give you a foundation.

Read Karl Priest’s book Protester Voices–the 1974 Textbook Tea Party. Karl gives you an in-depth look at what really happened in Kanawha County, West Virginia in the mid-1970s, when parents suddenly began to realize that the public school agenda there was the subversion of their children. They protested, and what a story it made. Karl’s book can be found on Amazon.com or you can get it directly from Karl by ordering it from him at 141 Karmel Lane, Poca, West Virginia 25159 for $19.05. Having been in West Virginia for part of that protest, I can tell you that Karl tells it like it was and it wasn’t always pretty. You need to read this book.

Also, check out the DVD IndoctriNation which is available from Exodus Mandate. You can find them by doing a Google search. This DVD is an excellent presentation of what goes on in public schools today as well as giving you some of the history of the public school system.  You will never view the public schools the same way after seeing this DVD.

Read Sam Blumenfeld’s two excellent books Is Public Education Necessary? and The NEA–Trojan Horse in American Education. Both should be available on Amazon.com

Throughout this and many other articles over the years, I have sought to make the point that public schools do not exist to educate, but rather to indoctrinate and there are many working in those institutions that do not even realize that. I suppose some critics (and I have had them over the years) would say that is an extreme statement. Some of the folks in a church we attended several years ago would probably have kittens if they heard me make such a statement. However, you don’t have to take my word for it. New articles on the Internet and other places bear out what I have contended.

Recently I came across one written by a Beth Stebner that appeared on http://www.dailymail.co.uk
Part of the title of the article was “The vice president of the U.S. is…Bill Clinton!” According to the article “Students in U.S. high schools spend their days studying history, geography and mathematics.” Well, not quite, as the article goes on to show. It seems there was a student reporter that wanted to know just how much basic knowledge his peers in high school had so he interviewed several of them. According to Stebner’s article “Most of his classmates didn’t even know who the vice president of the country was. One student guessed Osama bin Laden, while another proudly stated that it was former president Bill Clinton.” The student interviewer asked fellow students to name the war that won the United States its independence. The article noted that “The majority of students responded with dead air.” They hadn’t a clue! Finally one of them piped up and mentioned the Korean War and another one thought it might be the Civil War. Stebner’s article wound down by stating “According to a recent study, the U.S. places behind 31 countries in math proficiency and behind 16 in reading.” Do you wonder why?

Has anyone ever even thought to ask why high school kids are almost totally ignorant of such basic facts? What are the teachers doing all day? How can a youngster get as far as high school and think the Civil War gave us our freedom when what it actually did was to begin to erode that freedom? The teachers that taught this batch of kids ought to be terminated, except they probably have tenure so you couldn’t get rid of them if you tried. And how reflective are these kids of other highschoolers  across the country? You don’t really want to know, do you?

However, these kids prove my contention that the public schools do not exist to educate. If they truly did, you would not have youngsters that thought we won our independence in the Korean War. This is the dumbed-down generation par excellence! And that is what public school is really all about. So, then, if the public schools don’t exist to educate, what do they exist for? To answer that I will refer to another article that appeared on http://www.sovereignindependent.com where the headline reads “‘Schools need to teach about orgasms’ says NEA to UN” This article is by Lauren Funk.

Funk started off “New York, March 3,…Graphic sex education for youth is the new battleground at the UN, as evidenced by side events during the past week at the Commission on the Status of Women. The theme of this year’s CSW the ‘access and participation of women and girls to education, training, science and technology.’” Sounds nice, warm and fuzzy doesn’t it, until you get to where the rubber meets the road. Seems they had a woman there from the National Education Association, one Diane Schneider. According to Funk’s article “Oral sex, masturbation, and orgasms need to be taught in education.’ Diane Schneider told the audience on a panel on combating homophobia and transphobia. Schneider, representing the National Education Association (NEA), the largest teachers union in the US, advocated more ‘inclusive’ sex education in US schools, with curricula bases on liberal hetero and homosexual expression. She claimed the idea of sex education remains an oxymoron if it is abstinence-based or if students are still able to opt out.” In plain English, she wants your kids to be forced to sit and listen to this swill, whether you want that or not. And, after all, what should your opinion matter anyway? You are only the parents. This is a perfect example of indoctrination. High schools can’t even manage to teach kids what war won America her freedom but they can labor to make sure your kids know all about oral sex.

Schneider eagerly proclaimed that comprehensive sex education is “the only way to combat heterosexism and gender conformity, and we must make these issues part of every middle and high school student’s agenda.” Read that line again. It tells you what they want for your kids in middle and high school in this country. This is what the teachers union is pushing. Notice her inclusion of “gender conformity” in this and refer back to an article on gender neutrality that I wrote for this blog recently. Schneider noted that those who are against homosexuality “are stuck in a binary box that religion and family create.” So it would appear that the NEA’s agenda regarding sexual perversion is to make darn sure all kids are forced through their indoctrination, are taught that homosexuality is normal and that gender conformity should be elastic.

This all fits right in with the aims of the Frankfurt School. Dr. Gerald Atkinson CDR USN (Ret.) wrote something called “What is the Frankfurt School?” And he observed that an attack on the traditional family unit was high on the Frankfurt School’s list of priorities, and the National Education Association seems to be going along with this. The question is–why are American parents willing to put up with it? Could it be that many of them have already succumbed to some form of this indoctrination already and so they don’t see any problem with it?

To be continued.

There seems to be somewhat of a growing awareness in some circles (would to God the circles were bigger and more numerous) about the Frankfurt School and its influence on public education. A blog http://www.collegeplus.org had an interesting article on it called “How the Frankfurt School Rules Modern Education.”

The article started out: “For some time now, we at CollegePlus! have recognized that the foundation for the modern high school system originated in the minds of a small group of social engineers around the turn of the 19th century in association with famous Darwinian educator John Dewey. They changed the country’s school system to produce men and women who were simply told what to think but not how to think.” That is a very apt description of the public school system. The movers and shakers in that system do not want a student body that can think independently on their own, for then some of them might question some of the drivel they are being force fed. They want a docile student body, not capable of independent thought, not capable enough to look at one another and ask “Why are we sitting here soaking up this bovine fertilizer when we realize that’s what it is?” If that day ever arrives, the public school system will be headed for the skids.

Old John Dewey was totally enamored of the progressive educational ideas of the Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union. He said the Communists were using “progressive educational ideas and practices to ‘counteract and transform…the influence of home and church.’” That was right up Dewey’s alley. That was what he was all about–not education but indoctrination.

Berit Kjos, writing on http://www.crossroad.to/ in September, 2009 noted of Karl Marx: “Marx called for what had to be accomplished–the ruthless destruction of everything existing. That destruction would wipe out religion, the family, morality…and everything that made Western civilization…The seemingly modest instrument was the (Frankfurt) Institute of Social Research…dedicated to neo-Marxism…the greatest harm came when the Frankfurt School decamped to America, courtesy of John Dewey and Columbia University.”

Kjos continued: “In his 1908 article, ‘Religion and our Schools’ Dewey noted that ‘dogmatic beliefs’ were ‘disappearing.’ Decades later, while presiding over the American Humanist Association, he co-authored the 1933 Humanist Manifesto.”

“Notice how his words reflect today’s emerging churches? Any religion that can hope to be a synthesizing and dynamic force for today, must be shaped for the needs of the age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present.”

This somewhat fuzzy terminology might be a call for most anything (except Biblical Christianity) and I don’t suppose Dewey would have been opposed to a “synthesis” of Christianity and some other religion–guaranteed to water down the truth of the Christian faith.

Dewey equated individual thinking with insanity. Interesting viewpoint. I wonder what he thought of his own individual thoughts–or maybe his individual thinking was “above” that of the rest of us and therefore was acceptable. Even before 1900 he had started experiments in behavioral psychology. Like those that followed him (and preceded him) he had a vision for a “reshaped humanity.” One tenet of his agenda was the absence of the ability in students to think critically and to question. Dumbed down students were essential to his program.

There was a recent article on http://www.prisonplanet.com  that bore this out. It stated, in part, “…our public schools are run like prisons and our public school students are treated like prisoners…and our schools are preparing the next generation to either ‘do time’ in the prison system or to live as good little slaves in the Big Brother prison that is being constructed all around us. But what our schools are not doing is giving these children the critical thinking skills that they need to live as free citizens in a nation that used to be ‘the land of the free and the home of the brave.’”
If you get the chance please check out my short article on http://www.cakewalkblogs.com/antiestablishmenthistory/ called “The Land of the Free is a Thing of the Past.”

The Prison Planet article further stated: “Instead of teaching our kids how to think critically and examine all sides of an issue, these schools are indoctrinating our kids and pushing particular social and political agendas on them.” That would be right in line with John Dewey’s individual thinking, which is alright for him, just not the rest of us.

How many have ever heard of the Frankfurt School? Probably not too many, although there are pages and pages of material on the Internet concerning it, many of them having to do with how this institution has affected public education in this country. Don’t take my word for it. Check it out for yourselves and see what is out there. If you are patriotic Americans concerned about the education of your kids, particularly if you have them in public school, you will not be thrilled with what you find.

Joanne Lewis, writing for http://www.allrightmagazine.com stated in an article published in January, 2011 that: “The Institute for Social Research was founded in 1923 under the direction of Carl Grunberg, an avowed Marxist. This institute, which operated in conjunction with the University of Frankfurt, was financed by yet another Marx admirer: Felix Weil, the son of a wealthy German merchant. Modeled after the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow, it would later come to be known as the Frankfurt School. Grunberg retired in 1929, and the following year Max Horkheimer became director. It was under the directorship of Horkheimer that Cultural Marxism and Critical Theory started to take flight. :Horkheimer brought in additional scholars to assist with his concept development. He recruited Theodur Adorno, Eric Fromm, Herbert Marcuse, Lou Lowenthal and Jurgen Habermas et al.” Do a couple of these names sound a little familiar–like Fromm and Marcuse, both of whom have been widely known on college campuses in our day.

However, when Hitler rose to power in 1933 those affiliated with the Marxist Frankfurt School decided that discretion was the better part of valor and they left Germany. Lewis continued: “A few months later, with the help of John Dewey, a professor at Columbia, and Edward R. Murrow, the Assistant Secretary of the Emergency in Aide of Displaced German Scholars, the Frankfurt School was relocated to New York City. Subsequently, the members were able to obtain prestigious positions in Universities such as Columbia, Princeton, Brandeis and Berkeley of California.” Does this scenario also sound familiar? How about socialists and communists fleeing from Germany after the socialist revolts back in 1848 and coming to America, where many of them found refuge as teachers, journalists, Union army generals and members of the newly formed Republican Party (see Lincoln’s Marxists,  Pelican Publishing, Gretna, Louisiana, July, 2011).

These devotees of Marxism from Frankfurt had an agenda, as did the “forty-eighters” from Germany and other European countries that came almost a century before them–the creation of a socialist America.

To accomplish this agenda the Christian heritage and culture of the country would need to be done away with. They felt that as long as the Christian faith persisted they would never be totally able to promote their concept of socialist revolution. The Frankfurt scholars, therefore, had an agenda which included the neutralization and/or destruction of the church.

Lewis observed: “In addition to destroying the Church, it was felt they would need to encourage government dependency, vastly increase immigration to confuse identity, undermine parental authority, create racial offenses, promote disrespect for authority and attempt to break down the contemporary family.All these objectives and more were directed at the utter destruction of Western Culture and civilization.” Does any of this sound familiar?

How many parents in this country have spent big bucks so their kids could go to fancy colleges–only to be taught there by the progeny of the Frankfurt Marxists? When their kids came home they hardly recognized them anymore and the kids had been inculcated with the idea that their parents were “the enemy” because, after all, they were over thirty!

Please take note of a few things here–interesting parallels. A wealthy Marxist admirer helped to finance the Frankfurt School. The same thing happened in the 1800s when Engels helped to finance Karl Marx. You have to wonder what so often makes the wealthy fund those who are supposedly interested in their destruction. Is it a guilt complex because of their wealth, or do some of them realize something most of us do not–that Marxism is not really opposed to wealth and profit, depending on who controls it. If they can control it in the mystical name of “the people” then it’s okay.

In both 1848 and the 1920s, the radical socialists and Marxists had a problem with the Christian faith. Part of their problem was the Biblical truth of original sin. They hated the thought that man was inherently a sinner and therefore accountable to a Holy God for his actions. If man could be made accountable to no one, then they thought they could create the perfect man, responsible only to themselves. In other words, they wanted to play God.

As to where the National Education Association comes into all this, stay tuned for the next installment. However, if you noted John Dewey’s name in this article you will know there is a connection with the NEA.

To be continued.

It hardly needs to be said, but public education is one of the major problems we face in this country. It’s not that the public school system needs more money, or needs to be fine-tuned; the teachers unions would just love to have more of your tax money so they could pretend to pursue that ever-elusive “quality education” they claim they are trying to give our kids. But lack of money isn’t the problem. The system itself is the problem. It needs to be done away with, dismantled, and the federal Department of Education (so called) needs to be defunded and shut down.

What are a couple of the problems? How about bad teachers? And I am not saying all teachers are bad, but many are. An article called “Are Public Schools A Propaganda Arm of Liberals?” was posted back in 2009 on httlp://www.home60515.com that gave some interesting statistics. it noted that, in 1998, in Massachusetts “close to 60% of aspiring teachers flunked the state’s certification exam…In July 1997, ‘a school district in Suffolk County, New York gave teaching applicants an 11th grade reading test. Three-quarters of them flunked the test. Similar results are reported from other parts of New York and the nation. One-third of the applicants in Virginia flunked the basic skills test’.”

The article continued, noting how critics have mourned “the intellectual emptiness of the curriculum at ed schools…A recent survey of teachers about their graduate school training drew comments like ‘the shabbiest psychobabble imaginable’.” I recall, some years ago, reading a book by a Rita Kramer, I think it was, called “Ed School Follies” and they were. The good teachers out there have gotten to the point where they can recognize the meaningless drivel being shoveled out to them.

Another problem continues to be the leftist revolutionaries that influence teachers colleges–people such as Mr. Obama’s good buddy, William Ayers. According to http://www.eagleforum.org “Ayers is a friend of Obama, and Professor Ayers’ expertise is training teachers and developing public school curriculum. That’s been his mission since he gave up planting bombs in government building…and assaulting police officers.” Ayers was a notable part of the Weather Underground, who managed to get his Ph. D. at Columbia Teachers College from which he landed a tenured position at the University of Illinois in Chicago. According to Phyllis Schlafly “Ayers speaks openly of his desire to use America’s public school classrooms to train a generation of revolutionaries who will overturn the U.S. social and economic regime. He teaches that America is oppressive and unjust, socialism is the solution, and wealth and resources should be redistributed.” Does that include his wealth and resources too? I rather doubt that. Somehow those on the left are usually exempt from the rules they would impose on the rest of us. You have to wonder, though, how many public school teachers have been trained under this kind of philosophy. judging by what goes on in many classrooms, quite a few.

Schlafly observed that Ayers’ far-left education theories have begun to have an effect in education schools as more teachers colleges begin using their courses to promote “socialist notions of wealth distribution, ‘social justice,’ diversity and environmentalism, and to punish students who resist this indoctrination by giving them low grades or even denying them graduation.” In other words–you better get with our socialist program, Honey, or you won’t even graduate! It seems that Mr. Ayers realized that the real revolution was not in the streets–it was in the public schools. Didn’t Karl Marx point the way–”free education for all children in public schools.”

Do you wonder why public schools lean so far to the left when this is the indoctrination the teachers are exposed to before they even hit the classroom? If they weren’t good socialists before, many of them certainly will be by the time little Johnny or Mary are forced to sit under their gentle tutelage.

Between those teachers that can’t pass their certification exams and those who have been taught that their mission in life is to help promote the redistribution of your wealth, your kids have two strikes against them even before they enter kindergarten–which is also socialist in origin. See my article on this blog for November 25, 2011.

People need to be able to grasp this one truth–the public school system is not your friend, it s not out there to educate your kids. It is there to indoctrinate them in the glories of socialism. Real education has nothing whatever to do with the agenda.

Years ago I had a friend, Rev. Ennio Cugini, who was the pastor of a small church in Rhode Island. Pastor Cugini has gone to be with the Lord now, but in many ways he was a beacon of light to Southern New England in the midst of a Unitarian-permeated society and in many areas he was ahead of his time.

I recall that back in the late 1960s and early 1970s Pastor Cugini talked much on his radio broadcasts about the history and the evils of the public school system. He felt it was un-American, which it was and is and even then he was aware of much of the propaganda from that system that paraded itself as education in classrooms. It was from listening to his comments and checking out sources he mentioned that my wife and I decided that our kids were never going to public school.

He had some trenchant observations about public schools, things most folks had never even begun to think about. For one thing, he concluded that compulsory attendance in public school was akin to having a captive audience, and he felt that compulsory attendance laws should be repealed. I agree with him. Oh, I can already hear people shouting “if the public schools were not open, why where would the kids go?” What these folks don’t realize is that by even asking that question they are admitting that public schools are little more than federally-funded and programmed babysitting services. Something that will keep the kids out of their hair!

Back in 2004, Barry Dean Simpson wrote an article that was posted on http://www.mises.org called “The Common School Movement and Compulsory Education” in which he made some interesting observations. He noted that Unitarian Horace Mann, in 1837, became the first secretary of the State Board of Education in Massachusetts. He said: “Mann led the fight to institute common schools, and his influence extended from New England to America as a whole.” Too bad! One of Mann’s primary reasons for wanting public schools in New England was that he wanted to undermine the influence of the church schools there. In other words, Mann, as a Unitarian was opposed to Christian education. He felt the “state” should run education and Christian influence on education should be done away with. Nobody in this age of political correctness says it that way, but that’s what Mann was really all about.

Mr. Simpson also observed that: “Not long after the Common School movement began, a new movement appeared. This new movement called for compulsory attendance. Massachusetts passed a compulsory attendance law in 1852…By the time Mississippi adopted it in 1918, every state in the nation had ratified compulsion. As was the case with public education, the reformers gave numerous reasons in support of compulsory education.” Immigration was one of those. Supposedly the public schools would teach the new immigrants the principles of “democracy.”

Now here comes the part we are never told. Simpson has said “But even if one believes that forcing kids into public schools will cure society’s ills, it must do so by increasing attendance rates. The common school movement only substituted public attendance for private attendance. Did compulsory attendance laws increase attendance in schools? The answer seems to be no.” Simpson cited a book written by John K. Folger and Charles B. Nam called Education of the American Population and he said “Their findings indicate that compulsion is a very weak factor in increasing attendance.” And he also quoted a Chicago economist, George Stigler, who also did not find any correlation between compulsion and attendance. And one more interesting little fact, Simpson stated also that: “He does note, however, that between 1900 and 1949, teacher salaries rose 709% while per-capita income rose by only 513%.”

So we have compulsory attendance laws that do not increase school attendance all that much, which means that most parents would have sought ways to have their kids educated even if they were not forced to. And Simpson asked the question–if compulsory attendance laws and public schools did not significantly lead to large increases in attendance then why have them at all? Then he got to where the rubber meets the road. He said: “Or maybe a better way of phrasing the question is to ask how a system of public and compulsory education would benefit the educators and politicians who advocated such a system.” Good question–one kids educated in public schools today will probably never think to ask.

That’s the real question. And the answer is control. The educators and politicians would control the educational destinies of the nation’s children and could mold those to benefit not the children, but themselves. When Karl Marx advocated “Free education for all children in public schools” he knew what he was doing. Unthinking and under-educated Americans today still don’t.

There are big bucks to be made if compulsory education is the rule of the day and that return can continue on into perpetuity provided the curriculum is such that the kids are taught to be good little socialist consumers who will never dare question authority. As the head of the NEA said in a speech quoted in the DVD IndoctriNation “It’s all about money and power.”

A good step toward taking their money and power away is to begin to work to repeal compulsory attendance laws in as many places as possible and to begin to make a return to private education (preferably private Christian education) more feasible for many folks.

The “god” of public education (also known as the god of this world) has a vision for the education of your children. It is the same vision he has had since the Garden of Eden. While God-fearing parents want their children to be raised to fear and trust the Lord, the god of this world has other ideas. Often he does not manifest them openly, but ofttimes he does. Sadly, most Christians have no clue. In our day you could have hoped that some of them would have learned from what went on in West Virginia over 36 years ago now, but that mostly does not seem to be the case. So we reinvent the wheel and repeat the mistakes of history because we refuse to learn from them. And what happened in West Virginia in the 1970s with immoral and ungodly public school textbooks continues to happen today.

Back in March of 2006 WorldNetDaily carried a report written by Ron Strom in which he wrote: “Parents across the nation are taking action against both school districts and libraries that feature books, some of them required reading, that include sexual issues and obscenity many believe are inappropriate for school children. In Overland Park, Kansas, parents have organized to protest the inclusion of obscene books on children’s assigned reading lists in the Blue Valley School District. The parents took action after a few of them researched the books kids were being asked to read…The Kansas parents eventually started a website, Classkc.org designed to inform parents about the contents of their children’s reading material and about how to get involved to make changes. The site includes pages with explicit examples of narrative bestiality and oral sex, citing the school board-approved books from which the excerpts come.” Thank Heaven there were parents concerned enough to do that much. Does any of this sound vaguely familiar? It’s a replay of the Kanawha County, West Virginia situation of the 1970s, with minor updating, thanks to the Internet. But at the root, it’s the same devil’s game played the same way.

Interestingly enough, you can still find the Classickc website on the Internet. Its formal net address is http://www.classkc.org although the last updates on it were sometime in 2005. The information is still there, enough to give readers some idea of what went on in the Blue Valley School District. The website has been sponsored by a group called Citizens for Literary Standards in Schools.

One thing they have on their website is called “The Blue Valley F-list: 30 and counting.” I will quote briefly here. “The Blue Valley F-list includes books that contain the F-word that are required reading in Blue Valley Communications Arts classes. 13 of the 30 books are also approved by the district and supported by the current Board of Education…Of course the problem is not just the use of the F-word. But if a book lowers itself to this language, the tone and content of the entire book is almost always equally distasteful. Is this how we want our kids to learn? Is this what we want our kids to learn? Does studying the use of the F-word represent the majority Blue Valley patron view of what constitutes ‘quality literature’ or ‘quality education’?” If the school board in this district was elected by parents, as was the school board in Kanawha County in the mid-1970s, then people who supported this garbage should have been voted out in the next election. Were they? As I read through some of this, it is almost a carbon copy of the West Virginia situation except that in Kansas it does not appear that parents protested and marched in the streets, which they probably should have. And if it was a mostly quiet protest, then the “news” media could pretty much keep it under wraps except for a few articles in local papers.

So the god of public education seems to have a game plan that mostly works. Thirty one years after the West Virginia situation he plays the exact same card in this school district in Kansas and it seems as if he is getting by with it, due to the fact that the parents do not know history, nor do they seem to grasp the idea that they do not have to leave their children in these public propaganda factories to read public school versions of Playboy.

I don’t know at this point if the Blue Valley situation prompted any of the parents to remove their children from the public school system or not. I certainly hope and pray that it did. I sincerely hope it prompted lots of them to get their kids out–because they will never reform the public schools. They will (maybe they already did) learn what families in West Virginia had to learn–if you want your kids to be educated instead of brainwashed, you must get them out of the public schools. There is no other solution. As long as all you do is to try for public school “reform” you are playing the game on the turf of the god of public education and he will make the rules and you won’t like them.

Your only recourse is secession–secession from the public school system. Expose it for what it is and then get the kids out!