Liberal Enforced Political Education

Nobody is against education, with the possible exceptions of the Marxists, certain Bostonians and others in the intellectual backwaters of society are concerned, since the process of education is a special problem with concomitant dangers only for those in authoritarian governments, but the question naturally arises: whose education shall we teach?? How about the three Rs? No? The mere notion of education brings visions sugar plums to the horizon of those who live by government auspices or parents who have been led to believe that education is essential to prosperity. All this is doubtless true in their respective categories. The converse is also true.

So, what do we teach?? How do we test? Do we grade? A survey of persons who own houses, have good jobs and are free from sloth, crime, drug addiction[although not counted as a crime by some], and so on and so forth, reveals that a good, or higher, education is of some benefit to the individual and society at large. Inspecting this notion from the reverse perspective, those who drop out of high school, engage in crimes and drugs and such are found to be in the lower half of our society’s earnings and asset ownership percentiles and frequently in prison. Education has some effect on outcome. How many college grads graduated from Sing Sing?

Then, keeping on some fairly narrow mental analytical track here, we might just assume that ‘everybody’ would be in favor of a ‘good’ education that teaches skills and demeanor sufficient to become prosperous citizens in America. Grades would indicate who could advance in their education. But, they would have high taxes it seems. This is the exact point where the troubles begin.

Firstly, it is somehow considered ‘unfair’ that blue-eyed blond male Americans with lily-white ancestral pedigrees seem to get the best jobs and control most of the wealth. Few would quibble with this assessment. After them, still perusing the economic ladder, fellow brown haired persons of equally white lineage are next in line for the benefits of earned wealth. Lately, white females seem to join this group. This ‘unfairness’ results, some assert, from a critical inspection of financial and power level outcomes: it seems that those white males that partake and excel in the proffered education do well in society. What a notion! By algebraic subtraction, it is apparent that those of not exactly white origin, exempting, for the moment, Asians who present a set of stunning talking points to destroy several educational views, do not do so well in school or jobs although those white males who fail in the education area also are not participating in the American dream, unless they are proficient in crime or become lawyers. One is struck by the logic here and wonder how a test group such as ‘whites’ might be sorted out using annual incomes and asset attributes and then sorted according to education proficiency to effectively reestablish the educational and prosperity performance data that indicates a good education is essential. Whites with varying eye color who do poorly in school have lower incomes and less wealth? Yes. Is this also unfair? Going a bit further, if we include minorities in this array and rank them with respect to education and non participation in crime and drugs, we also get something that resembles the white case except a bit truncated. Most minorities or other persons, neglecting the eye color, do well also when they get a good education. Isn’t that strange? There are fewer non-Asian minorities who are prosperous. Asians are still an anomaly to be dealt with as an aside according to some. They seem to excel despite the lack of white skin and blue eyes and confound several racially-based societal theories. We wonder why.

So, what is unfair here??

According to Rethinking Schools Online, the following conservation in the classroom by children prompted some measures to ensure ‘equal outcomes’ or at least teach that notion:

Children’s dialogue:

Scene: children at play assembling Legotown[1]

Children were allowed to select their own Lego pieces for personal construction projects.

"I'm making an airport and landing strip for my guy's house. He has his own airplane," said Oliver.

"That's not fair!" said Carl. "That takes too many cool pieces and leaves not enough for me."

"Well, I can let other people use the landing strip, if they have airplanes," said Oliver. "Then it's fair for me to use more cool pieces, because it's for public use."

[A child said this??]

Discussions like the one above led to children collaborating on a massive series of Lego structures we named Legotown. Children dug through hefty-sized bins of Legos, sought "cool pieces," and bartered and exchanged until they established a collection of homes, shops, public facilities, and community meeting places. We carefully protected Legotown from errant balls and jump ropes, and watched it grow day by day.

After nearly two months of observing the children's Legotown construction, we decided to ban the Legos.

Now, here is that ‘educational analysis’ of the lengthy study of Legoland:

They were unable or unwilling to see that the rules of the game — which mirrored the rules of our capitalist meritocracy — were a setup for winning and losing. Playing by the rules led to a few folks winning big and most folks falling further and further behind. The game created a classic case of cognitive disequilibrium: Either the system is skewed and unfair, or the winners played unfairly. To resolve this by deciding that the system is unfair would call everything into question; young children are committed to rules and rule-making as a way to organize a community and it is wildly unsettling to acknowledge that rules can have built-in inequities. So most of the children resolved their disequilibrium by clinging to the belief that the winners were ruthless — despite clear evidence of Liam and Kyla's compassionate generosity.[2]

Here, we see the latent Marxist training of lower-level cadres blossom forth in the permitted language of ‘fairness’ and equality by simply watching how children act and, with a little filtering and prompting, showed that the standard capitalist outcomes will always, apparently, lead to inequality.

Apparently, the ‘teachers’ seem to not recognize that our world is not exactly ‘equal opportunity for all’ and that therein lurks competition is part of all societies, even the ones these ‘teachers’ wallow in. Using the crude sophistry of there being ‘only two sides to the question,’ they outlined the only two choices:

…: Either the system is skewed and unfair, or the winners played unfairly.

Translation: we need to change the system and dump capitalism.

Sure. This is a rare example of pure propaganda mixed with simian-level sophistry. Written in retrograde and couched as some ‘study,’ the ‘teachers’ find some ground-level problem with the capitalism system, as usual. When did Marxist sycophants every find anything different? We might just assume, at this point, that capitalism is unfair to Marxism, which obviously follows. Then, personal property must also be an unfair attraction for thieves. It must be unfair to dope addicts that prosperous types reject drugs.

We then can wonder how their ‘educational system,’ all syrupy and sticky with goodness and fairness might choose persons for various jobs in our society such as: police, brain surgeons, engineers, scientists, ditch diggers and prison wardens. We can already guess how their system would work to select druggies, the lazy and criminal specialists. We saw how the Marxists chose their people for certain jobs: Political favoritism and party membership. That was limited to a ‘fair’ 4% or so of the population.

Of, course; this is the crudest form of propaganda. It barrows heavily from the Soviet Indoctrination System [read ‘education’] of some 74 years of tedious agony, before the Berlin Wall went down, and suggests that the government must control education so the proper political outcomes will be observed. This is theoretically for the good of the party. This worked well in Cambodia with the Khmer Rouge in charge as the population actually did turn out well trained and ‘educated’ in the proper manner intended by the government, at least for those who survived. Only about two thirds of them were murdered, an advance on certain Russian and Chinese and certain Mozambique experiments. Those with glasses, who could probably read [how could they tell?] and had soft hands, were smothered with plastic bags and their skulls set up on a bamboo hut to dry and bear witness to ‘education’ and ‘fairness.’ Those who survived were more ‘equal’ than before.

What a phony performance! Are the liberals Grunting and Grabbing for more wealth again??

One way to cure this disease is to force all teachers to take national standardized exams for competency in reading, math and such along with an ongoing drug testing program that looks to see if their educational prowess is actually guided by hard drugs. Fire those who fail the screens and exams. Force teachers to teach students to excel at what they do best! The Marxist part of some candidate’s training need not even me measured [or mentioned] and reported as a metric since it is so silly as to be rejected out of hand. Nobody should fear a Marxist education except a victim. They rest of us will just have a few good belly laughs. The only things a Marxist ever introduced were more failure or cruelty. Cuba proves the point. Education and a fine ‘Medical system’ produce abject poverty. Great! Food rationing is good! Letting buildings fill up with mold and collapse are great for a progressive society.

This Legoland Learning deserves careful attention for praiseworthy Marxist political action and perhaps an award like the California Dumbing Down Award. Such fine work will generate a society of drooling automata who are arbitrarily assigned to their jobs by a result of precise role-playing and political favoritism with a fervent attempt to recreate something like another Moscow Central Planning, a government bureaucracy worthy of mention since it was the biggest economic failure in the history of mankind. The good citizens in the gulags in Russia, the grain fields of North Korea, the cane swamps of Cuba and many parts of Africa turned out to be all about ‘equal’ when their ‘education’ was finished and they were allowed to enjoy the society created for them by their political masters.

Any way to reinvent Marxism or one of its slimy political congeners is considered progressive by the left.

Parents: Don’t let your kids even talk to these political parasites. Much of the world already taught Marxism and it stinks.

THINK

rycK