What is one of the big ego trips in this world? It is making other people believe what “I believe”. Admittedly, I blog in part because I want to encourage others to believe what “I believe”. However, I am not trying to force anyone to believe what I believe, and I am not trying to suppress the beliefs of others. Some will not abide with such constraints.
If one lacks scruples, what is the latest scheme for forcing others to believe what “I believe”? Well, I would have to do more research than I want to do to credit the very first such innovator and the date he or she published his invention. So I will credit the noisiest and most blunt inventor instead.
What was the idea? Public education. If we want people to believe what “I believe”, and we have the power, then the easiest thing to do is to tax the people, put their children in public schools, and teach those children what “I believe”. Then, not only will we have taught the next generation what “I believe”, we will be in a better position to rule the world (see The Hand That Rocks The Cradle Is The Hand That Rules The World).
Exactly how does this work? Well, let’s consider what happened here. Where did we start? What has changed?
Where did we start? Before we became a nation, American colonists taught their children at home and in cooperation with other parents in their local communities. When these parents helped each other to teach their children, they learned to peacefully share their values. Since every society bases its laws upon shared moral values, their voluntary and cooperative efforts in education provided a solid foundation for our nation.
From whence came the moral values of our nation? The Bible. We have a Christian heritage, and the Bible codifies that heritage. From the Bible the founders of this nation created laws that matched their Christian heritage.
So what has changed? Unfortunately when they put the government in charge of educating their children, the people of this country did not realize the problem it would create. They did not realize that they had just begun the process of secularizing the education of our nation’s children. They did not realize they had just created a system that would slowly undermine our nation’s values.
Initially, education was a local concern, the province of small communities. Because the population grew and became urbanized, those small communities have mostly disappeared. Because power gravitates towards the central government, the education function gravitated towards state governments, and it is now moving towards the Federal Government. As a result, large bureaucratic institutions — over which parents have little control — now educate most of our nation’s children.
Because our government is a secular institution, the Federal Government in particular, our government demands the exclusion of Christian content from education. Hence, a school system that once had a rich Christian curriculum no longer has any such thing.
Because this process took many decades, most of us think this is just the way it should be, but it isn’t. We should want parents in charge of the education of their children, not politicians nobody trusts.
To maintain a republic, the People must establish the moral character of the nation. When politicians can connive to dictate morality, the People lose control. Then we no longer have government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Instead, we have whatever the elites can convince us is for our own individual good. Instead, we have a degenerating society.
What is a degenerating society? It is a society of people where each soul only thinks of itself. In a degenerate society, who worries about what is good for their neighbors? Each is too worried about me, myself and I. Each has become a meebot (see The rise of the meebot). And that sort of degeneration is exactly what we are seeing today.
What does public education most undermine? The family, and this is becoming more and more deliberate. Don’t think so? Then read this excerpt from the Manifesto of the Communist Party (published1888) by Karl Marx.
That culture, the loss of which he laments, is, for the enormous majority, a mere training to act as a machine.
But don’t wrangle with us so long as you apply, to our intended abolition of bourgeois property, the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, etc. Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class made into a law for all, a will, whose essential character and direction are determined by the economical conditions of existence of your class.
The selfish misconception that induces you to transform into eternal laws of nature and of reason, the social forms springing from your present mode of production and form of property-historical relations that rise and disappear in the progress of production — this misconception you share with every ruling class that has preceded you. What you see clearly in the case of ancient property, what you admit in the case of feudal property, you are of course forbidden to admit in the case of your own bourgeois form of property.
Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.
But, you will say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.
And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention, direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.
The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parent and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.
But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the whole bourgeoisie in chorus.
The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion than that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.
He has not even a suspicion that the real point is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.
For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.
Our bourgeois, not content with having the wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.
Bourgeois marriage is in reality a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with, is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private. (from here)
Marx was a great fan of public education. He advocated for a “free” education for all children in public schools, and he did so fully intending to undermine the family and the values of Western Civilization.
Marx may have been wrong about the historical inevitably of Communism, but he was square on the mark about what could be done with public education.
What is the most important thing we teach our children? What does the Bible teach us?
Proverbs 4:1-9 New King James Version (NKJV)
4 Hear, my children, the instruction of a father,
And give attention to know understanding;
2 For I give you good doctrine:
Do not forsake my law.
3 When I was my father’s son,
Tender and the only one in the sight of my mother,
4 He also taught me, and said to me:
“Let your heart retain my words;
Keep my commands, and live.
5 Get wisdom! Get understanding!
Do not forget, nor turn away from the words of my mouth.
6 Do not forsake her, and she will preserve you;
Love her, and she will keep you.
7 Wisdom is the principal thing;
Therefore get wisdom.
And in all your getting, get understanding.
8 Exalt her, and she will promote you;
She will bring you honor, when you embrace her.
9 She will place on your head an ornament of grace;
A crown of glory she will deliver to you.”
We can teach our children everything there is to know. Yet if they cannot discern the difference between good and evil, what good is it? If we have not taught our children to love and obey God, to care about each other, what kinds of lives will they live?