Why I Love Schools That Ban Books

FakeNews
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
By: Jon Rappoport
July 21, 2017

Let’s start here. In 2016, as US News reports, “The Portland Public Schools Board on Tuesday decided to ban any classroom materials that cast doubt on climate change. The resolution passed unanimously and requires that textbooks and other material purchased by the district present climate change as a fact rather than theory. Material will also need to present human activity as one of the phenomenon’s causes.”

This is good news. Why? Because a school system has asserted how it wants education to be managed. This is how children will be taught. No tap-dancing around the issue. Here it is. Boom. Out in the open. If you don’t like it, too bad.

If you don’t like it as a parent, take your child out of the Portland system. Launch home schooling. Start your own private school. Move out of Portland to another public school district.

Let’s go all the way back to the beginning of the American public-education system and Thomas Jefferson, who tried (and failed) to get a bill passed in the Virginia legislature. Jefferson:

“But if it is believed that these elementary schools will be better managed by…[any] general authority of the government, than by the parents within each ward, it is a belief against all experience.…No, my friend, the way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to.”

Jefferson’s vision was hundreds of small wards within each state. Each ward would have its own public school, and the parents—not the government—would manage it and fund it.

If, in one school, the parents decide children will learn the moon is a painted illusion on the sky, so be it. If they decide that stones can speak or logic is a European plot against human reason, so be it. If they decide to assemble a list of a thousand banned books, which must be burned, so be it.

With this sort of vast decentralization, it wouldn’t be long before disgruntled parents within a ward would break away and start their own school.

The opposite system is federal. Federal mandates, funding, programs, curriculum.

Education run by the individual states is hardly better. These governments are also huge and demanding.

I don’t care what excuses parents come up with, in order to opt out of taking charge of education. It’s their burden, whether through home-schooling, by creating and sustaining their own private schools for their children, or deciding which schools to send their kids to. The responsibility is theirs.

The usual caterwaul goes this way: “But many, many parents aren’t equipped to understand what goes on in the classroom. We need government-run schools to make sure children receive a good education.”

Baloney. Since when is it necessary to design an entire school system around the ignorance of parents?

Why not say most parents don’t know how to raise their children, and therefore the state must take over that function, too?

Well, if you took a few hours to research the work of Child Protective Services bureaucracies around the US, you’d realize this is, in fact happening. The brutal overreach of these agencies, in many cases, amounts to kidnapping. On false pretexts, the State takes children and dumps them into foster care, where violent abuse and high-dose drugging with toxic psychiatric meds is endemic.

Face it, the government loves parents who say they don’t understand education, medical treatment, child-rearing—whatever responsibility parents are willing to abdicate, it’s a cause for celebration in government circles.

The State promotes a consensus of cluelessness and victimhood.

If I were a top federal bureaucrat, I’d sponsor a program (a few billion dollars ought to cover it) to investigate and discover the most ignorant set of parents in America, the mother and father who can’t think their way out of a wet paper bag. I would profile those parents from head to toe, and based on the information gleaned, I would then form 1000 federal programs (adequately staffed) to assume all the child-rearing functions those parents can’t perform AND IMPOSE THOSE FUNCTIONS ON ALL FAMILIES AND CHILDREN IN AMERICA.

“It takes a village.” And this is the kind of village we’re really talking about. Not some African tribal outpost. A federal ghetto.

So good work, Portland, in banning all books that question climate change. My only problem is you haven’t gone far enough. You should have daily chanting sessions for all the children: CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL, CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL, intoned for a half-hour after lunch. Perhaps you can attach electrodes to the children’s heads and produce readouts of secretly dissenting young minds in the classroom, and shunt those kids off to a Chinese-style re-education facility and call it “enrichment.”

Then, perhaps, more parents in your district would wake up and grab their kids and run for the hills and start their own schools, because they can’t deny what you’re doing any longer.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Advertisements

Jefferson Was Correct

thomasjefferson
Source: TheRoadLessTraveled
January 29, 2016

In his last years – after a lifetime of learning and experience, Jefferson had one thing preeminently on his mind: the principle of decentralized government.

Rather than saying “centralization,” Jefferson used the word “consolidation,” but they mean the same thing. Here’s his core statement on the subject, from his autobiography, written in 1821:

It is not by the consolidation, or concentration, of powers, but by their distribution, that good government is effected.

This statement put Jefferson at odds with the political leaders of his time and raised difficulties for him, as he writes in a letter to Judge William Johnson in 1823:

I have been blamed for saying, that a prevalence of the doctrines of consolidation would one day call for reformation or revolution.

For the following passage – a letter to William Johnson, written in 1822 – Jefferson’s words are set in italics and explanation/commentary in plain text:

They [a political party] rally to the point which they think next best, a consolidated government.

Here he points out that political parties tend to favor centralization, which they certainly have since.

Their aim is now, therefore, to break down the rights reserved by the Constitution to the States as a bulwark against that consolidation.

This party is trying to steal the power of the individual States and centralize it in one city, and they are willing to alter or bypass the Constitution to do so. The fear of which produced the whole of the opposition to the Constitution at its birth….

Here Jefferson is saying the Anti-Federalists were right and that the Constitution could not prevent the theft of liberties by the national government.

I trust…that the friends of the real Constitution and Union will prevail against consolidation, as they have done against monarchism.

Notice his phrase, “the real Constitution.” Already in 1822, he needed to make this distinction, because the Constitution was already being twisted, overridden, and bypassed. Alternately, he may have been referring to the original Articles of Confederation.

In a letter to William T. Barry in 1822, Jefferson writes this:

The foundations are already deeply laid by their [the Supreme Court Justices’] decisions for the annihilation of constitutional State rights, and the removal of every check, every counterpoise to the engulfing power of which themselves are to make a sovereign part.

Jefferson is likely referring to the Marbury v. Madison decision of 1803, a decision that…

Continue Reading At: TheRoadLessTraveled

Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Speaks At Length About The Election, Rampant Voter Fraud, Mainstream Media Failing, Solutions & Much More

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
November 11, 2016