Canceling Western Civilization:Woke Fundamentalism’s Iconoclasm Is Just as Destructive as ISIS’s

In the spring of 2015, as ISIS forces made their way to the historic Syrian city of Palmyra, town officials became concerned for the safety of their historic treasures, which included priceless statuary and other artifacts from antiquity. Knowing that ISIS militants disdain the heritage of the past, and consider statues a form of idolatry, city officials sought to save their treasures from pillage by hiding them outside the city.

Even though ISIS jihadists believe artworks to be idolatrous, they are not above selling them on the black market to turn a quick profit. That is exactly what they intended to do with Palmyra’s treasures. So when they arrived and found the museums empty, they abducted Khaled al-Asaad, an 82-year-old archeologist, historian, and museum curator who had served for more than fifty years as head of antiquities in Palmyra. For a month, they interrogated and tortured al-Asaad, hoping to make him reveal the hiding place of the antiquities. But the 82-year-old scholar withstood them. Finally, when the militants realized they could not break him, they cut off al-Asaad’s head and hung his mutilated body on a column in a main square. They also placed a board in front of his body declaring that he had served as “the director of idolatry” and had represented Syria at “infidel conferences.”

What happened in Palmyra was not an isolated incident, except perhaps with regard to the fortitude with which the jihadists were resisted. At other historic sites, ISIS militants destroyed precious art with frenzy, sometimes even using power equipment to demolish cultural artifacts.

The Crusade Against Cultural Memory

ISIS exemplifies a radical form of cancel culture that seeks to eradicate all memory of anything beyond its movement. Its militants have mobilized mass hysteria to destroy not only physical artworks, but also the institutions that support the liberal arts.

Such hatred of art is not limited to Islam. In the 1650s, after Oliver ­Cromwell took control of Great Britain as Lord Protector, his men roamed the land with long poles, which they used to shatter stained-glass art in the high windows of ancient cathedrals. Cromwell, too, sought to eradicate much of the past, particularly where cultural memory had found expression in art and Christian holidays. Under the Protectorate he set up, the liberal arts were carefully regulated, and the theater was banned altogether.

Modern revolutionary movements have exhibited the same tendency. From the French Revolution through to the various Communist revolutions of the twentieth century, a recurring feature has been the attempt to purify society from past traditions and to build a new society from scratch. Using oversimplified ideologies and sloganeering, these movements whipped up the masses into a frenzy, mobilizing them to the mission of overthrowing existing structures and canceling cultural memory.

Fundamentalism can be religious or anti-religious. ISIS fundamentalists are religious (but anti-Christian), while Communist fundamentalists were virulently anti-religion. Regardless of the specifics of their worldviews, fundamentalist movements all seek to cancel the past by erasing cultural memory and by attacking the forms and institutions through which that memory is carried.

A Rising New Fundamentalist Threat

In late 2016 and early 2017, the Syrian Army recaptured the city of Palmyra, with help from the United States and Russia. Finding that ISIS forces had destroyed historic buildings, tombs, and temples, the authorities began a massive restoration effort.

Ironically, even as American forces were fighting against fundamentalism in the Middle East, a new form of it was rising within the United States itself. This new form of fundamentalism is subtle, disguising its agenda in the language of liberalism even as it seeks to destroy the liberal arts.

The new fundamentalism goes by various names, including wokeness, radical liberalism, critical theory, and progressivism. In this article we will simply refer to it as “Woke Fundamentalism,” or Wokeism for short.

Wokeism represents our own version of what happened in Palmyra, complete with high-profile destruction of statuary. Like ISIS, the Woke target zones of cultural significance, such as universities and historic sites. And while they do not behead people, they whip up mass hysteria to try to take down entire disciplines and to ruin the careers of people deemed insufficiently woke. Above all, Woke Fundamentalism is a virulent version of cancel culture, which aims to send Western civilization down the memory hole.

Drawn from the Communist Playbook

Last October, when woke protestors tore down statues of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt in Portland, Oregon, their destructive mission was obvious. What is less obvious is the more subtle way Wokeism has been attacking the liberal arts by undermining the notion that the arts have intrinsic value. The Woke follow Karl Marx, who taught that the liberal arts have merely extrinsic value as instruments that can be used to achieve various pragmatic goals.

Marxists sought, and seek, to cancel the liberal arts by redefining them in purely instrumental terms. A hallmark of twentieth-century experiments in Marxism was the effort to channel man’s aesthetic faculties to purely useful ends, and to insist that works of imagination and beauty should be created and/or used only as tools to serve the goals of the state. The Soviets sanctioned a new type of art known as “socialist realism,” which regulated expression, glorified technology, and reduced art to a purely didactic function. The Marxist philosopher and revolutionary Georgi Plekhanov set the tone for the new mood when he declared that the value of art lay in its social usefulness: “There can be no doubt that art acquires a social significance only insofar as it depicts, evokes, or conveys actions, emotions, and events that are of significance to society.”

Woke Fundamentalism has been drawing from the Communist playbook by treating the liberal arts as if their value is merely instrumental in advancing social-justice agendas. Among the Woke, the great literary, visual, and musical artworks of our tradition are valued purely for their didactic function in advancing a narrow range of political concerns, including feminism, critical race theory, post-colonialism, queer theory, and so on. By treating these disciplines in this way, the Woke leave the disciplines of higher learning in place even as they pragmatize and polemicize them, hollowing out their content so that these disciplines become little more than weapons in the hands of social justice warriors. Meanwhile, scholars who insist on the older view, that the liberal arts are ends rather than simply means, risk having their careers destroyed and their reputations ruined.

Earlier this year, at the annual meeting of the Society for Classical Studies, we got a sense of how tense this conflict has become. In an address to a panel of classicists, Dr. Mary Williams argued that the classics have more than instrumental value, saying, “Maybe we should start defending our discipline in and of itself, and saying it’s Western civilization, it matters.” She was roundly rebuked for these and other comments before being kicked out of the meeting.

The Saga of Dan-el Peralta

Dr. Williams’s main critic was Dan-el Padilla Peralta, an associate professor of classics at Princeton University. Peralta serves as an interesting case study in how the Woke radicalize academics by attacking the very thing that makes them good scholars in the first place, namely, love for their subjects.

In February the New York Times ran a glowing profile on Peralta, whose career emerged out of a youthful love for Greece and Rome and a desire to be transformed by the classics. At first he studied the classics simply because he loved the subject and believed the discipline had value in and of itself. But in college, when he announced his decision to major in the classics, he received push-back from some of his closest friends. You see, Peralta is black, and his friends wanted to know how his study of the classics would help the cause of social justice. If the classics could not help with an activist agenda, were they a worthy pursuit for a black man?

Peralta at first responded to these concerns by arguing that the classics were intrinsically valuable, regardless of their political utility. But then his perspective began to shift. The Times profile reports that he became increasingly troubled by the perceived lack of practical utility in the classics, until he finally abandoned the position that the literature of Greece and Rome has inherent value.

He found he wasn’t completely satisfied by his own arguments. The question of classics’ utility was not a trivial one. How could he take his education in Latin and Greek and make it into something liberatory? “That became the most urgent question that guided me through my undergraduate years and beyond,” Padilla said.1

After coming to these realizations, Peralta tried to unlearn much of his earlier education. “I had to actively engage in the decolonization of my mind,” he said.

Now that Peralta believes the classics possess a merely instrumental value within the context of activism, what type of scholarship is he engaging in? Among other things, he is now trying to bring attention to the problem of “whiteness” in the classics. Greek and Roman language and literature are intrinsically bound up with white supremacy, he teaches. This is part of his larger agenda of woke activism, and his reduction of classical scholarship to a tool for political and social ends.

Peralta is only one academic, but he represents a consensus among the Woke in academia that their various disciplines—from classics to history to art to literature—should be pragmatized and politicized. In these efforts, the richness and complexity of these disciplines are being reduced to a handful of simple formulae about race or gender.

Hollowed Out from Within

The reduction of the liberal arts into tools for social and political utility is just as destructive as ISIS’s rampage through historical sites. In fact, woke iconoclasm and anti-intellectualism are actually more sinister than book-burning and statue-crushing, for they allow institutions of higher learning to continue operating even as they are being subverted.

The physical destruction of artworks and books will not be resisted if people become convinced that such things have no value anyway. And that is exactly what the Woke seek to do as they propagandize university students with the notion that the liberal arts should be valued only as means to ends. When the study of Western civilization—together with its art, literature, and music—becomes simply another tool for woke activism, then even if these disciplines remain formally in place, they have effectively been cancelled.

In the battle to preserve the riches of our civilization, we need more people like Khaled al-Asaad, who courageously stood against the despoilers to defend his cultural heritage.

Robin Phillips, Salvo Magazine

America’s Descent into Totalitarianism

Everyone knows that the 2020 presidential election was stolen along with the two Georgia US senatorial elections. Little doubt much more was stolen. But no one is allowed to state the fact.

Yes, fact it is. Many experts attested to the facts of the theft. They did so in testimony before state legislators in the states where the election was stolen. The hours of expert testimony were available online. I linked to some of it. A search of this website’s archives would provide it or else provide evidence that the evidence was taken down by Google, YouTube, and the other censors.

You need to ask yourself why information that is contrary to the official narrative is taken down. If the information is wrong, the facts won’t support it, so why bother to censor it? The answer is that the information is correct, and we are not allowed to hear it and make up our own minds. The bought-and-paid-presstitutes are hired to tell us what to believe. Far too many Americans permit the corrupt presstitutes to control their minds.

The Democrats know that they stole the election. That is why they go to court in efforts to block legitimate investigations as “racist” or “lack of standing.” Why would Biden’s US Attorney General be suing the State of Georgia for legislating electoral reforms that require an ID to vote if Democrats don’t intend to use the same election fraud to steal future elections? https://www.rt.com/usa/527635-doj-georgia-voting-laws/

An ID is required for all sorts of reasons. For example, to board an airplane, to purchase alcohol, to drive a car. Why is it “racist” to require an ID to vote?

Attorney General Merrick Garland said: “This lawsuit is the first step of many we are taking to ensure that all eligible voters can cast a vote.” But what determines an “eligible voter” in the absence of an ID?

Why does the US Attorney General take such open sides by announcing he will regard Georgia’s efforts to ensure that only registered voters in Georgia who are Georgia residents can vote “as a racially motivated purpose that has no place in America today.”

In other words, the position of the US Department of Justice is that it is racist to require only citizens to be eligible to vote, and it is racist to prevent citizens and non-citizens from voting multiple times if they are voting Democrat. According to the Biden US Department of Justice “all lawful votes” includes all votes that are cast for Democrats. States that try to prevent unlawful voting are designated as racist, white supremacy enclaves that must be eliminated. https://www.rt.com/usa/527635-doj-georgia-voting-laws/

The Biden Department of Justice (sic) goes further and insinuates that any effort to hold Democrat election officials accountable for fraud is “a threat to democracy” and will elicit DOJ protection of the corrupt Democrat election official.

Perhaps the red states will find themselves thankful that Washington militarized their police forces. The training and equipment give the red states some chance of resisting the Democrats’ decision to impose absolute tyranny on Americans.

Note that red, the communist color, is applied to the traditional conservative states, and that blue, which has no such association, is used for the anti-American, anti-Western Civilization states, the states that defund police so that rioters, looters, and violence can “remake society.”

The designation of Republicans as red aids the presstitutes work to convince Americans that it is the red states that are anti-American. They are red like Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, and Mao. By implication of the word “red” the entire Cold War History is evoked against the red states,

Have you noticed that no matter what the social collapse in blue states, no matter the violence against white people, no matter the boarded up stores, the people fleeing to red states, no matter the swiftly rising crime rate in blue cities, there is still no complaint. The official position of the Democrats, white liberals, and presstitutes is that only blue states are free of white supremacy. Only blue states are morally fit for life. If so, why the massive flight from blue states?

The media knows the election was stolen. The evidence was too widespread and transparent, beginning with the amazing middle of the night sharp upturn in Biden votes in swing states. The presstitutes’ job was to demonize any assertion or suggestion that there were electoral irregularities. Prior to the presentation of evidence the presstitutes were already chanting with one voice: “there was no election fraud.”

Even Republicans like Mitch McConnell fell in line with the chant. Others were intimidated.

So the election was stolen despite the knowledge of all.

What does that tell you about democracy in America?

How can election fraud be prevented when the US Department of Justice brings lawsuits against legitimate election reform on the grounds that it is racist to limit voting to one vote by a US citizen with a valid ID?

Appeasement of Evil will have Lethal Consequences

If you appease people who are out to destroy you, then you make it easier for them to destroy you. If you meet them halfway, or even 1 percent of the way, they are determined to destroy you, 100 percent, regardless. When people declare war on all that you hold dear, they have attacked you personally, even if they have never met you. They are coming for you, through the destruction of all your liberty and property, and they mean to obliterate you if you don’t submit to their undiluted tyranny. At some point, you must figure out how to win, and how to decisively defeat them — because they, and their kind, are never going to stop.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

The Dystopian States of America

One of the earliest books I’ve read when I was a teenager with an interest in politics was Alexis de Toqueville’s “Democracy in America”. I didn’t understand all the concepts in the book at the time, but nevertheless, it was an interesting read to say the least.null

Global research firm Gartner stated decentralized identity has entered its early adoption phase, setting the stage for significant growth opportunities. This company created a product that could be a game-changer in personal identity and data…. Read more.

The key word in that book is democracy. 

Due to the mass indoctrination in the public (and private) school system which replaced education and critical thinking, Americans now believe that the USA is a democracy. That’s very far from the truth. 

The WASP founding fathers of America even said something along the lines of: we are giving you a Republic IF you can keep it. 

Fast forward to 2021, and America is becoming a totalitarian dystopian state. One of the main culprits for this situation is universal voting rights working in tandem with mass immigration from the third world.

You can’t run first world software on third world hardware, that’s a major red pill for so-called conservatives/right wingers.

The main problem with our so-called democracy is the “one man, one vote” mantra. 

Forget about election fraud. 

How come the vote of a homeless drug addict has the same impact/value as the vote of a family man working 2 jobs to put his kids through college? 

In the movie Starship Troopers, military service was not mandatory. However if you wanted to vote and directly affect the lives of millions of people, you must have served a term within the military. 

This was so that you understood what you were protecting and why voting mattered. See also  Why Are Large Numbers Of Birds Suddenly Dropping Dead In Multiple U.S. States?

Those who served were granted citizenship. This ended with an odd combination of a democracy and a militaristic dictatorship, which is still far preferable to any system that allows the bulk of our government to be elected. 

Any country that elects people like Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Alexandria Cortez, Rashida Talib, Ilhan Omar, and those like them, does not deserve to exist.

 We are not living in any country that resembles the ideal of The United States as founded, and that’s because of the dilution of those who should have the right to vote. null

There is a reason why the founders essentially only gave male land owners the right to vote, and that’s because they would care to protect their freedom. 

Over half of the American population does not share that ideal today.

Giving an illegal the right to vote, a person who has no concept of the history of a nation, or the rights that people of the past died for, is an absolute high crime on the level of treason.

Over the last year we have seen unelected bureaucrats and health secretaries that couldn’t even tell you how to bandage your arm, decimate personal freedom for a sickness that never even matched the flu, and most likely never existed at all. 

You were told your job wasn’t essential and forced into unemployment. 

You were forced to wear an ineffective and dangerous diaper on your face, with zero evidence of efficacy under threat of fines and punishment. 

All this was claimed as a law, when no law was passed. 

The Constitution and state constitutions did not give any executive the power to do anything they did, PERIOD. 

Executive orders do not apply to citizens and private property.

 Anyone claiming they do has been misinformed, including judges that made the claim. 

Those judges must be disbarred. All politicians supporting the measures must resign. If they do not, then they must be arrested, convicted, and incarcerated for a term no less than fifty years.

 The real truth is that they deserve execution after committing high crimes against the sovereign rights guaranteed to all citizens. 

The truth is that we are in fact living a dystopian nightmare.

 If nothing is done, it will no longer be dystopian, but just a nightmare. 

Dystopia still has a portion of life that is good, or at least appears good.

 That part is rapidly disappearing.

Chris Black

Fatherlessnes Can Be Fatal

There were more shootings in Chicago over the weekend. The irony of these shootings, in which 52 were shot and 5 died (Chicago Sun-Times Wire, 6/21/21), is the weekend itself….Father’s Day weekend.

Some sociologists note that what we’re seeing in large part is quite often the result of fatherlessness in America.

Mark J. Perry, a scholar with American Enterprise Institute, put out a chart on March 30, 2021 on fatherlessness in America. He compiled the statistics from the National Center for Health Statistics, and the chart compares the “percentage of U.S. births to unmarried women by race” for the year 2019.

The chart notes that:

•11.7% of Asian births in America were to unwed mothers,

•28.2% to white mothers,

•40% for all races,

CARTOONS | CHIP BOK VIEW CARTOON •52% for Hispanics,

•69% for Americans Indians,

•70% for Blacks.

That explains a lot. The breakdown of the family in America is one of the leading causes of societal breakdown. The cliché is correct: “As the family goes, so goes society.”

Fathers can make a huge difference in the life of their children, and their absence can lead to all manner of problems.

African-American leaders are expressing concern. John Diggs, M.D. of Massachusetts once talked with me about the devastation wrought by the breakdown of the family.

About 15 years ago, Dr. Diggs told me in an interview for Christian television that the seeds of fatherlessness were sown in the sexual revolution: “Social science has borne out that all the bad effects associated with sex outside of marriage have increased under this paradigm. For example, you can look in the Black community. If you look at 1960, it was on the order of 5 out of 100 children were born out-of-wedlock. Now that number is something on the order of 60 out of 100. And once you get that kind of number, the whole society tends to break down.”

Tragically, that 60% has now increased to 70% as noted in the chart cited above.

Diggs continued: “Marriage has a very important function. It gets people to commit to each other even when they don’t want to, even when they don’t like each other for some short period of time. It’s financially better to have a mother and father in the house where you have two different personalities, two different orientations in terms of maleness and femaleness affecting both the child, both the girl and the boy. And I think, clearly, the crisis of fatherlessness can be laid at the feet of the sexual revolution.”

He said one of the biggest problems with all this is viewing the father as “expendable.”

And who fills in the gap? Uncle Sam? The gang leaders? Of course, many young men become gang-bangers because the gang leader becomes surrogate fathers for them. The Bible warns: Bad company corrupts good morals. And the whole thing becomes a vicious cycle.

And then on top of all this: welfare transfer payments reward those who bear children out of wedlock and punish those households where the father remains. We get what the government subsidizes. What a tragic nightmare. Fatherlessness can be fatal.

To compound all this are those on the left who are saying we need to defund the police.

Civil Rights leader Robert Woodson thinks that is a terrible idea. Woodson created the Woodson Center in Washington, D.C., which has had many years of providing effective help for inner-city communities. A Gallup Poll backs up Woodson. The pollsters found that 81% of Blacks do not favor defunding the police.

Noted Woodson: “The people who are advocating hostile actions against police do not have to suffer the consequences of their advocacy. They live in gated communities; they live where they are protected.”

Woodson added, “This battle is critical to our future. I don’t think we have been this close to just anarchy that you see this assault on police. It is resulting in withdrawal from some of the most high crime areas. As a result, murder is soaring in some of these cities, and it’s directly related to the nullification of policing.”

Woodson remembered when Black families used to be a model for the rest of the nation. He said, “From 1930-1940, during America’s 10 years of depression, when racism was enshrined in law, elderly people could walk safely in their community without fear of assault because of our faith in Christ and also our marriage—we had the highest marriage rate of any group…that has been our history.”

Ultimately, a spiritual renewal is what is needed to turn things, including fatherlessness, around. Woodson told me, “As a country, we must seek redemption and understand that we need to be all that we can be as a nation. If we were to mimic Christ and understand the importance of our future, it depends upon redemption and restoration.”

Jerry Newcombe, townhall.com

What’s Happened to Today’s Kids ?

“In my day” (I am 58), most people rebelled against brainwashing. Whatever we were taught about sex, contemporary music, contemporary entertainment — we generally questioned it. Kids taught by Catholic nuns in the 1950s and 60s almost always questioned them; today’s leftist school officials and college professors are met with blind acceptance. Often we were right and sometimes we were wrong, but we questioned, back in the day. I see NONE of that today. The great majority of young people, if raised by woke and leftist parents, adopt these woke attitudes themselves. If raised by more conservative and rational parents, then they rebel — against their parents, not against the authorities in schools and culture who taught them to be woke. Back in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, brainwashing almost never worked. Today, it almost always does. What is going on?

Here are some of the reader replies (from Facebook):

Parents have stopped teaching their children HOW to think, HOW to reason, HOW to think for themselves! For some reason parents nowadays feel like teaching their children HOW to reason is “overstepping” their boundaries as parents!!! IN OTHER WORDS: STUPID thinking by parents has enabled communists and liberals to seize our children’s minds.

AKA: CRITICAL THINKING … Essentially parents have set their children up for the ripe picking from communists.

It’s made for a generation of Americans that all disagree with each other!

Social Media, through fear and intimidation, drives many young people to conform or be socially mocked and shunned…which they feel is a fate worse than death. Same goes for adults in the workplace, whether it’s a corporation or academia. 

Adults today are themselves often self indulgent , obsessed with eternal youth” , their outward appearance and status in the community , with friends and family while independent and free thinking goes extinct. A shallow existence and narcissism has crept in in our society leaving children ripe for brainwashing by the state. with little parental input . Parents have been unaware and unwilling themselves to take charge. Many are waking up to this nightmare and many have seen it coming like a speeding train. The shift away from family values centered on the children they brought into this world is profound and adults are often more like their children seeking out a “ friendship “ from them rather than being the mature adults they are called on to be as a responsible parents. The foundation is falling out from beneath the family and slowly a new world of separation, intercession and disruption is being built in it’s place destroying and replacing the bedrock of a solid family and faith oriented society into a faithless, state authority.

In the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s it was the left challenging the mostly conservative establishment.

Socialism and Marxism were already ideologically imbedded in the culture, in music, literature, movies and art.

To be ‘critical’ in those times meant, being a leftist. They wanted total control of the institution’s, especially in all levels of education.

Now they have it and they do not plan to let it go. So now our children are being indoctrinated to be good leftist and not challenge the leftist establishment.

Concepts like ‘criticism’, ‘opposition’, ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘critical or independent thought’ have always been of instrumental value to the left. They are to be used as instruments to get the left in power. Once they are in power, those concepts are no use to them anymore.

The left is only concerned about one thing; to get in power by any means necessary so that it can implement they nihilist and destructive program.

Michael, I said the same thing and asked the same question 30+ years ago as an immigrant with two kids going to school (private and public). It was the parents who hated me the most for fighting the system for the benefit of their kids.

Helicopter parents not allowing their children to make mistakes and free range and social media addiction I believe are two factors in a majority of young adults unaware of the reality of (to use their term) “adulting” and believing in something.

I always had the freedom to read anything, and I chose my own books. And my mom was a socialist. I had the intellectual curiosity to find answers. Barry Goldwater woke me up. 😉

My thought is when we grew up we read books and went outside interacted with other kids explored which led to an experience that forced our brain to develop in a different way than kids force fed so much from thousands of tv shows social media and biased media/ schools. Think about the difference between reading a book and having to flood that image into your brain vs being fed that image into your brain. Think about interacting with other kids with no adult supervision at an early age learning to problem solve and resolve conflicts vs no interacting.

There is no attempt to provide guidance on critical thinking. There are no consequences for making mistakes. They are taught from an early age to blindly accept authority and never question ANYTHING. Peer pressure, social media, and lots of other things enter the equation as well.

I think they are browbeaten into it in order to “belong”. Belittled & called names… not the tactics normal, compassionate people use…. not tactics used by those who believe you have the right to your own opinions & beliefs.

Most of the last two generations of parents failed. Raised the current stupidity. Some of us are now trying to save our own kids. How many over 50 caved to masks and vaccines knowing more than anyone the past? They created most of the “parents” of today and only have themselves to blame.

The public education system and other government funded entitlements have achieved their goals through systemic indoctrination for decades. Most parents gladly deposit their children on the doorstep of indoctrination because they have been programmed to believe the government will be a better parent and is truly concerned about all children. Parents are merely vessels to produce obedient voters and voices. Questioning the authority leads to being ostracized by the group. Being ostracized by the group leads to probably losing the entitlements you’ve come to depend on. And if you have never learned critical thinking skills it is too overwhelming to venture too far from your comfort zone. Frightening scenario we are in.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

K-12: Infantilization

Our Education Establishment brags about its wonderful doctrines and the many advances seen in our public schools. The real story is quite the opposite, and chronicles a steady and unnecessary decline.

Notre Dame Professor Patrick Deneen says that many students at even the best schools are know-nothings and cannot state who won the Civil War. Deneen concludes that such dismal ignorance could not possibly be accidental. Ergo, it’s what our schools are designed to do—i.e., stupefy young brains with cultural amnesia.

Students emerging from high school, after 12 or 13 years in classrooms, remain shockingly ignorant. That’s nearly 10,000 hours of class time. Think how much children could learn if schools were designed to teach.

Once upon a time, children went to school to learn essential knowledge. No more. They learned the satisfaction that comes from mastering complex information and dealing with more difficult challenges. No longer.

When children are young, we often hear, they think like children. Traditionally they moved on to thinking like adults. In many societies the age of reason was a mere seven years old. Think about that. Clearly, children matured fast. No more. Now they are encouraged to remain children. Deliberate stagnation fosters infantilization, and in time adults who are less independent and less resilient than in years past.

Imagine for a moment what it feels like for so many millions of wretched young people trapped in our public schools. Most are not learning much, not doing anything interesting or important, certainly not having any fun. What is the point of all this empty activity? Where is the meaning?

Two psychologists recently published an article about “existential health.” They argued that “a large and growing body of research shows that meaning in life is critical to human flourishing. Individuals who view their lives as lacking meaning, compared to those who have a strong sense of meaning, are more likely to be depressed, anxious, and suicidal.”

Who allowed our schools to become meaningless? Here is the central mechanism. Progressives view school as a way to create new kinds of children. Once schools become highly invested in social engineering, they place proportionally less value on academic advancement. Infantilization begins.

Problem was, the professors had to justify their new approaches so John Dewey and William Kilpatrick, our two most famous “educators,” raved about the educational benefits of Activities, Experience, and Projects. This hype signaled no love for knowledge, quite the opposite. Think of children building sand castles. The children may be passionate; they may spend many hours pleasantly. But they’re not learning anything new. Trouble is, the Education Establishment pretends that building sand castles is education. Pretty soon, that’s all the children do, build another sandcastle. Hardly aware of it, the children are dumbed down and ground down.

Progressives created classrooms where familiar wheels appear to spin. But nothing important is taking place. That’s why students never can reach the age of reason. They’re trying to fulfill a socialist template that does not value cognitive content. The children remain perpetually children, as dumb at 16 as at six. There is the tragic accomplishment of our socialist educators.

The common pattern is, with great fanfare, to create a steady dose of meaningless activity, starting in kindergarten and lasting through graduation from high school. Here’s what the school system loses in the process: pride, confidence, enthusiasm, optimism, a can-do spirit, and a continuous immersion in intellectual activity. Meaningful intellectual work is aborted. Children are kept soft, formless, and amorphous. More jellyfish than vertebrate.

Public schools are not easy to fix because John Dewey and his gang built social engineering into the fabric of the school. If they stop doing this for a second, the entire Education Establishment might have a nervous breakdown. What’s the point, the professors would want to know. You would answer them patiently: The point is learning about the world so students can become adults. The professors would scream, Stand back, we are creating a New World.

So the wheels turn, the sun comes up and goes down, the months pass, and nothing substantive happens. Nothing essential is learned. There is no deeper understanding of anything.

How can I say this so confidently? Because so many reach the end of high school without knowing the names of the oceans. They cannot find Spain on a map of the world. They can’t multiply 23×19 without a calculator. There is a vast Sahara of emptiness; a dry and pointless wind mocks all human endeavor.

What, throughout all those thousands of hours, is learned? Something academic, or something practical? Not too likely.

Imagine Sherman marching to Georgia. He wanted to destroy the South thoroughly; he wanted to burn down everything standing. He wanted to twist every piece of train track. Sherman’s march through Georgia was all about leaving nothing and this is what Progressive educators seem compelled to do when they march through the traditional curriculum.

The whole gimmick for 100 years is simply stated. Teach as little as possible. Don’t ask children to memorize anything. Okay, starting now, let’s do the opposite. Present as much academic content as each teacher can manage. Encourage children to memorize when helpful or appropriate. By all means, let’s sing songs, dance, and have fun. But at the end of the week, children should know more than on Monday.

Here’s the disgraceful victory our Progressives pulled off. Many students are as ignorant on Friday as the week before. That’s what is killing us.

—–

Bruce Deitrick Price’s new book is: Saving K-12 — What happened to our public schools? How do we fix them?

It is Time to End Compulsory Public Education.What is mandated public education but enslavement of the young?

The State is teaching second graders “restorative justice.”. High schoolers are instructed that their families “reinforce racist/homophobic prejudices.” Government officials –  teachers and school board members – are targeting parents for their opposition to the teachings of critical race theory.

And we grovel to the State, begging them to make it stop.

This is not the profile of a free people.

The fight against the government’s efforts to teach and promote evil will always exist as long as there are public schools. The evil may be different in degree – it won’t always be critical race theory or the like – but it’ll still be present. The struggle to control curriculum will take place not in the classroom but in the courts, the legislature, the school board, and the agencies.

And this struggle, this fight against the State, will continue until we address the greater problem. Until we excise the cancer. Until we end State control over families.

What I mean is this: The State has no authority to compel a child attend public school. It is time to end compulsory education.

A Brief History

Mandated education is a relatively new idea in the West. In America, it grew from colonial-era laws requiring towns to appoint teachers or create schools once they got to a certain size. Around that same time in Europe and England, schools emerged within the community and from the churches to provide religious training and practical instruction.

Public education in America proliferated in the early 1800’s.1 By 1890, “the majority of states and territories had passed mandatory attendance laws,” providing penalties (usually unenforced) for truancy and offering exemptions for equivalent education.2

By the early 1900’s, compulsory education laws were even more common in the United States. The Supreme Court had endorsed State power to “compel [school] attendance.”3 Save for a few publicly dissenting voices, the authority of the State to “impose reasonable regulations for the control and duration of basic education”4 has gone unopposed.

One would have to think that this has to do with public opinion. It’s tough to find parents that disagree with K-12 education generally. Every parent wants their child to be educated. Instead, they differ on the specifics: private or public school, the subjects emphasized, secular vs. religious instruction, etc.

Similarly, the Supreme Court has no appetite for considering laws compelling public schooling. (One of the failures of originalism has been their silence on this issue.) Instead, it takes up cases involving the rights of students. They’ll decide on matters involving the violation of a 13 year-old student’s Fourth Amendment rights after a strip search. They’ll consider whether, under the First Amendment, a school may ban student speech that promotes illegal drug use.

A young person may be forced to go to a government school – a restraint of their movement and freedom – but at least the Court lets them speak. Their freedom of association might be violated, but at least they can’t be subject to unreasonable strip searches. Even prisoners have rights.

This gets us to the question of authority.

By what authority does a State have to compel attendance at a government school?

The Supreme Court has held that students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.5 What of the right to not attend school?

Is the right to not be forced to attend a government school lesser than the freedom of speech?

To this you might respond that society needs to have an educated populace, for kids to stay off the street. A more discerning mind might say that public education is a babysitter so the parents can work. A true cynic would agree with all of that and add that the public school system is a jobs program. Anyway, those are all State interests; they have nothing to do with State authority.

A Christian might observe that God created three institutions: the family, the church, and the civil government. Each has a separate jurisdiction. The government enforces civil and criminal laws; the family is governed from within, with parents providing discipline and educating their children as they see fit; and the church has jurisdiction over matters of religion and its members. Under Christian philosophy, then, the State exceeds its jurisdiction when it involves itself in matters reserved for the family. Something to think about.

But I digress.

And I’ll rephrase the attendance question in a way that’s more accurate:

“By what authority does a State have to force a child attend a government school, where they are taught poisonous and evil doctrines?”

I disagree that this is a power inherent to a State. This wasn’t a power accepted at the formation of this country or when the Constitution was drafted. Even where there were laws mandating schooling, they didn’t mandate public education. There’s a big difference there.

To that you might say it’s the consent of the governed: “The voters gave the State the authority to compel public education.”

My parents never gave the State that authority. Did yours?

Oh, you might answer that democracy allows for such laws. The majority – by way of votes – determines the education of the country’s youth.

Ah, the cliché of democracy. Voters that don’t know your child can control how your child is education?

Which one of you would give a stranger that power? Do you not see the problem?

Here is the truth: the consent of the governed is a myth.

And even if there were consent – and there certainly is not – consent of the governed isn’t good enough. It is the consent of the parents that matters.

And what is the parental consent? There is none. Even the concept of “Parental Oversight” of public schools and teachers is a legend promoted by those interested in retaining their power.

Let’s say your child goes to a public school.6 If you disagree with their curriculum, that means you’re in the minority. Too bad. The majority – through their elected officials, not yours – have already picked what’s being taught.

And if you fight their curriculum in court, they have the law on their side. The Supreme Court has held that educators have broad discretion to set curriculum so long as it is “reasonably related to a legitimate pedagogical concern.”7 This would include curriculum and viewpoints against which the parent or child disagrees. Their values, not yours.

With little chance for relief in the courts, you’re going to need to change the decision-makers to exercise your God-given parental right to oversee the education of your child.

Good luck. Your plan of action would be: (1) establish an agenda; (2) recruit candidates; (3) rally voters; (4) get your people elected; and (5) have the elected officials carry out your wishes.

Not one parent can change the agenda of the educational “elite.” And even if you are successful (a near impossibility), it would be too late. Your child has already been brainwashed, and thus victimized, by the nonsense they’re peddling.

Where do you re-educate the child who has been taught he is an oppressor?  

How do you heal the psychological damage to a 9-year old who feels guilty for being white?

And even if there is change at the local level, how much will it really matter?

The Biden Department of Education plans to promote racial equity in schooling, brainwash students on “their own biases,” and endorses the inaccurate (and terrible) “1619 project.” Their plan to revolutionize American schools includes quotes from radicals Ibram X. Kendi (who alleges “Trumpism is the violent defense of white male supremacy”) and Becki Cohn-Vargas (who wants to educate young children on anti-racism and has endorsed garbage articles that claim “objectivity” or “neutrality” are parts of white supremacy culture).  

All the while, mere disagreement with the insane educational priorities of the racially obsessed will make you a target. They’ll fight you every step of the way. If not in court then on the streets. If not at the school board then on the internet. Exercise your First Amendment rights and these government officials will put you on their list.

It’s happening in Loudon County, Virginia. Teachers, school staff, elected officials, and even the county prosecutor were part of a Facebook group that:

compiled a lengthy list of parents suspected of disagreeing with school system actions, including its teaching of controversial racial concepts — with a stated purpose in part to “infiltrate,” use “hackers” to silence parents’ communications, and “expose these people publicly.” (Source: Luke Rosiak of The Daily Wire.)

After some parents objected to the teaching of critical race theory, one teacher promised to shut down their “hateful garbage” while another teacher called a parent a “douche.” They fight with the support of the NAACP, which had e-mailed school officials to inform them that a teacher’s husband had criticized critical race theory. According to Rosiak, the e-mail stated the NAACP was hopeful the teacher “does not share the same ideologies as her husband.”

Loudon County is the exception, not the rule. These brawls typically aren’t so public. (Though Loudon County shows just how audacious these people have become.) Likewise, the change in policies aren’t done out in the open. Instead, they’re done in the bureaucratic back rooms, within the school boards, at the school districts. Most parents don’t know what’s going on until it’s too late.

One final point.

For the sake of argument, let’s say that the government does have authority to compel a child attend a public school. What happens when “education” transforms from reading, writing, and arithmetic to critical race theory and the LGBTQ agenda?

Does the State have the power to compel such education?

Under current law, yes.

If you accept the State’s authority to compel education, don’t you accept the State’s authority to define “education”?

You can think about that answer.

Conclusion.

It’s hard to overstate what this fight is about, because it’s about nearly everything. It’s not just about what gets taught in the schools. It’s about the power of the State over the rights of the parents. It’s about indoctrination starting in elementary school. It’s about retaliation at the local level, fights in the courts, and forced compliance with their twisted worldview.

To break this down in its simplest form: this is good vs. evil fighting over the mind of a child.

Victory is removing the child from their grasp.