Thursday, January 31, 2019

Where's Your MAGA Hat?

Image result for maga hat

BREAKING: Covington Lawyer Goes NUCLEAR On Live TV; Creates Big Name “Hit List” For Libel Lawsuits
The Next News Network
Published on Jan 23, 2019

Kanye West: MAGA hat ‘made me feel like Superman’
Washington Post
Published on Oct 11, 2018

Teens Attacked For Wearing MAGA Hat / Is This a Trend?
Tim Pool
Published on Jul 5, 2018

Students wearing 'MAGA' hats told to leave coffee house
Fox News
Published on Dec 11, 2017
Image result for maga hat
In Defense of the MAGA Hat
By Rich Lowry
January 24, 2019
MAGA hat
The primary offense of the Covington Catholic High School kids wasn’t so much allegedly mobbing, mocking or getting in the face of a Native American drummer at the Lincoln Memorial.

It was wearing red Make American Great Again hats.

That was the actual, incontestable conduct that created the predicate for what happened next—the social-media mob, the cable TV brouhaha, the viral videos and all the rest of the grief they’ve been subjected to since. It all stems from presumption of guilt from what they wore on their heads.

For much of progressive America, the moment you pull on a red MAGA hat, you’re suiting up for Team Racist. You’re marking yourself out as a bigot and a goon. Your individuality doesn’t matter anymore, only the cap.

If the kids had been wearing red Washington Nationals caps, the imbroglio might not have gotten any attention at all. Even if it had, many of those progressives who immediately took a critical view of the students might have been more inclined to view them as immature teenagers, rather than soldiers of hate.

As an analysis at Vox noted of the Covington incident, “The hats extinguished pretty much any benefit of the doubt a liberal observer might have given these kids.”


Alyssa Milano notoriously tweeted, “The red MAGA hat is the new white hood.” Which would be close to an apt analogy if people donned MAGA hats to carry out hideously violent crimes against African-Americans and other people uncongenial to them.

In a similar vein, TV writer and producer David Simon pronounced, “Once a campaign prop, a MAGA cap now fronts for such raw evil.” He makes it sound like a red baseball cap with an embroidered American political slogan on the front is the equivalent of the totenkopf.

This is, to put it mildly, an uncharitable view of their fellow citizens, who voted by the tens of millions for the guy who invented the red cap.

It speaks to the marketing genius of Donald Trump that he managed to create not just a potent piece of campaign memorabilia, but a cultural marker that will forever be associated with this period of our national life.

The MAGA hat denotes support for him, yes, but also unapologetic patriotism and a certain boldness. In large swaths of the country, the hat is commonplace. The Covington kids go to school in a suburb of Cincinnati, Ohio, where support for Trump was strong in 2016; surely many of their parents, teachers, and priests voted for him.

In such places, the cap isn’t widely considered a provocation, although it carries some risk wherever it is worn. People occasionally get assaulted for doing nothing other than wearing it.

And is that a surprise, if the cap symbolizes only one thing for the left? As Commonweal magazine columnist Mollie O’Reilly wrote of the Covington controversy, “You don’t let your kid wear a MAGA hat and then act offended when they get taken for a racist.”

Well, there’s the minor detail that your kid might not be remotely racist. It should be incumbent on adults to realize, much though they hate Donald Trump, that not everyone who supports him or wears his political paraphernalia is a hater.

It is the adults who take the childishly reductive view of this question. When Jamie Lee Curtis regretted her snap condemnation of the students, journalist Victoria Brownworth tweeted at the actress her disappointment: “DID YOU MISS THE MAGA HATS?”

This is why very little outrage has been directed at the venomous, freakishly anti-gay, openly racist Black Hebrews who berated and taunted the students. They weren’t wearing MAGA hats.

And this is why many figures on the left refused to relent in their campaign against the students, even after exculpatory video emerged. The kids hadn’t gone out of their way to mob the drummer, or to create a nose-to-nose confrontation. The one thing progressives still knew for a fact was that the kids—at least some of them—had worn MAGA caps. And what else was there to know?

For them, this rendered the Covington students no longer individuals, and no longer children. They didn’t deserve a bit of leeway for any mistakes. They were simply political and social symbols to be crushed underfoot. Never mind that each of them was a teenage kid who—even if you think he has bad taste or noxious political views now—has a lifetime ahead of him to grow and change.

They wore the hats, and can never be forgiven.

Rich Lowry is editor of National Review and a contributing editor with Politico Magazine.
CNN Decries U.S. Troops in Iraq Who Had Their MAGA Hats Signed by Trump
By Nicholas Fondacaro
December 26, 2018
During President Trump’s surprise visit to Al Asad Airbase in Iraq to celebrate Christmas with the U.S. troops there, he rubbed shoulders with America’s finest as he took selfies and signed autographs for them. Some of those autographs were signed on the iconic “Make America Great Again” hats that some soldiers reportedly brought to him. For any other president it would be treated a fun and warm moment, but not for this one and not if CNN had anything to say about it.

During Wednesday’s edition of The Situation Room, fill-in host and chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta, seemingly under the assumption Trump was handing out the hats, wanted Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr to tear into the President for turning the trip into a “campaign stop.”

“Is that unusual, to see the President doing that on base? Does this run the risk of the President, you know, facing some accusations that he's turning some of this into a campaign stop? What do you think,” he asked.

Starr informed Acosta that reports said it was the troops who showed up with the hats (apparently that was a thought that hadn’t occurred to Acosta). “We will have to see if that actually proves to be the case. The question is, if they brought them or if the President brought them; what commander allowed that to really happen,” Starr continued in a huff.

Seemingly eager to tattle on those brave soldiers, Starr wasn’t very happy they were carrying Trump campaign material:
Because this is very much against military policy and regulation. Troops are not supposed to be involved in political activities. The U.S. military is not a political force. And there's no question, the saying "Trump 2020" and "Make America Great Again," those are political slogans of a Trump campaign they are not governmental sayings, to say the least.

Appearing to sympathize with the troops since Trump may not have been behind the hats, Acosta turned to former Rear Admiral and former Obama official John Kirby to ask if this was just something more innocent. “And John, I mean, what would the concern be if something like that is going on, do you think? Or is this just, you know, a soldier is there, he's got a hat in his locker, and he runs over and says, ‘hey, when am I going to have another chance for the President to sign one of these things,’” he wondered.

“It is, in fact, a campaign slogan, that is a campaign item, and it's completely inappropriate for the troops to do this,” Kirby sternly declared. “Not supposed to do this. And I'm sure their boss is seeing that. They're not going to be happy about it.”

Clearly irritated by the hat signings and looking to blow it out of proportion, Kirby then demanded that “the President has to take some ownership of this.” “Every time he's around military audiences, he tends to politicize it, and he brings in complaints and grievances from outside the realm of military policy. This was wrong for him to do it, as well,” he complained.

If it were troops handing “Yes We Can” items to Obama for him to sign, CNN would either be touting it or not talking about it because it would be fine and a given that the President had their support. But not for this President. This is CNN.

The transcript is below, click "expand" to read:

CNN’s The Situation Room
December 26, 2018
5:08:44 p.m. Eastern

JIM ACOSTA: And Barbara, we saw the President signing a campaign hat, a red hat, his “Make America Great Again hat. Is that unusual, to see the president doing that on base? Does this run the risk of the President, you know, facing some accusations that he's turning some of this into a campaign stop? What do you think?

BARBARA STARR: Well, you know, this is very interesting. The pool reporters traveling said that the troops brought the hats with them, including one hat that said "Trump 2020." We will have to see if that actually proves to be the case. The question is, if they brought them or if the President brought them; what commander allowed that to really happen? Because this is very much against military policy and regulation. Troops are not supposed to be involved in political activities. The U.S. military is not a political force. And there's no question, the saying "Trump 2020" and "Make America Great Again," those are political slogans of a Trump campaign they are not governmental sayings, to say the least.

ACOSTA: Right. And John, I mean, what would the concern be if something like that is going on, do you think? Or is this just, you know, a soldier is there, he's got a hat in his locker and he runs over and says, hey, when am I going to have another chance for the President to sign one of these things?

JOHN KIRBY: Well look, it kind of blurs the line, because Trump is his slogan, and where is that line? But Barb’s right. It is, in fact, a campaign slogan, that is a campaign item, and it's completely inappropriate for the troops to do this.

ACOSTA: Not supposed to do it.

KIRBY: Not supposed to do this. And I'm sure their boss is seeing that. They're not going to be happy about it. But look, the President has to take some ownership of this, too. Every time he's around military audiences, he tends to politicize it, and he brings in complaints and grievances from outside the realm of military policy. This was wrong for him to do it, as well. I'm going to be really interested to see, Jim, when we get video of his comments to the troops, his actual speech in Al Asad [Airbase], and I hope he didn't politicize those sets of remarks, but we have to wait and see.

What's Wrong With This Picture?

26 January 2019

Wednesday, January 30, 2019

Genocide In Paradise, California! (Part 3)

Space-based Laser

Paradise Lost # 71 ~ Latest Update and Conclusions from Retired Fire Captains
Published on Jan 30, 2019

Paradise Lost # 70 ~ The 27 "Anamolies" in 27 Minutes
Published on Jan 27, 2019

Blue Beams Caught On Film Takes Out Power Lines In NYC Louisiana And Other Areas
Published on Dec 29, 2018
Four types of directed energy weapons
by Mary McCourt
30 November 1982
In his EIR multi-client report, Beam Weapons: The Science to Prevent Nuclear War, Dr. Steven Bardwell describes the types of beam weapons on line for development. Each type, laser beams, particle beams, microwave beams, and plasma beams is, Bardwell states, "in principle capable of generating the required power and energy [to reach and disarm its target] in a form efficiently absorbed by the missile." A beam weapon effectively disarms a nuclear warhead. A hydrogen bomb can be detonated only by an initial powerful atomic-bomb explosion capable of setting off a chain reaction in the lithium-deuterium fuel. A beam weapon, by pumping energy into the very delicately balanced triggering mechanism, prevents the initial explosion and essentially turns the warhead into a"dud." The missile, like a satellite, might fall to the earth, but it can no longer be detonated.
Scientists agree that laser-defense battle stations, even with the lowest level of laser-beam technology, can be defended from other beam weapons themselves. But a missile cannot be effectively defended from the beam without such massive protection that it would lose both the necessary speed and distance.

Laser-beam weapons
Laser beams, particularly the chemical laser, will likely be the first deployable beam weapons developed. A laser is a beam of very intense, single wavelength electromagnetic waves, either of light or high energy X-rays. Such a weapon can be focused very precisely because either the light or Xray wavelengths all have the same frequency and phase. The five different types of lasers, which can be applied to fusion energy as well as beam weapons, are all being researched at U.S. laboratories.
The chemical laser, which could be developed for military deployment within five years, uses a gaseous medium in which a chemical reaction is induced. The product of the reaction emits laser light. The Soviet Union used such a laser last year in tests that downed a ballistic missile.
In a gas laser, a burning gas such as a hydrogen and fluorine mixture is suddenly compressed, and the energy distribution that results from the compression is then stimulated to emit single-frequency light waves at very high energy. Both the United States and Japan are currently using huge gas lasers for nuclear fusion development.
An electron discharge laser uses replaceable energy from an electron beam to create the source of laser light. Such a laser would be very efficient for use in space because its energy source is electricity, not an exhaustible chemical fuel.
Two other types of lasers, X-ray lasers and free-electron lasers, yet to be perfected technologically, have greater advantages of energy density and flexibility than those listed above. The X-ray laser is widely recognized as the most promising long-range laser for ballistic missile defense, based in space. The X-ray laser, which is just a single pulse, is by far the most energy-dense, delivering thousands of times more energy per pulse than conventional lasers. In addition, the target absorbs the X-rays very efficiently, making this weapon capable of very efficient destruction of missiles.

Particle-beam weapons
Particle beams also deliver energy in a highly controlled pulse traveling at near the speed of light. But instead of a pulse of intense electro-magnetic radiation, the particle beam consists of subatomic particles, (electrons or protons), neutral atoms (usually hydrogen), or (usually magnetized) macroscopic particles accelerated to high speeds. A particle beam destroys its target, the triggering mechanism, by creating a very intense shock wave within the mechanism, like a very small, but extremely heavy and powerful hammer striking down on the target.
Electron beams can be generated in the range of millions of volts. Scientists researching the electron beam for military or civilian energy use have discovered that the electron beam becomes a complex structure of electrons and a magnetic field. Such structured beams are capable of carrying higher currents and more energy for much longer distances at much great levels of power output.
Proton beams, which have been researched intensively for the past 30 years, use an electron beam as a seed and then are accelerated in their own right. As protons are 2,000 times heavier than electrons, a proton beam of the same velocity has 2,000 times the energy of an electron beam.
Neutral particles eliminate many of the problems of charged-particle beams, which can degrade both the efficiency and controllability of the beam. By spring of 1983, U.S. researchers will have produced a beam of protons at an energy of 2.5 million electron volts, capable of traveling at 99 percent of the speed of light.
Control and targeting of a macroscopic particle beam would be more difficult, but the unparalleled power density of the beam-due to the large mass of the particles-gives it great potential as a beam weapon.
Microwave and plasma beams have only been discussed in the United States in the past two years, although it is estimated that the Soviet Union is two or three years ahead in the production of microwaves. Intense, directional microwaves are generated when electron beams are propagated at or near the speed of light through a plasma. Such beams, if focused, could destroy delicate electronic equipment in a target.
A plasma beam consists of the highest energy-dense form of matter, a gas so hot that the electrons and neutrons have separated. The plasma forms itself into a complex structure of particles and magnetic fields. The unique feature of a plasma beam is that it actually requires the atmosphere, which hinders the guidance and propagation of other beams, to hold in the plasma and sustain the structure.
Space-based beam weapons

Ground-based beam weapons
Image result for Ground-based beam weapons
Space-based beam weapons, provide the only feasible means for area defense against nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. The deployment of a weapon capable of generating an intense beam of laser light, atomic particles, or plasma, in an orbit around the earth, would protect the entire United States from incoming ballistic missiles. Ground-based beam weapons can provide both area and point defense. 
Also See:

Genocide In Paradise, California!

(Part 1)
04 December 2018
(Part 2)
21 January 2019

Direct Energy Weapons Used In California Fires!

23 November 2018

Who Is Behind The California Firestorms?

17 November 2018

Tuesday, January 29, 2019

Government Has Destroyed Education!

Image result for government destroyed education

Fake History is DEADLY to all of us on the planet
Published on Jan 25, 2019
The biggest lies of history REVEALED by Gabriel and McKibben
American Intelligence Media
Published on Jan 17, 2019
Education and the dismantling of the mind
When the solution is worse than the problem
by Jon Rappoport
January 28, 2019
Are there any States in the Union that allow public schools to opt out of providing sex education to children?

Of course, a counter-argument would be made that, although there was once a time when our country abounded in responsible two-parent families, that’s not the case anymore. Therefore, education about sex is lacking. Therefore, schools have to step into the breach and supply what is missing.

Otherwise, children won’t know about STDs, pregnancy, contraception, etc.

Over the last 40 years or so, school systems, under the aegis of government, have expanded their role. Using “duty” as the prow, these institutions have generated enormous programs to teach children what to think about everything from aluminum cans to bestiality.

Because it’s “right” and “important” and there is a “duty.”

Translation: outside groups with agendas worm their way into schools.

If I were obsessed with four-legged critters on the moon, and I had enough money and political clout and media/think-tank/foundation support, I could introduce Lunar Critterology as a vital subject into every public school in America.

If I were Bill Gates, I could push the need for computers in schools, despite the fact there is no credible evidence that computers improve literacy.

I went to school in the 1940s and 50s. At that time, the focus was simple. You learned to read, to write, and to do math. The textbooks were often old and worn. There were no visual aids. The lesson plans in every class were step-by-step. Learn a new thing, drill it to death, take a little quiz, learn the next new item, drill it, take a quiz.

It worked. It may have lacked glitz, but it worked because the vast majority of people can’t learn to read, write, or do math any other way.

You can’t gloss over these subjects with a broad brush and a lot of personality or caring. It’s all about digging in the dirt, one scoop at a time.

Some people would call it robotic education. I don’t think it is. It’s just doing what’s necessary—unless reading, writing, and math are deemed unimportant. In which case, you have a whole new idea about what education is.

If you spend time in the classroom on enterprises that are supposed to save the world or revolutionize society or build tolerance or cater to kids who don’t want to learn, then you take away hours from the core idea and practice of what learning is.

When I went to school, there could have been a better curriculum for history and science, but all in all, the teachers did a good job.

Now, we’re in a different world.

It’s assumed that most children are operating at a deficit, and they need to be brought up to speed on morals, on compassion, on sex, on greenness, on hope, on race and religion, on global concerns. At age five, eight, 12, 14.

And a great deal of this “new education” is about cashing in, for book publishers, for educrats, for federal overseers, for busybodies of all stripes who belong to agenda-driven groups that want their say and their moment in the sun.

I say this is all hogwash, and I believe anyone who consults national test scores and current levels of literacy would be compelled to agree.

Education is on the way out.

A few astute writers assert that, perhaps 80 years ago, the whole thrust of early education in America was altered intentionally, to produce worker-ants for a highly controlled society of the future. With all due respect, I think it’s worse than that. Because now we’re turning out kids who are essentially confused, badly schooled, drifting on the wind, lost in a mind-territory of fantasized entitlement. They aren’t androids ready to work on some non-existent assembly line. They’re just lost. They’re riddled with self-esteem that doesn’t work. They’re consumers looking for magic credit so they can buy their way into happiness. They’re loaded with sugar and other chemicals that scramble their synapses. They’re not only unsympathetic toward work, they have no passion of their own.

Logic? Imagination? Never heard of it.

When I went to school, there was virtually no classroom disruption of any kind. And my schools were attended by an economic, social, racial, and religious cross-section of students. We weren’t striving for diversity. We had it. The relatively few kids who were out of control and resisted any kind of discipline were herded into classes together, and teachers dealt with them.

The public schools of today lack the courage to say, “Look, if you’re here to learn, we want you. Otherwise, you’re out. Goodbye.”

If you need metal detectors at the school entrances, you went over the edge a long time ago. No one deserves to be subjected to that kind of environment.

The bullying problem? It’s an industry now. People with degrees write papers and books about it, and task forces gear up to study it and make recommendations. It’s a structure of carbuncles on the body-politic of education.

Once upon a time, no bully was allowed to attend school. If he pressed his attitude and his actions, he was expelled. Period. It wasn’t a question of why he bullied. He was gone. Learning couldn’t take place as long as he was on the scene.

And “gangs in schools?” I’m sorry, but there are no gangs in schools. There are schools in gangs—that’s what you have when groups of kids with violent tendencies inhabit classrooms and corridors. If you can’t expel them en masse, give up. Shut down the place.

If you want to make schools into six-hour-a-day baby-sitting machines, call it that. Try to obtain public funding for it. Hire guards and nurses and cops to staff it. Put it behind barbed-wire fences and install those metal detectors.

Or if schools are really lunch cafeterias, run them that way. Free public lunches. Have kids show up at noon, eat, and leave.

If you think kids of various religions should be allowed to commandeer a room to hold prayer groups, call it Government-Funded God. Rent a hall somewhere and schedule everybody from Christians and Jews to Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus and Zoroastrians.

“Well, we have these kids who are great football players, and they score very badly on all the tests, but we need them on the team.”

No you don’t. Start your own community team. Make up a name. Raise money for uniforms and coaches. Form a league. If these kids want to stay in school—which is a completely different matter—they’ll have to learn how to attain grades for real.

And this long-standing rule about passing kids on to the next grade, no matter how poorly they perform? Graduating them from high school even if they can’t read at fourth-grade level? Because they need to feel good about themselves? Because that’ll somehow help them wend their way through life later on?

Invent a new type of school for them and put it somewhere else. Bring in tutors. If that fails after an honest attempt, teach trades. Some of these kids will end up making more money in a trade than Harvard business-school grads.

All of the above, by the way, makes a good case for home schooling. Unless the parents themselves were shot out the top end of their schools, long ago, ill-prepared to handle reading, writing, and arithmetic.

No, the problem isn’t cookie-cutter education. It’s no education.

Now, of course, hovering over this revolution in education is the wider government becoming mommy and daddy to everyone. “Because they care.” Because they need to do this “caring” in order to obtain budget money for their departments. Because otherwise they would be useless.

And hovering over THAT is the program to convert everyone on the planet to a status much like an eternal patient with an eternal doctor.

This program is advancing based on the notion that “patient status” equals “more controllable.”

“Yes, we have to control you for your own good, because we care.”

No, they want control because they want control.

In my day, the subject that was conspicuously missing from the classroom was Logic. Once upon a time, it had been taught to children when their reading skills had progressed far enough. It was usually presented as a series of fallacies that infected the process of reasoning.

A few years ago, I decided to write a logic course to fill this gap. My strategy was to provide basic background lessons and then launch into a series of text passages seeded with fallacies and flaws. Students with the help of their teachers would find them and understand how they operated to derail lucid thinking.

I offered this 18-lesson course to home schoolers, and adults who wanted to use it for self-study.

Now it’s part of my new collection, The Matrix Revealed.

Twenty-four hundred years ago, in Athens, logic was, for the first time, explained in detail by Aristotle. It marked the beginning of a new era for humankind. Logic allowed a person to peruse a formal argument, differentiate between premises and deductions, and judge the validity of the reasoning process.

When students are taught this subject well, they turn into detectives. They realize that articles and books are more than mere lakes of information. They can trace the progress of a line of thought, and see that authors are offering evidence that leads to a conclusion.

It’s an awakening. I’ve seen it resolve what was foolishly diagnosed as ADHD. The student becomes grounded. He accrues real confidence. He can decide whether an argument is valid or invalid. He can spot flaws and describe them.

Armed with the tool of logic, he becomes independent.

This may explain why logic was dropped out of the secondary school curriculum.

God forbid the educational system should be turning out thousands of students who can really think for themselves, and think powerfully and consistently.

Note: I’m not covering the subject of college education in this piece, but I have an interesting anecdote for you. William E. Kennick taught philosophy at Amherst from 1956 to 1993. Amherst has consistently been rated as one of the top colleges in America. During his tenure, Kennick grew disturbed by the quality of papers his students were turning in. So he wrote and distributed a four-and-a-half page, single-spaced document titled, Some Rules for Writing Presentable English. The cream of the cream of American college students needed that on-the-fly tutorial to come up to basic speed. What other students at other colleges were/are producing in the way of written English is too horrible to contemplate.

So now we come to the central thesis. The modern vision of education, aside from the hard sciences, is all about unhinging or un-gluing the mind from its moorings, from its focus, from its ability to track complex thought.

Instead, we have education as: socialization; community; relativity.

This last factor is key. No particular piece of information is any more “valid” than any other piece, no more important, no more deserving of respect. Information is a soup into which one dips a spoon—coming up with whatever is there.

Over the range of society, you get young people wandering around with barely a clue. They’re dissatisfied, they’re upset, they’re resentful, they’re mystified, they’re rebellious.

To a degree, that describes every generation. But when the legs are missing, when the ability to concentrate and focus is absent, when the reasoning capacity is vastly underdeveloped, you get a stupendous crash.

It’s worse than cookie-cutter graduates heading for an assembly line. It’s the kind of trouble that spreads out in ripples, requiring assistance from the State. And that is the revelation.

That’s the society that’s being created.

For the elites who want to run things, globally, it’s not enough to gather up the most dependent people in a net and bring them over to the collectivist side with promises. No, what’s needed is a machine that PRODUCES huge numbers of newly minted dependents all the time.

Welcome to the educational wing of globalism.

Scour every textbook you can find at any level in the school system of your country. See if you can find the conjunction of the word “powerful” with the word “individual” where the implication isn’t pejorative. Where the thrust is positive. I know where my money is in that bet.

When political and economic collectivism is the goal of a society, certain things have to be done with the school system. Individualism has to be discouraged and sidelined. Status based on pure merit, achievement, and performance has to be minimized. And the core courses must lose their discipline.

Instead, group socialization, random expression of students’ opinions (based on nothing in particular), and bogus self-esteem must take center stage.

As a former teacher, I can tell you it’s rather easy to make this momentous shift. The starting point, from which the whole campaign unfolds, involves grouping together students in classes who are operating at significantly different levels of skill and ability.

For example, try teaching geometry to 20 kids who scored across a wide spectrum in their previous final exams in elementary algebra. Just try. Follow your day-to-day lesson plans and see what happens. It’s like crossing a bridge with drivers who never learned the difference between the brake and gas pedal. Chaos.

Jammed up in that baffling disorder, teachers will tend to gravitate to social concerns. They’ll encourage, wheedle, praise, empathize. They’ll try to draw out “the feelings” of students. What was once a very straightforward proposition will vaporize.

The pernicious effects of elementary-school teachers having failed to impart the basics of reading, writing, and arithmetic will explode in a tsunami by the first year of high school.

And what happened in the first place, in grades 1-5? The model of repetition, in which each new concept in a subject is drilled over and over, and tested, before moving on to the next concept, was abandoned.

When I was a child, in the 1940s, the model of repetition was intact. It was brick and mortar.

But somewhere along the line, the “person-centered psychology” of education was invented. Every child automatically became “special.” On the surface, this sounded good. It sounded like enlightenment.

But it was really a piece of psy-war. It glossed over the fact that, if each child is innately special, he/she doesn’t have to be informed of it over and over. He only has to be taught well and learn well. More than enough encouragement begins to confuse a child and make him impatient. He wants to get on with things. He wants to prove he can excel. He wants new knowledge.

The history of mainstream psychology can be boiled down to two movements. First, there were the experiments of Pavlov. Conditioned reflex. The human as machine. Then there was the therapeutic age. Endless muddled rumination on problems and difficulties, and the need for “re-enforcement.” Everyone is special. The child as beloved pet.

The arc went from robot to dependent. They were both gross failures.

When pet/dependent became the order of the day, psychiatrists proliferated their invention of mental disorders. ADD. ADHD. Oppositional Defiance Disorder. Clinical depression. Bipolar. And powerful toxic drugs came down the line, to scramble brains.

This is the real war on drugs, except the war is being fought against children by “mental-health professionals.”

Suddenly, childhood diseases which had been accepted for generations, which came and went and gave children stronger immune systems in the process, were claimed to be a horrific threat, and 20 or 30 vaccines had to be taken to prevent these illnesses.

Thus the shaping of a new and false and debilitating image of the child torpedoed children and their education.

Creating The Disabled is the cornerstone of Collectivism.

I need you. You need me. Everybody needs everybody. Whatever germs of truth lie in this ideal are crushed, because the “need” formula is artificially built. It’s a piece of debased architecture, whose real purpose is the inculcation of a reason to abandon self and individual power.

Once, the Carnegie and Rockefeller line of force viewed education as the assembly line for turning out objects that would produce other objects in mindless fashion. But that has changed. Now schools are built to become need-factories, breeding surreal socialized graduates who contemplate how political power has wronged them.

The new sign of intelligence is this: how many ways can you imagine you’ve been cheated?

And here is the kicker. Surprisingly little of this contemplation reveals the actual methods of manipulation.

But then, why would it? If children are engineered long enough, they’ll look everywhere for answers except at their hidden masters, the ones whose objective was to make them into children forever.
Facebook, Logic, and Parents: She will destroy public
 Betsy DeVos will ruin public
 education by allowing parents
 to escape government schools
 in favor of private schools or
 home schools
 I hardly think...
 Not really, when you...
 The bottom line is...I
 So, I've decided that the
 don't want her in charge
 best way to keep her from
 of my kid's school.
 ruining my child's education
 is to either put them in a
 Well, you're the
 private school or homeschool
 one who
 (We don't mind ifyou download and share this image, just leave the attribution.)
Liberal Logic 101
Independent Education: the crisis and the crossroad
by Jon Rappoport
December 25, 2018
A hundred fifty years ago, at least some Americans recognized that all serious discourse depended on the use of the faculty called Reason.

Formal debate, science, and law all flowed from that source.

A common bond existed in some schools of the day. The student was expected to learn how Reason operates, and for that he was taught the only subject which could lay out, as on a long table, the visible principles: Logic.

This was accepted.

But now, this bond is gone.

The independence engendered by the disciplined study of logic is no longer a desired quality in students.

The classroom, at best, has taken on the appearance of a fact-memorization factory; and we should express grave doubts about the relevance and truth of many of those facts.

A society filled with people who float in the drift of non-logic is a society that declines.

Ideologies that deny individual freedom and independence are welcomed with open arms, because they mirror a muddled people’s desire to confirm that failure is the inevitable fate of all of us.

When education becomes so degraded that young students are no longer taught to reason clearly, private citizens have the obligation rebuild that system so the great contribution to Western civilization—logic—is reinstated in its rightful place.

Logic, the key by which true political discourse, science, and law were, in fact, originally developed, must be unearthed.

Logic and reasoning, the capacity to think, the ability to analyze ideas—an ability which has been forgotten, which has been a surpassing virtue in every shadow of a free civilization—must be restored.

Once a vital thing has been misplaced, buried, and covered over by mindless substitutions, people cannot immediately recognize the original thing has any importance, meaning, or existence.

To declare its importance makes no sense to “the crowd.” They look bewildered and shake their heads. They search their memories and find nothing.

They prefer to adhere to rumor, gossip, accusation, wild speculation, and fear mongering as the primary means of public discourse and assessment of truth.

These habits light their paths. These reflexes give them some degree of pleasure. These idols become their little gods.

To win out over such attachments and superstitions is a job for the long term.

But if our labors yield rewards, we can once again bring import to education, and to the idea of authentic freedom that once cut a wide swathe through darkness.

A string of direct and distracting abuses has saddled our schools. Among them:

* Teachers believe they need to entertain children, in order to capture their attention;

* School systems have substituted the need for public funds in the place of actually supplying a sound education;

* Under the banner of political correctness, school texts have been sanitized to the point of sterility, in order to avoid the possibility of offending, to the slightest degree, any group;

* Students rarely confront information in the form in which it is delivered to people all over the world—they confront substitutes;

* Students have, in this respect, been coddled;

* Subjects such as sex education, which belong in the family, have been delivered into the hands of schools and teachers;

* Indeed, in certain respects, schools are asked to substitute and stand in for parents;

* Masked as “learning opportunities,” various political agendas have been inserted in school curricula;

* The basis on which every historic document establishing some degree of freedom was debated and drafted—logical thought—has been eliminated from the curriculum as a serious discipline;

* Students are permitted and even encouraged to drift and grasp at superficially attractive ideas and fads of the moment;

* In this respect, freedom has been reinterpreted to mean “mental incapacity and wandering thought”;

* The vast contributions of the ancient Greek civilization, where logic as a crucial subject was born, have been obliterated, minimized or summarized in sterile fashion;

* Logic, the connective tissue which binds together the progression of ideas in rational argument, has been kept away from students;

* The result is the production of shallow minds that cannot see the architecture of reasoning;

* Students, at sea, begin to invent wholly insufficient standards for accepting or rejecting various points of view and supposed authorities;

* Students lose their true independence without ever having gained it;

* The low level of overall literacy in our schools is matched only by the non-comprehension of rational thought;

* In the presence of these and other deficiencies and abuses, students are pushed through, from grade to grade, graduation to graduation, as a bureaucratic function, regardless of their ability.

Therefore, citizens of good intent must offload this system. They must assume responsibility for teaching children the missing key to education.

Logic; the capacity to reason, to think lucidly; to separate sense from chatter; to discover deception and avoid being influenced by it; to remain free and independent from the shifting opinions of “the herd”; to maintain personal liberty in the face of every spurious enticement to abandon it; to come to grips with competitive sets of First Principles which will lead to freedom or slavery; these are the stakes in our time.

This is the crossroad.

Choose the path that can bring us the fulfillment of a worthy goal.

Choose reason over vacuous mindlessness.

We, who still know the power of the mind, and who understand how that power can be harnessed to shape independence and liberty, can bring, out of the dust of recent history, an education that truly trains the intellect.

Logic is the foundation of such an education.

If schools, which have become madhouses and factories and toxic medical dispensaries, will not teach it, we can teach it.
How the U.S. Government Destroyed Higher Education In America
May 14, 2016
It is no secret the higher education in America is a joke. Our children today put themselves in insane amounts of debt for degree’s that are, in large part, useless. I received my degree in 1995, and quickly realized that all it was good for was entry level jobs that I could have obtained with nothing more then a high school education.

Now sure, things would have been different if I would have gotten a degree in something good like engineering, but I was young, and dumb and thought a degree (in anything) equaled a good job in the field the degree was for.

The truth is, you only really need a good degree for certain fields, and the rest of the degree’s offered by colleges and universities are not their (there) to help you get a job, but instead are only their (there) to help the university raise profits, and help you be more knowledgeable. This might be good if universities were affordable, but they are not.

Most people want a degree so they can get a good job that pays well enough for them to afford a home, and a decent lifestyle. For most of us, however, it cost more to go to college then it would to buy a home, and we spend so long trying to pay off those student loans that we can’t afford the house that we went to college to be able to afford.

So why does college cost so much? In 2016, tuition for one year at Yale costs $47,600.00 . When did the cost of an education get so high? In November of 1965, Yale raised it’s tuition to $1,950 per year. This made Yale the most expensive college in the US (tied with Princeton who raised their tuition to the same amount at the same time.) This was about a 10% increase for Yale. By 1970, the cost had ballooned another 25% to $2,550. By 1980, the cost had more then doubled to $6,210.

What caused these drastic increases in tuition? On November 8th 1965 (just 10 days before Yale raised it’s rates by 10%), President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Higher Education Act of 1965 as part of his “Great Society” domestic agenda. This act guaranteed low cost, government subsidized loans for students, and created a cash windfall for universities.

No longer did universities have to charge affordable rates for tuition in order to keep the halls of academia filled. Thank to government interference, these greedy universities could charge whatever they wanted to, and the government would unquestioningly hand out low cost loans to the young, impressionable students who wanted nothing more then a good education. Once again, we saw the ignorance of a well-intentioned liberal agenda corrupted by greed. We saw a law that was supposed to help educate the country be used to indebt the populace.

It truly is this very naïve idealism that looks to me to be the downfall of our society. People often want to pass laws that on the surface seem like a good idea. However, no one takes the time to see how these laws will really play out in practice.

We have seen this time and time again. When President Woodrow Wilson signed into law the Federal Revenue act in 1913, he created an income tax that was only supposed to tax the top 1% of earners in the US. (even in 1913 laws were passed to help the 99% and tax the 1%). The Revenue Act of 1913 stipulated that only people making over $20,000 per year (2010 equivalent of $374,000 per year) would pay tax, and even then it would only be at a rate of 1%.

In 1913, the American public was sold on the idea that the top 1% needed to pay their share. We passed an income tax that was supposed to only affect them, and indeed in 1913 less then 1% of the population had to pay the income tax. 100 years later, 85% of the population is paying a far higher income tax, and we are once again being told that the top 1% need to pay more… We’ve seen this game before.

But back to the original subject. A friend of mine recently tried to put forth the opinion that government cuts were the cause of the decline in the quality of higher education in America. He mentioned UC as a prime example of “death by a million cuts” (I am pretty sure this was supposed to be a reference to Lingchi the infamous Chinese execution method of death by 1,000 cuts.) A quick search into the UC financial reports (easily available online) show The UC system(as a non profit public school) made a net income of almost a million dollars last year. That is after paying over 6 million in salaries, giving out over 4 million in research grants, and donating over half a million to public service projects not to mention the 8 million it put into it’s medical centers. That doesn’t seem like “death by a million cuts” to me. But I get it… Imagine how much more they could do if we were to just give them more of our money…
Also See:

Do You Realize There Is A Dumbing Down Of Society?

12 December 2017

Results of Dumbing Down Education

(Part 1)
27 May 2017
(Part 2)
01 June 2017

Obama Wants Transgender Washrooms and Showers in All the Schools!

18 May 2016

Consequences of Dumbing Down Education!

13 November 2015

Critical Thinking Declining Amongst University and College Students!

08 October 2015

The Taliban’s War Against Women!

03 September 2015

What Think Ye of "Every Child Achieves Act of 2015"?

21 April 2015

Sex Education In Ontario Gone Berserk!

30 March 2015

What is Happening in Education?

08 September 2013

Are We Turning a Blind Eye Towards Racism?

(Part 1)
23 August 2013
(Part 2)
07 July 2016

What's Right About Home Schooling?

13 August 2014

Can Social Control Be Denied?

(Part 1)
18 June 2013

Your Children Don't Belong to You!

09 April 2013

Corporal Punishment in Schools!

29 January 2012

Socialism is Not Disappearing!

15 November 2011

Should We Have Prayer in Schools?

06 July 2011

Don't Blame the Teachers! Blame the Parents!

18 March 2011

Agenda 21! The Death Knell of Liberty!

(Part 1)
02 March 2011
(Part 2)
22 January 2012

Parents! What do You Know about Whole Child Education?

13 August 2010

Sex Education in Ontario Elementary Schools is Going Too Far!!

24 June 2010

Teaching Propaganda or American History?

25 April 2010

What Happened to Education?

30 August 2009

Homeschooling - What About It?

18 June 2009

Who Writes History?

Also See:

LGBT agenda coming into elementary schools!

30 April 2018

What's With Transgenders?

18 August 2017

Sex-Change Operations at Four Years of Age!

22 July 2017
Canadians Can Get Prison For Refusing To Use Gender Pronouns!
05 July 2017

LGBT "Born That Way" Refuted By Science!

(Part 1)
30 November 2016

(Part 2)
29 March 2018

"Born That Way" Doesn't Cut It!

10 December 2013