@Smokin Joe
You left out the part about making sure that all the teachers in public schools have been properly indoctrinated, AKA have a teaching certificate..
Yep, I did leave that out. And I left out the nature of the courses to get that certificate.
I had checked into a position teaching junior high Earth Science back in the '80s. I had a Bachelor's degree, a year of work on a Masters', a few years experience in the oil industry, and had taught lab classes as a grad student (and assisted as an undergrad). It was 1986 and I'd been through another layoff in oil and it didn't look good for the near future.
The bugaboo was that I didn't have a teaching certificate. I also didn't have the two years it would take to get the coursework done to get one.
I was reminded of the Education majors where I did my undergrad work, who got a degree in education, but often didn't know any field well enough to teach it.
I also noticed when I was in college that there were mobs of Psychology and Sociology majors running around. Some were holdover 'professional student' types, six years into their draft deferment four year degree (changed majors), some had a heartfelt desire to help people or save the world, and some were following what they saw as the path of least resistance to a BA.
We thought we 'had it good' in Geology because sometimes there were a couple of acceptable theories to answer the same problem/question (nature is complex, even if it does follow the same chemical processes and physical laws, and sometimes there is more than one way to get the same result), but just about any wild-eyed theory seemed to fly in their fields.
We spent our weekends in the field or nights in the lab, and a lot of them partied, even through the week--not that I really cared, because I loved what I was doing and prized the social interaction of my colleagues more than some of the budding lunacy I saw even then, which I foolishly dismissed as a ticket to a menial job somewhere.
It later dawned on me that the same scene was being repeated at College and University after College and University, and that there was already a glut of social workers on the market (some of the more earnest ones were talking about advanced degrees in their sophomore year). But the PhD's had the 'secret weapon'--they did studies which found that
we needed them to tell us how to live--something we'd done rather well as humans (and a country) for quite some time.
I didn't know it, but these would be the ground troops and officer corps of the war on American culture.
In those days, many of the aberrant behaviours that are all over the news cycle, "entertainment", and demanding 'rights' above and beyond that of normal humans today (and far beyond what in that day would have been considered normal human decency), were not talked about much, except in a clinical or, frankly, derisive sense, tolerated only as a quirk of some talented entertainers or artists, the butt of off- color jokes or material for pulp magazines, but not the subject of polite conversation.
Such things were just not mainstream, and instead the manly (and womanly) virtues of those everyday heroes, those who displayed strength of character, self-sacrifice for greater causes, 'war heroes', firemen, EMS, soldiers, police, athletes, and women such as Clara Barton and others who had shown the devotion to healing and nurturing, or science such as Marie and Pierre Curie, were all held up as models for the youth to emulate--but even then, that was in flux, as the Media were starting to push and had been pushing what, in retrospect, was the classic socialist revolutionary as outlaw heroes, and deviancy as normal.
Previously, even those on the other side of the law had at least some aspect that was considered strength, had undertaken risk to themselves, and, when caught suffered the consequences, but the Butch Cassidays, Al Capones, Jesse James, and the like had done their crimes like men, despite their evil.
No, we were seeing the era of the pampered getting others to take their risks, unlike the generals we grew up learning of, who at some point in their careers had led from the front, been shot at, or prevailed in some primal conflict, and the media somehow took social tantrums and held them out as virtuous.
What were they revolting against? Sexual morality (always a siren's song for the young and prurient), sobriety (and beyond that, extolling the alleged virtues of 'mind expanding' and addictive drugs), the Government, moral conventions, and traditions, which represented the deeper social structure of our culture (the "Generation Gap", something which has ever existed in transition with one generation growing up with technology their parents did not have, but still bound by deeper cultural commonalities of morals and standards of behaviour, of 'fairness', and of Liberty), religion, and the ideals of hard work and perseverance.
Perhaps not so much against that last, because if anything, the Communists have been unrelenting in their pursuit of their goals. In 1963, those goals seemed far off, and indeed, improbable.
Link to the 45 Communist Goals read into the Congressional Record in 1963 Those concepts were rejected out of hand.
Today, after the ongoing study of human behaviour and manipulation of such in the test beds of college campuses and universities, (every student a lab rat), those campuses have become something unrecognizable in the context of American culture from the '60s and '70s, a twisted caricature of American culture, one which would not even have reached the pages of
Mad Magazine, but today would not
dare be made fun of for the lawsuits and 'outrage' that would be perpetrated, not just by those fringe groups who advocate their particular behaviour, but the media who celebrate those aberrations as normal or virtuous.
Now we have social workers telling parents how to raise their children, instead of parents talking with their mom or dad or grandma or grandpa, and following those ties which bound not only family but tradition. Failure to behave as the State demands is a ticket to summary judgement, sans anything close to due process, with a presumption of guilt, often 'proven' by the lies and distortions of fact of those who will strip the children from their homes. Daily, parents are separated from their children in America, but while dysfunction in those homes is often cited, once targeted (whether dysfunctional or not), the evidence will be found, if not
created, to do so.
Not all are instances of abuse, or neglect, by any metric, instead, it is a way to cripple those who have the moral basis to object to the actions of the State, justified by using presumed behaviours from statistical pools, and using lies and distortions as 'evidence', and denying the accused the ability to refute those, cross examine, or present evidence or testimony to the contrary. A pointed finger, an 'anonymous tip', brings the proverbial knock on the door. The burden to prove innocence is on the accused, and often the means to do so denied under the guise that the proceedings are not criminal proceedings, despite the severity of the outcome. Those who face this have to attend parenting and other 'classes' to get their children back, classes taught by childless women who are hostile toward males and masculinity. (Can you say 'reeducation camp'? I knew you could)
There has been a concerted war on the family unit, first the extended family, then the family itself through no-fault divorce, and now, the war on masculinity and 'abuse abuse' to justify the mechanisms to destroy reputations, deny rights, and economically destroy the very providers who worked selflessly to do so.
It is necessary to destroy that fundamental governmental unit, to erode or destroy the traditions that bind our culture, and to eliminate the morality which has been the basis of Western Civilization for its entire period of development, in order to form the vacuum that the Marxists believe their doctrine will fill, if they just 'get it right this time'.
(Foolishly, they have enlisted the aid of Islam, and I think they are in for a surprise. Their 'allies' will gladly become their masters.)
It is a war on the moral fibers that bound Americans to each other, in concert with social movements to further those divides by destroying the traditions and the relationships which kept them alive, with the State seeking to supplant those family ties with loyalty to the State, to take over the children. Only the theoreticians and the like who are using our society for lab rats have only one such practical model, that of the Soviet, Chinese, and other Communist societies, where you literally comply or are severely punished (or eliminated), a relationship revealed as more abusive than even the worst parents in a free society.
But that could not be accomplished without destroying the family, something which could not be accomplished without attacking religion, without fostering the drug addled environments which lead to bad parenting or unmanageable children, without redefining what is good and what is evil, without indoctrinating the children with teachers who have 'secret seminars' with their students, and without taking away the tools by which a parent might enforce standards of behaviour in their very home.
School security isn't so much to stop crazed gunmen, it is an excuse to keep the parents out, to keep them from seeing and hearing (and disputing) what their children are being programmed with.
They, (the Communists/Socialists/Progressives/Marxists--they keep changing the name but the stink is the same) have been wildly successful, waving advanced degrees and 'experts' like Dr. Spock, and wrecking not only the lives of millions, but the cultural fabric that binds America together.
And those goals read into the Congressional Record back in '63? Well, that shopping list is pretty much filled.
Communism never made such strides as when it was declared 'dead'--even after those nations which embraced it have failed--and the social and political 'elites' (an alien concept for America, really, where we have no royalty, and in theory anyone can be elected to office) only fight those who would fight the transformation, because they think they are going to be the ones who are 'on top', who benefit wildly from the subjugation of the masses.
The ordinary American has no one to represent them in D.C., and the folks entrenched there will do all in their power to make sure we don't. They all see themselves as the ones who live well at the expense of all else.
The only hope this country has comes from those of us who remember the relative freedom of the 1950s and 1960s subverting the Communists, and teaching our grandchildren what once was, and what they should strive to be, how to subvert the 'revolution'. We can try, because it is the right thing to do, but it may be too late.
