Every once in a while, someone reveals the plans and attitudes of the Apostles of Epic Evil outright without any window dressing. And when that happens, we ignore them at our peril.
There are a few institutions that serve as the official mouthpieces of these Apostles, and the New York Times is one such. Speaking on its behalf on “Meet the Press,” one of the founders of “The 1619 Project” – a project of the New York Times – revealed her thoughts on the degree to which parents and legislators should have a say in school curricula: None. None at all.
To put this in context, we have to understand how the world really works rather than how the Constitution says it works, or how we’d like it to work.
In the real world, institutionalized academia, media and the permanent bureaucracy work together with NGOs (non-governmental organizations), large corporations and institutional investors such as Blackrock, Vanguard and State Street to rule us. They are, in a word, sovereign. To determine who is sovereign, you have to ask: who gets to make the rules, and who gets to make exceptions to the rules.
When the New York Times published an article pointing out that New Hampshire was “too white,” what was the effect? The effect was the establishment of a government diversity task force in the state, about a half-dozen NGOs suddenly springing up with making the state less white as their main goal, a major utility company with a monopoly and guaranteed profits helping to bankroll those efforts, and so forth. And within two years, the state was noticeably “less white.” Impressive.
Our so-called legislators do not write laws. Instead, they vote on bills that were written for them by NGOs, industry groups representing major corporations, and so forth. When the Federal Reserve needed help with implementing its goals, it called in BlackRock, which is completely privately held and thus opaque to the general public. Legislators pass bills they have never read, relying only on a summary and what their largest campaign contributors tell them to do. Our legislators have so little understanding of what they are supposed to regulate that, having been elected from a pre-selected pool of willing puppets via popularity contest anyway, they are literally incapable of writing even the most basic laws. To be fair, after an accretion of 200+ years of legislation and court decisions, it would take some specialized research and knowledge to understand the full ramifications of even the slightest thing. Which is more of an argument for cleaning house on the laws than for our legislators to outsource the task to unaccountable and self-interested parties.
When the people really in charge could potentially be placed under scrutiny, a key witness somehow “hangs himself” while under suicide watch as all the nearby security cameras mysterious go dark, or evidence gets confiscated by federal law enforcement and somehow magically lost. Strange how they can tell me down to the penny how much capital gain I should be paying on $20 worth of bitcoin I exchanged three years ago, but will misplace a dozen CDs full of VIPs in compromising situations with minors. When “mostly peaceful protesters” commit mass arson, if they serve the agenda of the Apostles, on those rare occasions when they are arrested as a show for the public, the charges against them are quietly dropped later after attention has passed.
All these decisions are made by a connected managerial class in the bureaucracy, or academia, or a media that decides who will, or will not, be “canceled.” All of them, themselves, above and exempt from the law, and deciding when and where, and against whom, the rules – rules so vast nobody could ever read them in a lifetime – will be applied.
And these interlocking systems cross promote each other’s legitimacy.
As an example of this cross-promotion of legitimacy, consider college degrees. I will admit that, in terms of pieces of paper, I would constitute a well educated person in numerous fields of endeavor. But who decided that my degree in X, for example, is legitimate? Who decided that, because of that degree, I am more qualified as an X than an individual three times as smart as I am who studied the science on his own?
I use this as an example to demonstrate how the system works. To get a bachelor’s degree in pretty much any subject you have to take a standard 120 credits of course work, of which 30 credits, or 10 classes, are closely related to your major. The other 90 credits include a vast array of topics ranging from English composition and History to electives that could be fulfilled with a class in swimming.
The particular college at which you take these classes in order to attain the industry-standard 120 credits gains its accreditation from an NGO that is approved by the US Department of Education. Some of these organizations are related to a particular industry, ABET in the case of engineering majors for example, others are regional, and some are national. But ALL of them are un-elected and completely unaccountable to the American public. I bet nobody reading this can name a single person who makes decisions regarding regional accreditation, yet these people wield enormous power.
It is a well documented fact that, the last time a study of the matter was undertaken, an astonishing 75% of American college graduates with bachelor’s degrees could not even read at a proficient level. And numeric literacy is even worse. Large numbers of graduates from teaching schools in very wealthy states were discovered to be unable to read and write at even a 10th grade, much less college graduate level. Rather than address all the failures that led to such a sorry state of affairs, the states threw out the tests and called them “racist.”
But consider, for just a moment, the multiple levels of failure that have to occur in order to result in a college graduate who is not a proficient reader.
The US Department of Education had to examine and accept the accrediting NGOs. The accrediting organizations then had to make an in-depth examination of the colleges, and then repeat those examinations periodically, to determine that the college programs were up to snuff. Each college, in every single college level class – about 40 of them to get a degree – had to condone standards that would allow people who couldn’t even understand high school material to pass. And then the high schools all of those students attended had to give them passing grades even though they couldn’t read at a suitable level for high school graduates.
That is an epic level of failure.
The average IQ and standardized test scores of an education major are among the lowest of any college major. For many decades, teachers didn’t even have to go to college, because it wasn’t needed. They just attended what was called “Normal School,” a two year program intended to teach them how to teach, presuming that, as high school graduates themselves, they didn’t need to take classes like English Composition or History.
So although there are certainly some very bright and dedicated teachers out there, the average school teacher is a low-end midwit who has been indoctrinated in all sorts of social science garbage and who lacks the ability to adequately subject what they have learned to a critique to ascertain what is true. Furthermore, not being smart enough to enter a profession that will pay highly based on abilities, they earn far more as teachers than their abilities would otherwise allow in a free market. This combination makes them into little more than obedient lackeys for a system that they must support because, without it, they’d starve to death.
Their legitimacy as highly credentialed “experts” is conveyed by the same system that legitimizes an educational system in which far too many people graduate from college as functionally illiterate. And that legitimacy is conferred and confirmed in an endless self-promoting circle between academia, the media, and the permanent bureaucracy.
So with all of this background in mind, let us return to New York Times employee Nikole Hannah Jones, and her opinion on what influence parents or legislatures should have on school curricula, particularly with regard to Critical Race Theory:
Think back a moment to what these “professional educators” really are. And then realize that she acknowledges that even though she is not an educator, her own work for the New York Times, which augments Critical Race Theory, is being used as a curriculum in schools.
So what she is really saying is that whatever the New York Times and the teaching bureaucracy collaborate to shove down our children’s throats is beyond the questioning of parents or even state legislatures. Furthermore, she is more than hinting that home schooling should be banned in order to keep parents from being able to protect their kids from the filth that “education” has become.
So with that in mind, let me again encourage you: even if it costs you something, do everything you can to home school your kids. We have a free home school curriculum right here: www.europeanamericansunited.org/homeschool
You can always add to it, and you can, of course, use it as a supplement to existing schooling. But ideally, you’ll get your kids out of the public schools post haste. The whole point here is to not only properly school our kids, but to create a large enough constituency of existing home schoolers that attempts to ban it will be made difficult or impossible or, at the very least, to have our kids grandfathered. Rights are such that in practice, if you don’t use them, you will lose them. You need to take back your kids from a state that believes they should be dead.