The Four Horsemen of the Education Apocalypse

FourHoursmenApocolypseby Deana Chadwell5/6/15
America watches in horror as ravaging mobs of young, mostly black, people tear through American towns burning cars and businesses, looting and vandalizing, screaming obscenities and mindless chants. Our president blames slavery – gone now for over 150 years, blacks blame the cops, journalists blame poverty, but so far no one has blamed the educational system. So I will.

If you spend between 12 and 16 years telling kids:

    • that they are victims of gross unfairness,
    • that they have no hope unless somebody else fixes things for them,
    • that the system is rigged against them,

then you shouldn’t be astounded when they blow up. This is a fuse that’s been burning for a long time and for the last few decades the left has been vigorously fanning that flame, so KABOOM!

Just as the blacks have been fed a diet of self-defeating victimization, so the white youth of this country have been served up a dozen years of unrelenting guilt that has withered their souls into apologetic, neurotic automatons. We fuss about the Michelle lunches, but let’s look at what they’re being served in the classroom. It’s no more appetizing and nutritious than the limp, beige fare in the cafeteria. Much of what’s gone wrong in American education can be organized into 4 main categories, 4 horsemen that have caused this social apocalypse.

This first Horseman is called Neutrality. He isn’t neutral; educators just use that term because the schools are supposed to be impartial in regard to both politics and religion. This so-called fairness is closely associated with and bolstered by the misunderstood and mythological “separation of church and state.” True, we don’t want the public schools teaching church doctrine, but what happens to a child’s view of the world if he attends a school (where he’s supposed to be learning really important things) that never mentions God and even actively teaches against His existence? Look at science or health curricula today to see what I mean. Those classes are not neutral.

If a child is lucky enough to have parents who teach him about the Creator and have done a good job of it, the child can come out of public education without a lot of obvious damage, but those parents are rare and research done by the Barna Group shows that 70% of students raised in Christian homes come away from their education years seriously doubting what they learned in their churches and homes. That alone is a clear demonstration that schools are anything but neutral on religious issues.

Nor are they neutral on political issues. The last survey I read showed that over 80% of the members of the teachers’ unions were registered Democrats. Nothing shocked my students more than to discover that I was a conservative. I had the reputation of being one of the truly intellectual teachers on campus and I also taught modern dance, so how in the world could I be a registered Republican? They all knew those people were stuffy and stupid and racist. The biases they’d been taught in other classrooms was obvious.

In reality, there is no neutral. One may be able to hold onto pure objectivity for the short duration of a jury trial, but for an entire career? No human being can do that. It quickly becomes unnatural and some of us teach in areas where it’s just impossible: history, science, health, all the soft sciences, economics, and my discipline, language arts. How do you teach any classic literature and not find biblical references everywhere? How do you avoid the traditional classics and still give students an accurate idea of their culture? How do you allow them to discuss their own perceptions and maintain that pure, don’t-talk-about-God mandate? Can’t be done.

Another main problem with neutrality is that it belies the concept of absolute truth. If we teach kids, and believe me, we do, that there is no such thing as absolute truth then we’ve undermined the main point of education. A truly well educated person is one who has spent his life trying to find that truth. An educated person is not just a human being who has been trained to do a job – though that is the view of the state.

How can we expect kids to work hard learning if nothing we teach them is true? And – to get back to our riots – how can we then expect that they’ll care about the facts, the truth of an event. They’ve been taught and taught and taught again that they have a right to their own truth, that there are no objective facts, that everyone is biased. If they want to believe in “hands up; don’t shoot” then they can, regardless of the truth.

2. The next Horseman is called Political Correctness and is also known as Multi-culturalism.  This idea is very tempting to a school. It’s a shortcut to teaching true human decency and respect. Merely insist, mindlessly, on the eradication of certain taboo words and that will create the illusion of mutual admiration and esteem. It’s a get-out-of-jail-free card. Go past go and collect your $200. You get your Girl Scout Kindness badge just for abstaining from derogatory terms, intentional or unintentional. I was once castigated by the director of the school’s Second Language program for referring to her students as “Hispanic.” I hadn’t read the latest PC dictum – they were to be called “Latino” – or “Latina.” Somewhere along the line “Hispanic” had become a pejorative term.

This rider, too, chips away at the concept of truth. We’ve recently seen that on the news. We are no longer to refer to the roving gangs of marauders as “thugs.” No mention of the term’s Hindu origins, to its original reference to the murdering gangs of India know as the “Thugs” (pronounced “toogs”). Now it’s taken its place in the halls of negative ways to refer to people of color. And this was done by fiat from the all-powerful media, so be sure the schools will enforce it.

3. Our third Horseman is closely related to the second and is known as Tolerance. This horseman also masquerades as a loving, accepting, lenient, warm and fuzzy person. But here again, truth takes a beating and so does Christianity. This guy demands tolerance even of things and behaviors that should not in any polite society be tolerated. The Baltimore mayor applied tolerance to the behavior of the rioters in her city – at the expense of over 200 businesses that were in no way responsible for the outrage of the demonstrators. “Allow them room to destroy,” she said. Tolerate this behavior. It’s easier than judging that behavior, easier than calling them on their adult tantrums. Just shut down thought and put up with whatever.

This attitude also undermines education. Half the fun of reaching outside of your self to learn is the discovery of behaviors and events and occurrences that are outrageous. How horrible it is that Eskimo tribes would set their unwanted babies and their elderly on ice flows and leave them to drift off into their cold and lonely destiny. But today that would be presented to students as entirely acceptable behavior because we are being tolerant. (And it’s not that much different than a late term abortion or a convenient euthanasia.) That tolerance renders a great deal of education boring. If we don’t have to guard against negative behavior, or try to fix it, why know about it? What’s the point?

The last horseman we call Self-Esteem. We call him Self for short. Because that is what we’ve done – made the student the center of the curriculum and made his feelings about himself of paramount importance. Don’t get me wrong; I’m not advocating returning to the Dickensian approach of numbering students and humiliating them whenever possible. But does all the literature they read have to be set in this century and sport main characters no older than the students? Do we have to give out awards for everything? Long ago I quit attending awards night at our school; it was such a farce.

We’ve given our children the idea that they can do nothing wrong. After all, nothing is really right or wrong – see Horseman #1 – and we’re to be tolerant, aren’t we – see Horseman #3 – and it wouldn’t be PC to call the students out for being lazy, good for little, nincompoops even if they are, in fact, behaving that way. And look at what that’s given us – towns full of people who think the world should bow before them just because they are there. And we have been rendered powerless because we cannot #1, demand truth, or #2 call it as we see it, or #3 let it be known that we will not tolerate this disrespect, or #4 in any way demean their poor sensitivities.

Can we not just snap our fingers the way a hypnotist does and yank our young out of the trance we’ve put them in? Do we really have to live with this? And worse yet, double down on what we’ve done? We could make quite a noise if we all snapped our fingers together.  Or are we just going to send our children off to keep riding the four Horsemen?


Deana Chadwell blogs at ASingleWindow.com.
About Author Author Archive Email • (2720 views)

Share
Deana Chadwell

About Deana Chadwell

I have spent my life teaching young people how to read and write and appreciate the wonder of words. I have worked with high school students and currently teach writing at Pacific Bible College in southern Oregon. I have spent more than forty years studying the Bible, theology, and apologetics and that finds its way into my writing whether I’m blogging about my experiences or my opinions. I have two and a half moldering novels, stacks of essays, hundreds of poems, some which have won state and national prizes. All that writing — and more keeps popping up — needs a home with a big plate glass window; it needs air; it needs a conversation.
I am also an artist who works with cloth, yarn, beads, gourds, polymer clay, paint, and photography. And I make soap.

This entry was posted in Education. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to The Four Horsemen of the Education Apocalypse

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    This seems a good analysis (not having any recent knowledge of schools myself, I can’t say how accurate it would be here), though I would generally consider political correctness and multi-culturalism 2 different concepts, albeit closely related (and especially dangerous in combination, as the Rotherham gang rapes showed).

    I will note that with both neutrality and tolerance, and probably to some extent multi-culturalism as well, liberals (who dominate public miseducation) don’t really mean what they say (which is never a surprise, of course). As you note, they aren’t at all neutral politically or in terms of religious, and they’re intolerant of opposing views, though they’re happy to use the concepts when it’s convenient for their overall agenda.

    Similarly, I doubt many would actually accept the legitimacy of female genital mutilation (whether it’s clitoridectomy or sewing the vagina shut). Nor do they actually accept Western cultural attitudes as legitimate. Though in theory they consider all cultures equal in value, in reality they reject their own even as they have no wish to follow the practices of other cultures.

  2. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    …so the white youth of this country have been served up a dozen years of unrelenting guilt that has withered their souls into apologetic, neurotic automatons.

    Rick Moran had a blog post the other day by a San Francisco liberal who was surprised that his support for the $15.00 minimum wage would impact his business.

    I realize, as you do, that there is a different morality that is being force-fed to the yutes of today. But there is also just sheer ignorance at work, the idea that nothing more than good intentions makes the world work well.

    We’re likely going to read more and more stories like this. And the shame is, even if some of these yutes suspect something is wrong, how likely is it going to be that they will reach the right conclusion? Even if they did, the “Progressive” mindset is so thick, groupthink is the order of the day.

    We see stupid on one end enabling and amplifying the anti-civilization forces (aka “the mob”) on the other end. Who will the mob eat first, them or us? I guess that’s the main question concerning me. As I have often noted to friends, I feel safe enough where I live in the relative suburbs with lots of gun nuts and military-type folk. It’s libtard places such as Seattle (and Portland) that are likely to burn.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      We already are getting plenty of stories like this — people who didn’t have any idea what effect Obamacare would have, for example. Liberals simply don’t think about policy issues, preferring to parrot the party line. So even the most obvious connections come as a surprise to them.

  3. Anniel says:

    I hate what has happened to children because of the four horsemen. My thoughts always go to the self-esteem movement as the worst thing to confront any hope of correct principles being taught. The supposed intelligent people have decreed what will be taught and what books will be used, and we’re all to salute.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      When we discussed Beowulf in 12th grade, my teacher pointed out that Beowulf was not especially modest — he was the best, and he knew it and was willing to say so. But this was what has been called “pardonable pride” — the clear-sighted understanding of one’s good points. It’s self-esteem based on reality. Modern schools teach self-esteem based only on feelings, regardless of reality. That’s a key difference. (And I wonder if they still study Beowulf, and if they would still make that point.)

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Absolutely. A certain amount of confidence or pride based upon accomplishments is a fine thing. I would think the point of all this “self-esteem” baloney is so that everyone feels equally good. No one every has to feel bad.

        Well, this might be somewhat age-appropriate for Kindergarteners or first or second graders. But beyond that it becomes stifling.

  4. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Can we not just snap our fingers the way a hypnotist does and yank our young out of the trance we’ve put them in?

    Very well said, Deana. That’s how it feels from this end. I’m more than willing to talk with someone about a subject…and have my mind changed if the argument is a good one (not perfect, just good and that makes sense).

    But we really are talking about yutes who have been programmed as if by a hypnotist. It’s always been in the back of my mind to find the right words to snap them out of it. But I realize now (after about a gazillion words) that this is not possible. One might plant a seed. But the finger-snap isn’t there.

    Humility. The quest for knowledge. Respect for those who have come before you. These are the things that allow us to grow and learn and not be stuck inside “ideologies.” I’m still open (or try to be) to various things. As one grows older, it really is true “The more one knows the more one knows that one doesn’t know.”

    Many yutes are filled with an ideology primed to cater to their every conceit. And what can’t be bought with conceit is bought either with “free stuff” or the Soma of “sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll.” Sprinkled amongst these are those who have simply made a religion of the environment. They may be harmless but they are certainly enablers of the bully socialists and Big Brother (or Sister) state that is going to tell everyone what to do “in the name of taking care of the planet.”

    Don’t get me wrong; I’m not advocating returning to the Dickensian approach of numbering students and humiliating them whenever possible. But does all the literature they read have to be set in this century and sport main characters no older than the students?

    Although I figure I’m as sane as they come, it helps to have one’s instincts and intuitions verified now and again. One doesn’t want to get too far out ahead, even if one is right. And this is something I’ve noted in movies for quite some time. Instead of honoring a period piece (say, Sherlock Holmes), there is this juvenile-like need to make these characters look like them. Narcissism? Self-esteem? I think it’s all that and more.

    One of the joys of literature or movies is getting lost in adventures, situations, and cultures that are foreign to one’s everyday life. Good god, why would I want to make Sherlock Holmes into just another nose-picking yute? I hope there is an afterlife, because I want to shake Jeremy Brett’s hand for honoring that character.

    At the end of the day, a stale pop phrase will be the guiding principle for these generations of self-esteemers: “You have to live with your choices.” Will they? Will they even know that they made a choice?

  5. Will there be any choices left for them to make? That’s what worries me. As long as there are choices, all’s well. When we run out, we’re in trouble.

    As for validation — that’s why we do this. In a culture that does everything it can to invalidate that ideas that we know in our bones are valid and practical and true, we need to encourage each other by just being out there. Thanks again for a site that lets us do that.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Will there be any choices left for them to make? That’s what worries me. As long as there are choices, all’s well. When we run out, we’re in trouble.

      That indeed gets to the heart of the usually unspoken bargain between the singular social unit (a person) and the collective social unit (the state): We (the “social democratic” state) will take care of most of the big stuff so you won’t have to worry about anything but filling out the right forms, standing in the right line, remembering to take the morning-after pill, genuflecting to Mother Gaia, and putting on that “Smiles, everyone, smiles,” face of nice, but not necessarily good. Your sins (as long as they are not environmental sins) will all be forgiven, and personal conduct of almost any sort sanctified, if you give up your big choices (education, housing, retirement, employment, and more) to the state.

      Granted, the “social democratic” state does not yet control where you live or where you work. But that is the logical end game. And such states have, of course, controlled those very things (including industry). And eventually (in the name of Gaia or “smart growth”) they will get around (as they do in China) telling you whether you can have a child or not.

      So have fun with those stupid tattoos, rings in the ears and nose, wearing your trouser knees out worshipping Mother Gaia, and paying the huge tab for all the fake and false promises of Mother State. You’re going to need as many distractions as you can to keep you at least pretending to be happy and fulfilled.

      As for validation — that’s why we do this. In a culture that does everything it can to invalidate that ideas that we know in our bones are valid and practical and true, we need to encourage each other by just being out there.

      Good point. There is a certain amount of validation that is good and necessary, particularly of tried-and-true, time-tested ideas. But I think more and more there will be a shrinking, but strong, faction of people joined together simply by not being on the insane Leftist or Progressive side. The thread that ties is just plain decency, respect for truth and knowledge, respect for the integrity of the individual, respect for the necessity of good morals, and a respect for personal responsibility. Whether further threads join us (our religion, political party, or whatever) is somewhat icing on the cake.

      Many have not yet figured out the false gods of Darwin, Freud, and Marx (and perhaps we should add Algore into the mix as well….and Ron Paul). It’s tough because we’re all now little fishies swimming in the Cultural Marxist waters. I won’t embarrass friends or clients. But I roll my eyes and I’m very disappointed when I see them genuflecting to the absurd. But business is business, I suppose.

      Thanks again for a site that lets us do that.

      Well, I don’t quite know what to say to that, Deana. You guys furnish most of the content. I’m still figuring out the point of this site, the general thrust of it. And as I’ve told Glenn and others, it’s your site every time you post something, so that thrust really isn’t quite set in stone. One’s submission goes to the top of the page and you are it. Like a Blues Brother, all I have is some fuzzy and general “We’re on a mission from God” shtick. It’s not about me or having everyone think like me (a situation I would not prefer). We’re a Three Stooges-like poke in the eye of Progressive silliness.

      Who is doing that these days? Goodness gracious, look how easily the “conservatives” on Fox News have folded in regards to Pamela Geller’s “Paint Mohammed” meeting as described nicely by Karin McQuillan in here blog post: Conservative Pundits for Sharia? As one commenter noted, Andy McCarthy (no big surprise, he’s one of the most knowledgable, decent, and consistent conservatives) has an article on behalf of Geller.

      I was watching a documentary on Churchill that centered on his involvement in The Great War. As First Lord of the Admiralty, he did what he could to prepare for it. But in private letters to his wife he noted how it seemed as if the world had gone insane. I cannot think of a better way of saying it. The world can indeed go insane.

      Perhaps just a little sanity here and there as we can find it is the real elixir.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Actually, even environmental sins can be forgiven as long as one has the correct views, as witness the Goracle’s personal energy expenditures.

        Not everyone at Fox News wimped out on Pam Geller. Megyn Kelly and Sean Hannity both took strong stances for free speech. One should also recall that O’Reilly, unlike liberals who cheered “Piss Christ” while denouncing any insult to Mohammed, is at least not a hypocrite in this case. His stance is a reasonable one (blasphemy against another’s religion is legal and should not be cause for violence, but is undesirable) as long as it’s consistent in its treatment of different religions.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Yes, good point about even environmental sins being forgiven if you are on the “right side” (left side, of course). Prager and others have noted this interesting aspect of the Left. As long as you are publicly for “the movement,” it’s likely your individual sins can be overlooked or rationalized away. This is the rot of both relativism and political partisanship.

          And in a godless culture (I’m not sure what else to call it), this makes sense. If there is no real intrinsic point to anything, then there is no right or wrong. There are only conveniences, preferences, and expediencies. You can see why religious feelings, and the authority, get transferred to the state in a socialist paradigm. There is nothing bigger and can be nothing bigger. And you see also why the Left worships the created instead of the Creator. There is nowhere else to go.

          That doesn’t mean the world isn’t full of gray areas and the need for situational judgment. There is. That’s probably 80% of life. But without that 20% we go absolutely cuckoo. A boat’s rudder, for instance, is probably a mere quarter of one percent of the total surface area of the hull. But it’s, of course, hugely important out of all proportion to its size.

  6. Anniel says:

    “Will there be any choices left for them to make?” It frightens me to see how more people than ever think that doing nothing is not a choice in itself. They never think of the consequences of silence and acquiescence. That to me was the sin of the Germans who averted their eyes to the insanity around them.

  7. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    This first Horseman is called Neutrality.

    This is surely the same principle that Allan Bloom talks about in The Closing of the American Mind whereby yutes are taught to be “open” to all things…aka “non-judmentalism.”

    And it makes some sense. If one decrees that all the bad stuff comes from making judgments, then just don’t make judgments. And if you understand this (and Deana clearly does first-hand), then you understand why Christianity is a target and Islam is a protected mascot. Christianity is associated (via careful propaganda) with making judgments. Similar to the delusions of libertarians, it is assumed that the reason Islam “acts out” (a nice euphemism) is because of the West (and Christians) haven’t been suitably “sensitive,” “understanding,” and “open” to Islam.

    Islam is declared a victim, like the Palestinians, whose dark excesses are rationalized as a justified “acting out” against the oppressor. If everyone would just be “open” (libertarians emphasize this idea in regards to markets, reducing or eliminating any aspect of right or wrong) then things would automatically be peaceful and a general Kumbaya would break out between nations and peoples.

    It’s a nice theory…but a naive and faulty one. Thus we see these nicey-nice Progressives being played for fools by the world’s thugs as Obama is. And this will come back to bite them and us. But in the meantime this idea that “love means never having to make judgments” gives the Progressive the feeling (and feelings count, rational standards do not) that he or she is the cat’s meow in terms of God’s gift to niceness.

    As we see in Europe, this indiscriminate “niceness” has let the barbarians into their midst. There will be a certain amount of Schadenfreude from this end as we watch Europe wake up to the realization of what it has done. One might also note that this “niceness” and “openness” isn’t so nice or open in practice. Conservatism or any belief that runs contrary to this Cult of Super-niceness is usually severely dealt with. But because this is a cult, people become very attached to the flattering and heady notion of being better than everyone else.

    Still, I think when run through the filter of normal human-to-human interaction, much of the harsh edge of this “niceness” is softened. But lurking underneath is that very dangerous trip switch whereby these “nice” people will do little or nothing to protect the liberties of those whom the state has officially declared as “not nice” or “environmental polluters” or whatever. We will see (and often do) just how shallow and self-centered this “niceness” is. This is zealotry with a smiley face.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      One must also remember that the “non-judgmental” liberals are also capable of being very judgmental of those who disagree with them (preferably over some claimed lapse in proper behavior that wouldn’t matter for someone who agreed with them or was a member of an official victim identity-group). Then (like Jimmy Stewart’s character in Rope), the professors are often surprised to see where the students take this alleged principle.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        “Rope” is a very interesting movie. And I don’t remember what it was that Jimmy Stewart had fed into their heads. But a general hate of this country, capitalism, religion, parents, families, and various other things are inflicted by professors onto unsuspecting skulls-full-of-mush. And those professors most likely get exactly what they want.

        It still intrigues me the motivation for all this. Are these professors sort of a true “revenge of the nerds”? Were they the last ones picked on the playground when choosing up sides? Did they have harsh or non-existent parents? Did the minister (as I swear must be the case with Dawkins) accidentally back his car over their puppy? Did they have a bad love affair? Are they just physically ugly?

        Masquerading for “care” for the environment, immigrants, what have you, is a deep hatred for a good many things. I think the psychological/moral impetus most operative is that these people cannot accept their own slings and arrows and thus have this insane need to try to reorder society so that their weaknesses (or perversions) are normalized. This is likely the true drive for “equality, at least at the top.

        And for the slackers and low information voters, well, the idea of “equality” just sounds so nice.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Stewart’s character (Rupert Brandon, I think) had taught the notion that supermen had the right to (for example) kill others without being punished by the ordinary people of society. (The movie was based on a play that was inspired by the murder of Bobby Franks by Nathan Leopold Jr. and Richard Loeb, which was also the subject of the book and movie Compulsion.) At the end, when he realizes that his 2 pupils have actually acted on this, he is stunned at how they’ve interpreted his teachings. (This naturally raises the question of how he intended them.)

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            At the end, when he realizes that his 2 pupils have actually acted on this, he is stunned at how they’ve interpreted his teachings.

            The bane of intellectuals. It’s so easy to play with ideas without concern for consequences. The thought is, “I’m such a kind, wise, enlightened person. I care for the poor. I care for the planet. I care for the working class. I care for whatever. What but good could come from my ideas?”

            Other than any actual Divine protection or Providence, this is the real harm from jettisoning authentic (as opposed to Cultural Marxist-infused “social justice”) Christianity. Humility is one of the key ingredients humans need in order to not go cuckoo.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              A good example in more recent times was the “all marriage is equivalent to rape” teaching of Catharine MacKinnon — who later got married herself. (Addendum: A quick check on Wikipedia indicates that she never actually married, though she was engaged for several years.)

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                These guys are nuts. And yet that philosophy, and dozens more like it, has infected the culture. It’s seeped down to the useful idiots who drink the poison up, buffered as it it by idle words such as “equality.”

    • I saw a meme on FB the other day that used the phrase “conspicuous compassion.” That’s it in a nutshell. No one expects or demands actual, practical compassion — just so long as we trumpet our lovingkindness, and we commit these random acts by proxy only, we’re good.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        That’s collective morality in a nutshell. To my mind, Deana, it is a repudiation of selfhood, of that special spark of importance (and duty) that is to be this wondrous and miraculous thing called a human being.

        I deny my humanity when morality becomes in essence “I gave at the office,” when it becomes a plaything for egos, a mere political conceit.

        And when I say “morality” that sounds like such dreary, doom-and-gloom stuff. And some of it inherently is. But I mean that I don’t think you can have real joy, real peace, and real compassion and live artificial, gave-at-the-office ethics. It’s hollow and shallow. This is what we reach for, Christian, conservative, or just plain good American. No proxy. The buck stops here.

  8. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Group shows that 70% of students raised in Christian homes come away from their education years seriously doubting what they learned in their churches and homes. That alone is a clear demonstration that schools are anything but neutral on religious issues.

    That’s an astonishing statistic…in that it’s not at least 95%. Darwin solves all metaphysical questions. Freud solves all motivational/sexual questions. And Marx solves all economic/political questions (by shoving everything through the filter of oppressor/victim in regards to race, sex, and class).

    A modern “Progressive” education appeals to yutes. It gives them a green light on sexuality instead of a message of restraint. It green lights partying, instead of a message of restraint. It green lights emotional zealotry and self-idolatry instead of a message of restraint. This is what I mean (and Mr. Kung surely means) when saying that it’s the template of “sex, drugs, and rock and roll” that is the defining force for the Left (or Libertarian) creed.

    The Left promises not only a personal Nirvana, but it promises to solve all the world’s problems, especially when those problems are presented not as inherent (because of human nature, the laws of economics, and any number of other objective principles) but as existing simply because of a lack of nicey-nice “smiles, everyone, smiles,” attitudes.

    A somewhat normal teenager will enter the university. And out will come a one-dimensional zombie, not someone wiser and more balanced.

  9. So, is the new Trinity Darwin/Freud/Marx or sex/drugs/rock&roll? Interesting conundrum.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      So, is the new Trinity Darwin/Freud/Marx or sex/drugs/rock&roll? Interesting conundrum.

      I’m sorry. That question is above my pay grade. 😀 But, seriously…I think the new Trinity is: Self-esteem/Utopia/Victimhood.

      • You know what we need on this site? We need a simple “Amen” button. 🙂

        • Timothy Lane says:

          I’m sure we’ve all felt that way a number of times. As for your question, it depends on whether the Trinity refers to the prophets (the gods would be Moloch, Gaia, and Priapus, I suppose) or the values of the liberal worshippers.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            As for your question, it depends on whether the Trinity refers to the prophets (the gods would be Moloch, Gaia, and Priapus, I suppose) or the values of the liberal worshippers.

            I think that’s a good point, Timothy. Without being too pedantic, there are certainly a number of ways to parse this question. I think Deana’s four horsemen approach works well. She on, or has been on, the front lines, so I somewhat defer to her.

            Also, any trinity of the Left probably should include feminism. Few things are more central regarding this swing to the Left than the de-masculinization of the male and the masculinization of the female…all (strangely) while holding up the female traits as superior.

            And a case can be made for women running the world. They can hardly do worse than men such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Marx, Darwin, Lenin (and Lennon), Castro, and Obama. I’m not totally against this case. The wars of men (often, of course, in protection of women and fully supported by women, if only in the background) have been a plague on mankind.

            But the faults of women bring a different kind of violence to society, starting with the destruction of a higher intellectual life, good principles, and justice. It was my mother’s birthday yesterday, so we had a little party for her. She votes Republican and is a Christian. Abortion and gay marriage make her at a least a two-issue voter.

            My older brother asked me, “What would you do if some gay couple came to you and asked you to bake a cake?” I gave the same answer I’ve given here: I’d likely bake the damn cake, but certainly not at a discount. But if some gay organization wanted something, I would turn them away and tell them why (because gay advocacy has become so Nazi-like and intolerant).

            Anyway, my mother pipes us “Oh, but if you shouldn’t cause trouble and go against the law.” I quipped to my younger brother, somewhat out of earshot of my mother, “This is just how Nazi Germany started.”

            Women, by and large, don’t want trouble. Their concerns are security, and the philosophy is usually so emotional you can’t find much to draw a sound principle from. There are, of course, many exceptions. But, by and large, I find this to be true just as I find it true that men too often and too easily draw lines in the sand and brace for conflict as a first impulse, which is destructive as well.

            But we can’t talk about that because it causes people to freak out…oh, except that just did and we can, at least for the moment, still talk about controversial ideas. But no discussion of the Left is complete without noting the giant of feminism in the room, for better or for worse, and I will acknowledge there are both aspects.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Perhaps it depends on which part of the multi-verse, one is inhabiting.

      Or maybe there a progression here, which is due to the dumbing down of humanity. From actual people and their works to nonsense, i.e. from specifics to general ignorance.

      Darwin/Freud/Marx become Dead/White/Males become Sex/Drugs/Rock-n-Roll.

  10. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I noticed that the comments to this article on American Thinker run heavily to “There shouldn’t be government schools. We should not be compelled. We should have free association.”

    There are, of course, many positives to that point of view. But that point misses the point entirely. Even if there were no government schools, it’s likely your children would fully soak up Progressive culture from TV, movies, music, and then higher education.

    There are indeed systemic problems with the public school system, not least of which is that the focus is too easily removed from what’s good for the children to what’s good for the teachers’ unions. But the real problem with government schools now is the lousy and poisonous curriculum. Damn the medium for things it should be damned for, but it’s the message that is the real problem.

    Libertarians can’t think themselves out of a wet paper bag.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Many questions can be answered on different levels. As an ideal system, there probably should be no public education (though the concept isn’t inherently bad, merely badly operated here — there apparently are some countries where it works, such as Finland). But that isn’t going to happen, so we have to figure out how to deal with it now and how to fix it (as much as it can be fixed) while encouraging alternatives that might someday in the far future replace it entirely.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *