Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Nuclear Attack On American Soil?

A few recent articles briefly broach the topic of a nuclear attack on America. Given that an attack on an American city is a religious aspiration of our jihadist enemy, the near silence on this topic points to the difficulty we have facing the threat. The threat isn’t a technology; it is an enemy likely to use this technology which raises the difficulty we have discussing the problem. The enemy is clearly Islamic in nature.

Most discussions focus on covert activity but state-sponsorship is still a requirement for entry into the nuclear club. Our actions are inadequate to deal with the problem. We’ve failed to stop Pakistan from acquiring nuclear weapons and furthering the spread nuclear technology. But we’ve removed Saddam and discouraged Kaddafi; only to become obsessed with utopian nations-building. Leaders of both political parties emphatically oppose Iran’s development of nuclear weapons; but they oppose doing anything concrete to stop Iran even more.

The French newswire, AFP, reports that at a recent “international conference on nuclear terrorism” in Miami, experts called for “renewed efforts to crack down on black market sales of nuclear and radioactive material.” This was followed by the shocking (shocking!) news that “the likes of Al-Qaeda network leader Osama bin Laden -- responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States -- are actively seeking nuclear material.” The productiveness of the conference can be gauged by the summary statement: “Communication, sharing and coordination ... are the essence of what will ultimately make our network stronger than the terrorist network."

If that doesn’t convince you of the expertise and competence of those charged with protecting us from an attack that is because they aren’t convinced either. In a Washington Times’ article titled “FBI director predicts terrorists will acquire nukes” we learn that it isn’t only foreign terrorists that are a threat but “homegrown terrorists not affiliated with al Qaeda who have been inspired by its message of hatred and violence” i.e. those inspired by Islam to wage jihad.

Not to be outdone in defeatism, passivity, and denial, the New York Times, in an op-ed called “After the Bomb” is concerned about avoiding another Katrina-like response of the Federal government when (not if) we are attacked. A passing quip urges that we resist “the temptation … to retaliate.” Instead the author urges that we grovel for the cooperation from the governments who gave the terrorists nuclear technology. No mention is made of the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction that kept our enemies from using nuclear weapons (either directly or through proxies) during the Cold War.

It is common to hear that we can never morally use nuclear weapons; too many innocent people will die when it is only a few perpetrators (covert like al Qaeda or dictators like Saddam) who are responsible. Usually this is accompanied by some vacuous moral vanity about “being better than they are.” Finally this is capped off with “we brought it on ourselves” with the implication we have no moral right to respond.

When talking to the younger generation, what’s shocking is the widespread belief that we were morally wrong to use nuclear weapons in WWII. Growing-up in the 1950s and 1960s this was considered a crank-viewpoint. It is almost standard now although I’d like to have hard statistics to gage if my sample is correct. The vast moral doubt that permeates the younger generation about our nation and our culture suggests a lack of self-esteem required to vigorously defend this nation against foreign threats. The accompanied acceptance of an eventual nuclear attack is the result of a surrender which is first and foremost a moral surrender. A person or nation that doesn’t believe in their worth and greatness won’t have the righteous fighting spirit to insure their existence.

The spiritual killers within are our greatest enemy. Civilizations aren’t destroyed by primitive savages unless they’ve been already destroyed at the core from within.


Blogger Pastorius said...

Among the foolish people who have espoused this idea that we should not retaliate with a nuclear weapon if we are hit by a nuclear weapon is Ed Morrissey.


I think everyone needs to know that Ed Morrissey has made it clear that this is his opinion. This viewpoint is dangerous, and ultimately, the results it will yield are evil.

Ed Morrissey is a nice man, but his blind ignorance on this subject is frightening. That he is so respected makes it all the more frightening. That Hugh Hewitt agrees with him is frightening. These men are supposedly on our side, but if America were to be hit by a nuclear attack, men like Morrissey and Hewitt would be among the most dangerous people in our nation. And, likely, they, and people like them, would have to be strung up on lamp poles like Ceaucescu or Mussolini.

6/12/07, 5:49 PM  
Blogger Allen Weingarten said...

Jason writes “The accompanied acceptance of an eventual nuclear attack is the result of a surrender which is first and foremost a moral surrender… Civilizations aren’t destroyed by primitive savages unless they’ve been already destroyed at the core from within.” He has once again gotten to the essence of the issue, namely that it is not the homicide of an external enemy that explains our demise, but our spiritual suicide. If we are to survive, we must restore our moral perspective. However, at this point, given the threat of WMD’s, I would like to raise the following scenario.

Let us consider that Muslim agents are likely to be planting WMD’s around America, for the sake of inflicting damage in the future. Most significant is that these can be used for blackmail. Thus, after setting off some of these weapons, or taking hostages, we would be told to accede to certain demands or else. How could our government deal with the threat of the loss of many lives?

I submit enacting a law whereupon anyone who negotiates with them, under these conditions, be immediately imprisoned and tried. This would render such blackmail futile. It is true that such a law would be tested, and we would have to take the loss, rather than meet their demands. However, once their efforts failed, the motivation for further efforts would diminish.

Sometimes people ask ‘What would you do, if it were your child whose life was at stake?’ My response is that I would accede to their demands. However, by so doing there would be an endless stream of victims in future cases, so that there is also the question ‘What would you do, if by acceding to their demands, your child was a future victim of theirs?’

Perhaps we ought to ask our presidential candidates (from any party) whether they would support such a law. It could be stated that by acceding to terrorist demands, the terrorist are given the knowledge that they needn’t worry about capture, for they would be released under future blackmail.

Finally, let us note that in warfare, no General accedes to enemy demands that we surrender, or else the Americans held prisoner would be murdered. It is understood that in war, one might as well raise the white flag if he is unwilling to lose the lives of servicemen.

6/12/07, 9:32 PM  
Blogger Ronbo said...

Right on Brother Jason!

I'm going to run this complete article tomorrow in The Freedom Fighter's Journal with a link back to you, if you don't mind.

Yes, a concensus has developed on the part of both the Right and Left in this country: "The question is not if we get nuked by Islam? The only real question is when will we get nuked by Islam?

Will the USA respond with nukes?

If what happened after 9/11 is any indication, the days of a non-radioactive Mecca and Medina are coming to an end, as indeed the political and cultural hegemony of the Left will come to a quick end.

And that will be just for openers.."Beware the Ides of March" those who hate America.

6/13/07, 11:50 AM  
Blogger Jason Pappas said...

Thanks, guys; we need to clearly articulate our willingness to respond with the ultimate weapon. We can and should establish the correct policy of deterrence which includes our willingness to use nuclear weapons without apology. That was how we won the Cold War.

Also, Hugh, has some comments today on this issue.

6/13/07, 11:58 AM  
Blogger Ducky's here said...

Hey, I've got an idea. Let's threaten a bunch of freakin' crazies who are begging for Armegeddon with nuclear weapons.

That should really make them stop.

6/13/07, 12:42 PM  
Blogger Jason Pappas said...

From the source that usually says cautions against generalizations we now hear that the whole Islamic world is suicidal and longs to die to get into paradise?

6/13/07, 1:28 PM  
Blogger Ducky's here said...

Now Jason, what you hear is that there is a subset of muslims who are absolute lunatics.

A nuclear threat may acual be welcomed by them. Their objectives don't meet the standards of our reason

6/13/07, 1:49 PM  
Blogger Jason Pappas said...

But they'll get all the others killed just like the Politburo could have gotten the average Ivan killed. If the regimes can't secure their nuclear weapons they'll lose everything that's dear to them. That's what Mutual Assured Destruction entails.

6/13/07, 2:22 PM  
Blogger Ducky's here said...

...and what is it with these far right bed wetters that they lack the moral and spiritual will to believe we have the policing ability to stop a serious attack?

6/13/07, 5:11 PM  
Blogger Jason Pappas said...

We did stop a serious attack ... for 45 years we held back the USSR. We did it by establishing a nuclear deterrent and a policy of Mutual Assured Destruction. What is it about the left that they want to surrender, grovel, and pray that we won’t get attacked?

6/13/07, 5:28 PM  
Blogger Ronbo said...

Jason said:

Thanks, guys; we need to clearly articulate our willingness to respond with the ultimate weapon. We can and should establish the correct policy of deterrence which includes our willingness to use nuclear weapons without apology. That was how we won the Cold War.

Indeed! We simply announce that any nuclear attack on the USA no matter how big or small by any Muslim group will result in the immediate nuclear destruction of Mecca and Medina.

Period...End of Message...

6/14/07, 3:21 AM  
Blogger Ronbo said...


I posted your article on my Blog with a title change and a "Big Mo" picture that I hope will increase the impact of what you're saying:

The M.A.D. Doctrine For Islam

Cheers, Ronbo

6/14/07, 3:47 AM  
Blogger Allen Weingarten said...

Jason asks “What is it about the left that they want to surrender, grovel, and pray that we won’t get attacked?” Perhaps they view the problems in the world as stemming from the free-market, particularly in America. As such they are committed to denying any aggression that might justify an American defense. A deeper question is why they view problems as stemming from freedom. My view is that it protects them from having to behave responsibly.

I agree with Ronbo, but would shorten his recommendation as follows: We simply announce that any nuclear attack on the USA…will result in the immediate nuclear destruction of Mecca and Medina. He might of course have included Tehran and Pyongyang

6/14/07, 10:24 AM  
Blogger (((Thought Criminal))) said...

What is it about the left that they want to surrender, grovel, and pray that we won’t get attacked?

It's all a part of the mandate that provides common ground among the various stripes in the leftist tent: the overriding, engrained, deeply philosophical need for a leftist to convince other people that empirically, all leftists are morons.


Have Ducky attempt to explain this 1992 video of Al Gore talking about Iraq's continuing threat as a WMD manufacturer and terrorism supporter, and what should be done (militarily) about it instead of running through the game of UN inspections, and how 11 years later Gore became maniacally contradictive.

6/14/07, 3:48 PM  
Blogger (((Thought Criminal))) said...

Pay particular attention to how Ducky's explanation of Al Gore's anti-terrorism, anti-Iraq stance in 1992 evolved into a federal indictment of Osama Bin Laden naming Iraq as a state sponsor of Al Qaeda and not much else during the Clinton-Gore regime.

6/14/07, 4:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cubed here.

Ronbo, you said "...any nuclear attack on the USA no matter how big or small by any Muslim group will result in the immediate nuclear destruction of Mecca and Medina."

Three cheers! And, I might add, it would seem that Our Leaders are far less willing to endure the cost of self-defense and the dispensation of justice than a lot of us plain folks are; my guess is, once again, that this country would become essentially a "Muslim-free zone" and that one way or the other, Mecca and Medine would be footnote in history.

If they attack us again, we might just get pissed off.

By the way, have you all noticed that the TV series Jericho has been canceled? It pictured what went on in a small town after multiple nuclear weapons had been set off by an as yet undisclosed enemy.

Hmmm. Any guesses about whom they may have had in mind re: the attackers, and if so, why the program was canceled?

I know, I know; I'm becoming quite paranoid. But then, why not? It seems appropriate, somehow...

6/15/07, 1:09 AM  
Blogger Ronbo said...

allen and ann:

Thanks for your support for my "Modest Proposal" to end the terrorism problem.

If you want to read some excellent intellectual arguments for Total War Against Isam (TWAI) see: at The Objectivist Standard

I predict with an 80% certainty this where we are headed anyway, especially if you consider the U.S. Civil War and WW II -- Both wars started out as limited wars, but made an evolution into Total War by the actions of the enemy who would not call a truce or surrender until almost literally the last one wanted to die for his cause, in fact died.

The Third World War has just begun folks, and what has happened so far is only the end of the beginning...CBR (Chemical, Biological, Radiological Warfare) starts in the next act as does the carpet bombing of Muslim urban centers....mass death...mass dectruction...Oh we'll win in the end, but we'll pay a butcher's bill and so will they.

6/15/07, 7:38 AM  
Blogger Allen Weingarten said...

Mr. Beamish, I concede that your analysis of the left is superior to mine.

Ronbo, I appreciated much that was in your recommended article “at The Objectivist Standard” including: “The struggle to defend our freedom depends fundamentally on an ideological battle…A campaign guided by the ideal of self-sacrifice and renunciation cannot bring us victory. We need a different ideal…If we are to pursue America’s self-interest, we must above all be passionate advocates for rational moral ideals.” This brings us back to Jason’s comment “of a surrender which is first and foremost a moral surrender”.

Here, I wish to raise my own perspective, as follows:

*We Have Not Yet Begun To Fight*

The cornerstone of civilization is the search for ‘justice’ defined by “As ye sow, so shall ye reap.” Here, people should receive what they deserve, where those who are productive obtain what they have earned, while those who are destructive are to be penalized. This definition is often challenged by the paradigm of a family, where those who are well off must care for those who are not. Here, each gives from his ability, while each receives by his needs. Most people accept this within their family, but at issue is its application by government. I submit that the role of government is to protect the inalienable rights of the individual, so it has a technical role, such as that of an umpire. Conversely, the vogue school of thought is that government should be a force for good, where it has a moral mission, in particular to equalize benefits.

Consequently, the concept of morality (the carrying out of justice) is split between those who view it solely in the realm of personal choice (i.e., within the culture), and those who view it in the realm of government (which is an agent of force). The former would eschew the initiation of force, employing it solely for self-defense; the latter would initiate force for a good cause, even if it violated the rights of the individual.

There is a similar split with regard to dealing with aggression. Some of us view it as a threat to civilization, which can only be countered by confrontation, while others view it as subject to accommodation, generally through negotiations and reward. The former view aggression as stemming from barbarism which is antithetical to civilization, while the latter view it as understandable, where all men are essentially good. This is analogous to the first split, for the former again view the agency of force as having to protect the rights of the innocent, whereas the latter view it as a moral aid for equality.

Now those who have the view of justice where people receive what they deserve, have a morality of restricting force to the defense of the innocent; those whose view is where people receive unearned benefits, have a morality of initiating force so as to provide benefits, rather than to punish aggression. I submit that the former can recognize the situation of America, as the imperative of the good to defend against evil, whereas the latter have obliterated the foundation whereupon there can be any differentiation of good from evil. Once all men are good, there can be no protection of good from evil; once aggression is accommodated (let alone rewarded) the loss is to the civilized who pay, while the gain is to the aggressors whose benefits come easily from adverse behavior.

My position is that only on the basis of a sound view of justice & morality (which ensures that people get what they deserve) can we begin to fight. This is because we are in a battle to defend civilization from barbarism, so that treating this moral issue as though it were a technical matter is to depart from the reality we are experiencing. More pertinent is that the false view of justice & morality (where people get what they do not deserve) continually prevents our defense. Thus, thinking ‘benevolently’ prevents us from razing Falluja or firing upon those crossing our borders. It even precludes sound thought, as when disregarding that the Arab-Muslim world is at war with us, or denying the anti-Americanism of many immigrants. Consequently, the vogue ‘morality’ enables and rewards our enemies, while undermining ourselves and our allies. At root, the reason we have not yet begun to fight is that we are lacking a sound moral perspective.

What is central to the formation and defense of civilization, is the issue of right and wrong. When conflicts go on that are merely technical, or of differences of interests, it matters little who wins, or whether the battles ought to be waged at all. Yet the reality of our age is an attack by Islam (supported by many) against our civilization, and in opposition to all civilization. This is an evil force, where justice and morality call for its defeat. Treating this battle from a morally neutral plane is to not begin to fight it. Yet the problem is deeper, for we are less threatened by homicide than by suicide. If Arabs and Muslims are up in arms against us, it is due to our enabling, encouraging, and rewarding them. The analogy is that of someone whose immune system is worn to the point where he becomes the recipient of diseases. These are real, and must be dealt with, but it is the susceptibility that is fundamental. Here, we must first address why it is that the supports to our civilization have been crumbling, while the attacks upon it have grown. It is only after we have explained the undermining of our civilization that we can begin to fight our enemies.

6/15/07, 12:19 PM  
Blogger beakerkin said...

Of course when we get hit the Duck will blame it on AIPAC and Right wingers.

Make America a better place send the Duck to Gitmo. Let him bore the Jihadis with Communist flat earth jargon.

6/15/07, 12:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You make your case when you state that the U.S. has been lulled into an acceptance of our "fate" to become the victim of nuclear terror, instead of declaring war on Islam and wrenching these materials from their hands -- cold and dead if that's the only way it can be done.

This upcoming generation of American kids needs a new breed of teachers and professors. I think perhaps this might do more to preserve the nation than any other single thing. The Left have had their vice-grip on learning institutions for far too long and the result is obvious.

People will most likely say that the salaries aren't good enough to attract more "conservative-minded" instructors. I say, they are right, on that level. However, this is WAR, folks. Sacrifices have to be made by all in order to win ultimately.

So, consider that point of mine and if you have the qualities of a teacher, consider taking a dent to your wallet for the good of the country and the world.

Hell, if that can't be managed, consider blogging. The blogosphere is not to be underestimated in its power to educate and convince.

6/15/07, 1:41 PM  
Blogger (((Thought Criminal))) said...


It baffles me why anyone would premise an analysis of the left on the belief that leftists are capable of rational thought.

I mean, if so, why not consider 4-sided triangles?

6/15/07, 5:38 PM  
Blogger Allen Weingarten said...

Mr. Beamish, there are those who do not think rationally, but rather say "Chocolate is good for me, because I like it." However, *this does not refute that they have values which guide their actions*, such as wanting to punish the wicked capitalists. Note that when psychiatrists analyze psychotics, they do not seek logic but motivation. Thus if leftists dream of 4-sided triangles that the government can use to rid the world of personal responsibility, it displays their desires.

6/15/07, 7:27 PM  
Blogger (((Thought Criminal))) said...

I was speaking catagorically... as in "rational leftists" belong in the same catagory as "4-sided triangles" and "hard-rocking Enya albums."

You know, the category where we keep things that don't actually exist.

6/16/07, 12:07 PM  
Blogger Allen Weingarten said...

Mr. Beamish, I know what you mean. Various leftists continue to speak highly of Che Guevara, who would have bombed NY city from Cuba, and who characterized black-skinned people as indolent. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, some of these same liberals lived in NY, and would have gone to the barricades against anyone who made an anti-black remark. Such people are as hostile to logic as to anything that imposes some responsibility.

6/16/07, 3:14 PM  
Blogger kevin said...

Good post, I linked it.

The NYT quote is a sample of the left's inability to defend or retaliate against even the most deadly enemy. Gone are days of FDR and JFK, liberal men who would've defended our great nation to whatever cost necessary to acquire victory. Today's liberal believes America brings it upon itself, and therefore cannot in good conscience strike an enemy that is, in their mind doing what any good person would do in similar circumstances. They just can't condemn terrorists because they don't see their deeds as terrible.

6/16/07, 11:40 PM  
Blogger kevin said...

When Tancredo talked about MAD with Islam, he was roundly critised by BOTH sides.

6/16/07, 11:53 PM  
Blogger Jason Pappas said...

While I was out of town my friends helped contribute to the discussion more than I would have imagined.

Beamish: phenomenal youtube showing Gore’s trenchant criticism of our evasion of Saddam’s continual terrorism threat circa 1992.

Ronbo points to an excellent article on our failed strategy that pushes electoral politics in Islamist hotbeds ... and why we continue such foolish policies. Great read!

Allen adds excellent points on the faulty view of morality that betrays true justice while continuing to appease evil.

Foehammer is right that we have to teach the younger generation. (Ann aka Cubed would cheer this!) While we don’t have control of the schools we can provide curious and open young people with a free alternative on the internet. One such resource is Horowitz’s Discover the Network . It’s virtually an encyclopedia of leftist treachery. Imagine going to class armed with these facts!

Kevin (and Pastorius) reminds us of the uproar over Tancredo’s remark that if attacked by nuclear weapons we should retaliate. Both right and left fall for Al Qaeda’s propaganda that Islamists only want to go to paradise.

6/17/07, 8:09 AM  
Blogger (((Thought Criminal))) said...

Beamish: phenomenal youtube showing Gore’s trenchant criticism of our evasion of Saddam’s continual terrorism threat circa 1992.

Well, you know that's the past. We now know that toppling Saddam Hussein caused global warming.

6/17/07, 9:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


When you said: "This upcoming generation of American kids needs a new breed of teachers and professors. I think perhaps this might do more to preserve the nation than any other single thing. The Left have had their vice-grip on learning institutions for far too long and the result is obvious..." you had no idea, I think, just how long our kids have been in the grip of the collectivists/statists.

In the U.S., the problem began just a few years after the Revolution. We inherited Martin Luther's idea of a tax-supported, compulsory education system with a curriculum designed to implement a particular agenda (in that case, Lutheran piety) when the Puritans brought it with them to New England in the early 1600s. Their goal was to eliminate competing ideas and thereby create a stable (Pruritan/Calvinist) society.

Just 20 years after the Declaration of Independence, Horace Mann, America's best know professional "educationist," was born and when he grew up, he decided that the government-controlled system was the only way to assure that his own utopian vision could be implemented; he had given up his ancestral Puritan/Calvinist beliefs in favor of Unitarianism, but in no way did this change his M.O. - by bringing all children into a single-curriculum system where his stripped-down version of Protestant Christianity would serve as the source of morality, he could create a stable (Unitarian) society.

Luther thought his idea would create a permanent Lutheran society, but what he didn't count on was that because the schools were under government control, they changed when the government's agenda changed - which was exactly what happened under Frederick the Great of Prussia and his successors; they thought that it was more important to train kids to have loyalty to the state rather than loyalty to Lutheranism.

The same thing happened when Mann managed to sucker the United States into a government-controlled school system (long story); he had assumed that once all the kids in America were ensconced in a government-controlled school system designed by him that his vision of utopia would last forever.

But lo, little did he know that a contemporary of his, Georg Friedrich Hegel, a very influential philosopher in Prussia, would soon have more influence that he, Horace Mann, did.

See, the big problem with Hegel was that he worshipped the state. He even said, "The march of God in the world, that is what the state is."

You're probably getting the idea by now.

Moving right along, Hegel had two basic ideas that pertain to this discussion. Skipping a LOT of detail, one was that the State was like an "organism," and individuals were like "cells" in an organism; this was the "Organic Theory of State." Individuals existed only to ensure the survival of the State. Beyond this, individuals had no value.

The second theory was the "The Theory of Heros." The way he had it figured, there were a few select individuals who were better than the rest of us, and as such, were exempt from moral judgment. Examples of some of the "heros" were Caesar and Napolean.

The "heros" jobs were to "burst the world to pieces" - that is, to slaughter all the nincompoops who didn't "get it." Stalin was a "hero." (Marx, in fact, used Hegelian thinking to "prove" that state ownership of property and all means of production was the "highest form" that economics could attain).

Well, anyway, Hegel not only found a warm welcome in Prussia, but eventually found its way to Britain, where a dear man named Robert Owen admired him, as did his son, Robert Dale Owen.

Both of these guys came to the brand new United States in the early 1800s to set up a commune in Indiana. Robert D. met up with Frances "Fanny" Wright, a fellow Brit, and they pushed heavily for a "state-guardianship" school system - the government would take the kids at age two, put them in boarding schools until they were sixteen, and allow their parents to visit once an a while (how decent!). They would be taught the same courses, wear the same clothes, treated the same way, etc.

Owen and Wright figured that if they could manage this, then their dream of equal distribution of property and wealth could be achieved (and just think, little Karl Marx was only about 7-8 at this time!).

They even went so far as to establish a political party, the "Working Men's Party," to try to pressure Mann's now rapidly growing government system to adopt their ideas.

It was a bit too radical for most people, but that didn't stop the train; a guy name Harris had gone to Germany to school, and when he got home, he formed the St. Louis Philosophical Society, a true-blue Hegelian club. Then he became Superintendent of Schools in St. Louis, and not long after that, U.S. Commissioner of Education.

Guess who else was a devotee of Hegel in his early years? You got it - John Dewey, the so-called "Father of Progressive Education." Dewey carried his dedication to the Hegelian idea that the collective was supreme when he and a couple of others invented Pragmatism (see, "pragmatic" doesn't really mean simply "practical. Too long a story to tell here, but Pragmatism and Progressivism were joined at the hip).

The NEA was formed in the mid-1800s by socialist-progressives that favored the statist-collectivist notion, and they 1) opened up their membership to anyone interested in education, including teachers, professors (that's logical), textbook publishers, salesmen, and all sorts of people whose livelihoods were connected with education. Then they became a real force to reckon with re: funding, policy-setting, educational goals, etc. That power grew when they moved their headquarters from New York to Washington D.C., and in 1960, officially became a union. From there, lobbying Congress became easy.

Also around that time, the first Normal Schools were receiving state funding; "Normal Schools" were the forerunners of "Teachers Colleges," and before long, they were also government controlled, and the NEA was the filter for their curricula too.

As the schools became more and more centralized, curriculum etc. became increasingly difficult for the customers - the parents - to influence. It became easier and easier for the "experts" to instill in our kids the idea that the State is everything, the individual is nothing.

Well, I've gone on and on. It's one of my big buttons; but you get the idea - the collectivists (the Left, the socialists, the communists, etc.) have had a grip on our kids for a very long time. As one of them has pointed out, once they got control over the education system, they would never let go.

You wouldn't believe how far the government-run schools and the NEA are going in the direction of collectivism; they are literally pushing for a "global curriculum" and all that this means.

There is one way, and one way only, to rid ourselves of this monkey on our backs, and that is by shrugging, a la Atlas. We can free ourselves and return to a market system of education only by withdrawing our kids from the system and educating them ourselves.

6/18/07, 4:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry; Cubed, not Ann.

6/18/07, 4:10 AM  
Blogger Jason Pappas said...

A great short course on American educational institutions by Cubed! She forgot to mention that further information can be found here.

6/18/07, 1:17 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home