The evidence that our public schools and universities are being used to indoctrinate our children is overwhelming, but this doesn’t mean that it is easy for the average person to understand how it is applied in real life. This post takes a story from the headlines and shows how our children are deceived by their text books and the teachers who accept them. This is a clear illustration using a real world example of indoctrination in our school system. From a collegiate-level text book in Texas, here is the story in question:
An Alleged Case of Textbook Bias So ‘Outrageous’ That One Student Says ‘People Need to Know About It’
OK, before we go into the details of this story, we need to understand that there are two basic fallacies in play here. The author of this text book is “poisoning the well” with his derogatory language aimed at “Conservatives.” “Poisoning the well is a form of ad hominem attack and it is fallacious. In this case, it shows the clear bias of the author. The second fallacy here is called equivocation. Now, in this case, the author is mixing the definitions of a classic conservative (as in Edmund Burke) and American Conservatism (as in Classic Liberalism). They are not the same, but the author does not explain this, which begs the question: does the author intentionally mislead the read of the text book, or is the author actually ignorant to the fact that he/she has mixed definitions? These are the two issues we will deal with for the rest of the post.
From the text of the book in question:
“Conservatives ‘tend to take a basically pessimistic view of human nature. People are conceived of as being, self-centered, lazy and incapable of true charity,’” the textbook says.
This is an example of “poisoning the well,” or biased language intended to bias the reader against the subject being discussed. This passage also neglects to point out that the belief that human nature is fixed is part of the American Conservative philosophy and not necessarily part of Classic Conservatism. Nor does the text book explain what American Conservatism means when it asserts that human nature is fixed. Had the author of this text book actually cared about educating the reader instead of indoctrinating them, the author might have mentioned the difference between the Constrained and Unconstrained views of human nature. What’s more, the author might have mentioned that – in spite of decades of trying – there has been no significant advancement in the attempt to change human nature. The American Eugenics programs (which continue to this day) speak loud and clear on this fact. And this is an indirect implication that the “conservative” view of human nature is the more correct one. But the text book appears to imply that ‘Conservatism’ is wrong, thereby implying that the more correct view is that of Liberal/Progressivism.
This brings us to the next issue in this first quote from the text book, that of ‘charity.’ By definition, charity must be freely given; it cannot be compelled and still be defined as charity. So the fact that those who hold a view of man similar to that which the author of this text book appears to hold have used the power of government to force others to ‘give’ to the poor is testimony against the accusations this author is making against ‘conservatism.’ If conservatism is wrong about people being selfish and incapable of charity, then why do those who consider themselves to be ‘Progressive’ feel the need to force redistribution through the use of government? If ‘charity’ must be forced because people do not give enough of their own free will, then this is an admission that people are not naturally inclined toward charity. This actually affirms the ‘Conservative’ view of human nature that the author is attacking. But there is more. The author also biases the message in the txt book by ignoring the statistical facts at hand.
By most measures, we have spent something on the order of $16 Trillion on ‘the War on Poverty.’ We have spent 50 years trying to eliminate poverty, yet we have made little measurable progress. On its surface, this would also tend to refute the authors implied message that the ‘Conservatives’ are wrong about people being lazy. But, when we look closer at the numbers here, that conclusion actually becomes more obvious. If you divide $16 Trillion by $50,000, we find that the amount of money that has been spent to lift people out of poverty over the past 50 years could have been used to give 6,400,000 families of four an income of $50,000/year.
What the author of this text book doesn’t even discuss is that there is a great deal of evidence that suggests – in most cases – poverty is the result of the cultural biases among a given people. Even under conditions of oppressive dictatorship, those conditions only exist so long as the people are willing to tolerate their oppression. History is clear on this: when the masses have enough and come to the point where they would rather fight and die than live as slaves, oppression is broken. Unfortunately, the result is usually the replacement of one tyrant by another. However, in America, the cycle was broken because the people had the necessary understanding to exercise self-government. And those principles are at the heart of American Conservatism, something the author of this text book appears to have totally ignored.
Now, I could go on: there are many similar examples cited in the original story from the text book in question. But, if I continue, it would just be more of what I just explained. So my explanation of this one pull-quote should be enough to help you understand the issue. There is no attempt to educate in the majority of our public schools anymore. Most of what passes for education is nothing more than systematic indoctrination and it is designed to program students to think the way the State wants them to think. But the most hideous part is that, in the process, our students are programmed to “self-protect.” By that, I mean they have been taught to use clichés to defend their programming from any and all attempts to rescue the individual from their ignorance. If a programmed person starts to see or hear the truth, this “self-protect” mode kicks in and they start repeating the mantras they have been fed by the system. You’ve heard them: “who are you to judge me?” “Haters will hate.” “Racist, bigot, homophobe!” These are all manifestations of the “self-protect” mode which is programmed into the student so as to preserve the work of that indoctrination. And that is what we see at here in this story: a college-level text book building on the indoctrination that started in Kindergarten.
18 thoughts on “LESSONS IN APPLIED LOGIC: Deception and Lies in Our Text Books”
Oh Joe, if only you could spend a day in the public school system! The textbook from this article is poorly written, spewing opinion after opinion with no evidence to back up its claims…the textbooks that I read are much more…precise in their wording. Each sentence is carfully crafted, and it is rare to come across a passage as bombastic as the ones in the article. In many ways, this quiet and passive style of indoctrination is exponentially more dangerous because it is virtually indetectible to the unassuming student. I have personally conducted background checks on some of my textbooks and found that many authors have known ties with communism. I’m not so concerned about myself — but to think of the hundreds, if not thousands of students who look to their textbooks as untouchable sources of facts, well, then we have a problem. I remember a peculiar class a year or so back when my read her favorite in-class essay to my class as an “example of an exceptional essay”. The paper was a brutal attack on the American Revolution, whereupon the student suggested that the Founder’s argument was nothing more than a conspicuous and overblown claim of oppression. What I see now is that our opinions of history have become more important than history itself.
I have several members of my immediate family in the public school system. I know what we re dealing with.
I have also read what Progressives have had to say about changing the present/future by changing the past. try this on for size and see if you recognize the principle in your school/text books:
“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
Now, do you know who said that? No Googling 😉
Lenin? I think…likewise that quote reminds me of George Orwell’s 1984. What are the principles in that book again? War is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.
VERY close. It was George Orwell 🙂
And yes, those were the principles. They are of the same spirit as “Work makes you free.” Do you know where we would find that slogan?
Nazi germany, I believe.
YES! Specifically, over the gate at Auschwitz.
Now, did you know that George Orwell was a Fabian Socialist, like George Bernard Shaw? Or that the Fabian Socialists were directly connected to NAZI Germany and the Holocaust? Or that the Fabians were also connected to the American Progressive movement and the American Eugenics programs? Or that ALL of this is STILL here with us, working silently behind the scenes but driven by the same original idea that “science” can engineer the perfect people/society?
Do mean to say that 1984 was a promotional book rather than a cautionary book? I was under the impression that George Orwell had a strong rancor for socialism/progressivism. Then again, while 1984 is a “must read”, I was not thoroughly convinced that some of its content was genuinely antisocialist, particularly the part where Wilson (I think that is the main characters name) is reading about the reasoning behind the “war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength”. I had a strong suspision that Orwell had constructed an alternative reality and had convinced himself that it was real. On another note, if George Orwell was a Fabian Socialist, than wouldn’t he have considered Airstrip One a great civilization, and why, then, would he have written the book from a subordinate point of view?
By Eugenics programs, do you mean the marxist Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt Germany (better known as the Frankfurt School) that relocated itself to Columbia in 1934? I know that marxism started to revolve around cultrue because the economic overthrow of Capitalism coundn’t and wouldn’t happen (Capitalism actually worked!) and that gave way to Critical Theory and Political Corretness.
As a breif reflection on this “social reconstruction” theory…people cannot create anything greater than themselves; the very idea that a perfect entity could spring forth from imperfect minds is FALSEEE. The tools that these “scientists” use don’t work: critical theory and political correctness don’t make sense because their theories rest on recreating history with the intention of confusing people into the submission. That doesn’t appear like a step in the direction of perfection to me. Especially considering that the United States is founded on the idea of human imperfection.
From what I have been able to determine, Orwell and Huxley (Brave New World) were not so much warning us about what was coming as they were telling us what was going to happen whether we liked it or not. Look at how “1984” ends for a clue. Wilson (or was in Winston?) is broken. This is the theme of “1984” that Orwell said he was trying to portray: that the forces of the future could not be resisted because of the extent of control they will have over society.
As for the American Eugenics movement, I have no doubt it was connected to the Frankfurt School. HOWEVER, you need to understand that this all happened at a time where the idea of “science” as a ‘savior’ was sprouting up all over the world. America was no different. This is why I focus on what i call the “spirit” or “type” behind the events of history and today. The motivation driving people is the same, it is only in how they go about trying to achieve their goals that changes.
Read up on people like Margaret Sanger and Peter Singer and you’ll see that the NAZI attempt to ‘engineer’ a pure race has not gone anywhere. It just went underground, so to speak. But these people STILL think they can use ‘science’ to justify their plans. You might want to throw John Dewey in the mix, too — only he used the schools rather than the lab.
Between posts I did a bit of research and I found that Francis Galton was a half-cousin of Charles Darwin. Is this a coincidence? That Galton would focus on the concepts of perfecting humans while Darwin developed the theory of evolution…In many ways, these two theories coincide.
As for the overlapping theme of 1984; that the forces of the future have a stronger hold on society than an individuals influence…that sounds eerily similar to the trend of silent obedience within our society today. I’m certain that you know many good people who do nothing to resist evil because they do not believe that they could change the forces that bind us down.
Do you know about Social Darwinism? The early Communists/Progressives advocated this idea, and they still do, but they have changed the words they use to describe it after Hitler and the Holocaust permanently tainted the original terms. Look that one up when you have time. These people are ALL interconnected with each other.
Yes, I have read about social darwinism a few times…but I’ll have to do some more research, but first I have to finish The Constitution of Liberty.
I watched some videos about George Bernard Shaw; needless to say, he was an evil man! What’s worse is this Bernard Shaw quote; “Some look at things that are, and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?”, which sums up the Eugenics theory perfectly.
The fact is ….it is just the opposite of what the book says. Conservatives are for Individual Choice…..basically envisioning that people are Good and capable of making the correct decisions for themselves and society when FREE.
Socialism / Communism is the PESSIMISTIC philosophy, believing that people are evil and incompitant and thus NEED the State to control and cough-cough “Provide” for them.
The book is actually partially correct in its definition. It’s just that they mixed the definition YOU are using with the one I have tried to explain is most often thought of as “Conservative” in the rest of the world.
Truth be told, the Progressives are actually the “Conservatives” right now. They are the side trying to hold on to what they’ve gained — not the side trying to re-claim what has been lost.
See why people are so confused these days? Our schools do not bother to teach them the definitions/history that would allow them to make sense of all this mess.
About that remark in the textbook, I’d have to say that conservatives are very leery of the dark side of human nature. But, the things which the Founders and conservatives most worry about are ambition and the desire for greater political control. Sure, an ordinary citizen might be selfish and lazy, but the amount of harm he might accomplish does not compare to that which a Senator or President might inflict on the whole people. “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” as Lord Acton said.
The fact that human beings are self-interested can lead them to better themselves. But if the state makes it difficult for them to earn money properly and easy to collect money through welfare programs, I suppose most people–afflicted by original sin as we are–will gravitate toward the government dole.
And that remark about conservatives believing people to be incapable of true charity–what nonsense! Sure, without the grace of God, we would all plummet into hell; but, conservatives believe in a Merciful God who spreads His grace and salvation richly to all people. That is a much rosier picture than Progressive ideas of selectively weeding “undesirables” from society, whom I suppose were incapable of attaining the socialist vision.
You missed my point, but I can understand why. Too few of us know the actual definition of “Conservative” — as defined by Burke. In short, it means to hold on to the culture/society/government AS IT IS NOW! The problem we have is that the infiltration of the Progressive spirit has destroyed our language. We confuse the meaning of words so that we can all use the same term and yet mean different things. The ‘Conservative’ most Americans see in their minds is actually a ‘Classic Liberal,’ but we do not think in these terms anymore because the word ‘Liberal’ has been hijacked and destroyed.
SO, what we have left is a confused mess where everyone speaks of the same words but does not mean the same thing and does not understand enough to put things back in order.
I hope you were able to follow that. I understand just how confusing this issue can be — especially for those who were never taught history. I am hoping you are not among that number 🙂
That is true. Progressives, liberals, etc. try to confuse people by how they label themselves. Liberal is probably the best example of that, since modern liberals have nothing in common with Classical Liberalism. Now that liberal is an ugly word, they have gone back to calling themselves Progressives.
Of course, I have studied history–not as thoroughly as I would have liked, but everyone’s education contains holes. So, I suppose that you might say that Edmund Burke’s conservatism revolves around preserving English rights and institutions, while Classical Liberalism concerns ideas of limited government and capitalism not necessarily centered in English rights and institutions. Though, I imagine that certain features of 18th century English government and laws coincide with the ideas of Classical Liberalism.
Excellent items from you, man. I have be aware your
stuff prior to and you’re simply too wonderful.
I actually like what you’ve acquired here, certainly like what you are stating and the best way
wherein you assert it. You’re making it enjoyable and you continue to
take care of to keep it wise. I can’t wait to learn much more from
you. This is really a terrific site.