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:
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.