Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Whilst we slept – or how the left’s control of education gives them vast power.

It is becomming obvious that the “collapse of Communism” at the end of the 1980s was a false dawn. Not because various Marxist regimes did not collapse – i.e. that it was some sort of trick. No, in most cases (not all) the collapse was quite geniune and to be welcomed.

The reason it was a false dawn is because the economic and poltical failure of Marxism did not lead to the discrediting of the left – of the word “Communism” certainly (although none of European Marxist regimes actually claimed to have achieved “Communism” they were in the socialist stage that they taught would lead to the egalitarism of Communism at some future time – the claims made by Chinese Marxist regime under Mao and the Cambodian Marxist regime under Pol Pot were different), but not collectivist doctrine in general. Leftism (both Marxist and supposedly non Marxist) continued its “long march through the institutions” without pause – getting stronger (not weaker) with every passing year.

Alternative forms of collectivism (such as early 20th century American Progressivism – with its extreme nationalism and racialism) have largely been coopted into an international “leftism” (for want of a better word) that despises national independence as much as it despises the independence of individuals or the voluntary, self financing, associations of civil society. Instead supporting the aim of a world community based on collectivism and (eventual) egalitarianism.

It is important to remember that classical Marxism had mutated into various forms long before the 1980s. For example, as far back as the 1920s the Marxist Frankfurt School (known, when it expanded into the United States as the New York based School of Social Research whose doctrines dominate much of American academic and other life) had abandoned the idea that industrial workers would be the main force destroying “capitalism” and tried to lead, step by step, other groups of people into thinking that “the system” (which the “most advanced” members of such groups were to be told was “capitalism”) was causing all their problems and only a “new society” (which, again, the most “advanced” members of these groups would be told was socialism) would solve their problems – meanwhile “capitalist society” was to be attacked using these “cultural politics” ideas of victim groups (racial, sexual, whatever), thus such concepts as “political correctness” were born.

The reader is, most likely, getting bored at this point – “why does he not just tell us that Barack Obama is a Marxist, give us a little biographical evidence, and then stop – so we can go back to watching sport on television”.

Sorry I am not going to bother with that today – I have another example in mind.

What is the least leftist major nation in Europe? What major European nation is most known for its low taxes, sound finance, secure property rights and (tradtionally at least) conservative society?

I think almost everybody would say “Switzerland” well I was looking at the Swiss Constitution today and I was pulled up by something.

As should be well known in the 1990s (whilst we were asleep, dreaming of our “triumph over the left” with the fall of Communism) the left (both Marxist and nonMarxist – although the nonMarxist left use concepts developed by various schools of Marxism so it all gets bit messy) were busy – in all nations. For example, in Switzerland (quietly and with little fuss) they (and “they” includes many “modern” and “progressive” businessmen and women) got rid of the last links between the Swiss Franc and gold – and it was the last currency to have an gold limitation on its monetary expansion at all. But this is not the example I am thinking of.

Back in the early 1980′s I (along with a lot other people) came upon one of the more absurd tactics of the Frankfurt (cultural) Marxists. This one a lot of the nonMarxist left thought was as absurd as Cong fighters (such as myself and my friends) thought it was – indeed we used to laugh about it together.

The concept was “equal pay for work of equal value” – it was sold to feminists (both the more collectivist and the more just plain dumb type of feminist) as a wonderful “equal rights” or “anti discrimination” move. However, a moment’s thought showed it was both an effort to hand arbitrary power to the state (how would judges and so on decide what work was of “equal value” to other work, would they have a God like “valuation” ability – oh how we laughed, fools that we were), and an effort to smuggle in the labour theory of value (a false doctrine that Karl Marx took from David Ricardo – who, in turn, took it from some errors in the later years of Adam Smith) into the modern world, in spite of it being known for more than a century that the only way to put an economic value on work (or anything else) is to see WHAT SOMEONE IS VOLUNTARILY WILLING TO PAY FOR IT (not how many “labour units” it needs to produce it – or whatever).

I had actually forgotten about the absurdity – till I read the opening paragraphs of the Swiss Constitution (the one created in the 1990s to replace the Constitution of 1874) today.

You see there it was – the full and total absurdity. As a basic “right” the government of the Confederation of Switzerland was to ensure that there be “equal pay for work of equal value”.

However, this should not have shocked me. After all have I not for years (indeed decades) said that the left control the education system – and the best “educated” people (i.e. the people who absorb the most of the doctrines they are taught) get the key jobs – such as writing constitutions……..

It should not have shocked me – but it did.

I am clearly still not emotionally prepared for this world. A world where the left (including many people who do not consider themselves Marxists – indeed some would call themselves “liberals” and others “conservatives”) use far left concepts as the basis of their work – even the most absurd far left concepts.

Why not – it is what they were taught. And they were, after all, good students – that is why they are where they are today.

Thanks to the semi monopoly education system (dominated by government finance and standard rules and examinations – all a perfect environment for the left to control) the cultural (the political) power of the left is vast. Indeed they have almost total control of what Marxist call the “cultural superstructure”.

It is true that the policies of the left (both economic and social) always have terrible results and, therefore, the “common people” continue to have great doubts about “leftism” (again, for want of a better word), but policy is made by elites – and the left control education and (via this education) the culture the elites live in. In this way the left have vast power over policy – even the policy of people who belive themselves to be “liberals” or “conservatives” and no amount of failure really undermines this. On the contrary, the power of the left is continuing to grow.

Only by attacking the enemy at the source of their power (by breaking the iron grip they have over schools and universities) can the cultural and political power of the left really be broken.

Unless that happens, no amount of economic or social failure will really undermine the doctrines of “leftism”.

In short – civilization will fall, and a new Dark Age will start. A Dark Age on a globel (not just European) scale.

12 Comments

  1. Hello Nick,

    I agree with the pervasive effect of the left ‘s soft memes. However, they are easily discredited to anyone with an open mind. The problem lies in many minds not being quite so open to such challenges, which then again, drives me to the idea that mass education is the problem. It has created vast teeming hordes of dismal influential people who apparently have not struggled with previous ideas, and who seem contemptuous of their ignorance. Their knowledge is a mere negation.
    On constitutions, the American reigns supreme.

    Best wishes from Spain,

    Ignacio

  2. QM says:

    A good first start would be to make teachers in the UK self employed rather than state employed thus giving the schools themselves the ability to remove bad teachers simply by not renewing their contracts. We’d soon see the end of the teaching union extremists too, you want to teach, fine, but you’d better be damned good at it.
    Next step set education exam standards, but (and this is a big but) do not dictate to the schools how they get there, simply insist that they do, without yearly “sat” standards.
    After that, place the schools in the hands of directly elected parent governors, remove all state placemen/women. lets see how head teachers cope with people who insist on their kids actually learning something non pc.

    Wont ever happen so long as we have politicians of course, but I reckon it would work.

  3. John B says:

    The only way to escape the mind and emotional conditioning is to get centralised control off the levers of power.
    Which of course will not happen having been educated into us and established as the norm. Perhaps it is even deeper than education – originating inside us – it is in our makeup?
    And now we have spread the Net and the Net will bind us as they take control of it?
    “They” will always find a way and a good reason to control, and they could be us.
    Because until one gets rid of the desire for control, the desire to tell other people what to do and what to think – the “Lucy” syndrome – it will just keep rolling along.
    (I am not pointing at you, Paul, you are not telling what to think or do but simply laying open what you see as being the situation. And saying you don’t see much hope?)
    Perhaps the only thing that saved us from the downside of intellectuals of old was the localisation of everything.
    We got good things from thinkers such as de Tocqeville and Bastiat, but if there had had a more universal method for imposition of their ideas, where would we be now?
    If one knows best what more necessary than to impose it – or at least present it in a manner consistent with one’s own superiority?
    I think that was basically Keyenes’s problem, besides the fact that he was wrong.

  4. john in cheshire says:

    I don’t believe that there is anything to be gained from trying to engage socialists (leftists, marxists, whatever) in argument. I don’t think a non-socialist will ever persuade any of them that they are wrong, mistaken, in error. They viscerally believe they are right and those of us who dissent, are criminally wrong. Therefore, the only solution is the General Pinochet solution. And until we have a leader, like him, in our country, we are doomed to fall ever deeper into the abyss of socialism. Margaret (my hero) knew what was needed, and that is why she saw the General as a friend.

  5. Nelsontouch says:

    Of course, this cultural bias goes far beyond education.

    Take a look at TV schedules. Acres of coverage given to Nazis – but how much to Communism?
    You won’t see:
    “Marxists – a warning from history.”
    “The Gulag, Communists and the extermination of the peasants.”
    “Marx – Warrant for Slaughter”.

    The film-makers went to the same universtities, I suppose.

  6. NickM says:

    QM,
    Utter tripe. You contradict yourself over SATs. I could spend ages deconstructing your argument but I will leave it at his. The single steaming turd in the pipe is the National Curriculum and that was a Tory idea to put a clamp on bearded leftie sandal wearers. Worked out brilliantly when they ruled the country for thirteen fucking years. Never thought that through did they? C’mon. I had teachers at school who made Pol Pot look like a Daily Mail reader. Christ I sit on a committee with one (well her boyf anyway). Kids need to met nutters. Kids are much tougher than you think. Anyway they all haunt the halls of the farts and shitterature and that ain’t art, music, science or languages or anything worth a fucking toss. So me geography teacher gave oral to a bust of Lenin… So fucking what. Your Geography teacher is Tomasz Schaffenacker’s redolent piss-pot. Get. Over It.

    john,
    You, Sir are almost banned. That is champagne lunacy. Yeah, we need a Pinochet… Why not go the whole hog and demand the second coming of Adolf? Just out of interest are you aware of the connotations of your use (twice) of the word “solution”? And just for your general info Maggie palled with Augusto because Chile sided with us over the Falklands. They had beefs with the Argies as well. They were not bosom buds but friends of circumstance. Now Ron and Maggie… I grew up in an age of titans and now we have Nick-fucking-Clegg and i-cunting-Dave to say nothing of the Millipede. Or that twat in the White House…

  7. dfwmtx says:

    “You get what you pay for”, and when the State pays for crap education you will get people with shit-for-brains. Best to go Galt with school.

    Best math teacher I ever knew made a pretty penny after hours being a tutor, doing the work others didn’t do during the day.

  8. elizabeth says:

    I’m not sure it’s just about the “Left” having control of education, it’s about anyone wanting to have control of the whole populations’ education. People don’t see that we live in a time when information is easy to come by, learning is as easy as breathing, no need to riot to get the Gov to pay for it.

    The Tories Free Schools idea is not very different to the American Charter Schools.
    People think they are being given money to run their own schools yeah right, it’s further centralisation of the school system.

    This is a bit mad in places but some interesting perspectives:
    http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/

  9. Paul Marks says:

    On television (itself shaped by the eduction of the people who make up this industry – and they tend to be the classic “good student” type, although they [like so many of the type] present themselves as “rebels”), I actually came upon a moment of fairness the other night.

    I was hopping from station to station,and I came upon a bit of the new “Upstairs, Downstairs”, the show did not appear to be very good – but one aspect did catch my attention.

    Moseley’s British Union of Fascists was presented as what it actually was – a socialist movement (remember Moseley left the Labour party because it rejected his far left policy proposals) directed as demanding more state control and denouncing the rich (hypocritical of Sir Oswald Mosley – but rich socialists never see themsleves as part of “the rich”).

    Adolf Hiter also was not just interested in killing Jews – he was also a dedicated collectivist (a little “detail” that is somehow left out of media accounts of the National Socialist German Workers Party).

    Hitler was not a Marxist and he was a racist – but American Progressives such as E.A. Ross (the poster boy for the academic tenure movement – he was sacked by Jane Stanford from Stanford University because of his exterminate-the-Chinese-in-California ranting) and his friend and ally Richard Ely (the mentor of both Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson) were also not Marxists and were racists.

    Dose it make sense to describe founding members of the American Progressive moverment (dedicated collectivists) as “right wing” or “conservative”?

    No it does not – nor does it make any sense to describe Mosely, Mussolini (who never really totally broke with Marxism – let alone with collectivism in general), or Hitler that way.

    However, Augusto Pinochet……

    Nick is quite right – Augusto Pinochet was a cold blooded killer, but he was also one of us (if by “us” we mean people who wish to roll back the size and scope of government). He was not just anti Marxist (a collectivist can be anti Marxist) he was not a collectivist at all.

    And yet he was indeed a cold blooded killer.

    Some of us are just not nice people (indeed some of us are very nasty people indeed) – I wish it was not true, but it is true.

    Not all of the people on the good side are good people – indeed some are very bad people indeed. Because one must NOT judge a person just by their aims – the MEANS are as important as the aims. By all means deny the socialists taxpayer’s money and the ability to order people with regualtions – but shoot them when they are unarmed (some of the people that Pinochet forces killed were armed – but a lot were not)? No, no, a thousand times no.

    It is something that has to be faced honestly – not covered up.

    “Paul insisting on honourable battle only means defeat and death”.

    So be it.

  10. Paul Marks says:

    Elizabeth and others…..

    Of course you are quite correct.

    If someone offered me “control of education” – what it was taught and how it is taught, the correct reply would be as follows……

    “The state should not control these things – regardless of who controls the state machine”.

    That is not to say that all state education systems are equally bad (for example it would just be a lie to pretend that, say, the Bavarian system was as bad as the English), but the PRINCIPLE is still wrong.

  11. “Only by attacking the enemy at the source of their power (by breaking the iron grip they have over schools and universities) can the cultural and political power of the left really be broken.”

    I think you’re missing out an important part of the equation, which is the media (BBC, Guardian, etc). I’m a bit sceptical regarding the lasting influence of schools and universities, at least in terms of curricular content. It has to be said that in the UK there’s a tradition of pragmatism and empiricism which translates into sneering at anything that passes as radical or Continental. This is sometimes a strength but can easily become a weakness, since in ideological discussions Brits tend to substitute lofty superciliousness for honest intellectual enquiry, which means they are sometimes defenceless against ideological sleight of hand which is falsely presented as “common sense” or as the subject of wide social consensus. Now, I think that the media, esp. TV, is the weapon of choice for anyone who wants to present their ideas as consensual in the hope that this will become a self fulfilling prophecy (as it often does). Thatcher didn’t need the dons or the teachers to get her ideas across: all she needed was a few cooperative media outlets. And she’s the closest the UK has got in a long, long time to challenging the Left’s ideological agenda.

    Elsewhere, you talk about the Left’s “aim of a world community based on collectivism and (eventual) egalitarianism”. It can’t be said often or loudly enough that the falsehood of this alleged “egalitarianism” is the Left’s Achilles’ heel. I consider myself genuinely egalitarian in that I think everyone should be equal before the law, and hate all forms of slavery: I refuse to accept that anyone on the Marxist or non Marxist left is more egalitarian than me when it comes to the crunch. For me, history has shown again and again that the only way to make people equal beyond this, beyond the Rule of Law, is to have some more equal than others: i.e. to “enforce” equality you need to have a class – or, as we are now seeing, a virtual caste – of enforcers. You need to have an elite of Wise Rulers who decide which particular way of obstinately refusing to be equal has to be tackled next among the plebs, plus the repressive machinery with which to tackle it. The Left hate hearing this, but it’s true, and easily demonstrable: the more you try to make people equal in ways they naturally are not, the more privilege and social stratification you are inevitably going to create in the process (“It’s called wine, Winston”).

  12. [...] …about the left’s hegemonic control of education, schools and the Universities, and what needs to be broken or else we are in a New Dark Age. [...]

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: