The Texas Board of Education votes to infuse more loyalism into the indoctrination of the youth.
James McKinley, Jr. at The New York Times reports:
[T]he Texas Board of Education on Friday approved a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Fathers’ commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light.…
In recent years, board members have been locked in an ideological battle between a bloc of conservatives who question Darwin’s theory of evolution and believe the Founding Fathers were guided by Christian principles, and a handful of Democrats and moderate Republicans who have fought to preserve the teaching of Darwinism and the separation of church and state….
“I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state,” said David Bradley, a conservative from Beaumont who works in real estate. “I have $1,000 for the charity of your choice if you can find it in the Constitution.”
Mr. Bradley’s quote strikes the root at how children are miseducated: when something is valid when used to rationalized your preference as ‘right’, it can’t be invalidated when it rationalizes what you don’t prefer as ‘wrong’.
True, the term “separation of church and state” are not in the Constitution, but the First Amendment (in theory) forbids government from proselytizing. We’ll put aside the evolution debate because there’s nothing to debate. Whether or not one believes the world is flat or accepts the fact that it is round depends on the character of an individual. And one can drive a hole through the indoctrinating tactic of “American exceptionalism” recently spewed by the title of Mitt Romney’s new book, No Apology: The Case for American Greatness, as Connor Boyack has brilliantly done in his article at LewRockwell.com this week titled: “Why America Should Apologize.”
Striking is that if the Constitution is the imperative to which we ought to be loyal, “stressing the superiority of American capitalism” is in direct contradiction to conserving the Constitution as the “superiority” of “American capitalism” is collectivizing the wealth data of masses to candy-coat the conditions of the suffering, enslaved, unemployed, homeless, underemployed, robbed, brainwashed, poisoned, etc. The few with the wealth are a direct result of not any market free from coercion or intended by the framers of the Constitution—neither in theory nor practice. The wealth of the elite is a direct result of the “judicial activism” that Mr. Bradley would likely condemn as “unconstitutional” or “un-American”. The concept of ‘corporate personhood’ is a result of the dreaded act of justices “legislating from the bench”.
Actually, I’ll do Mr. Bradley one better. I have $1,000 for the charity of his choice if he can find “corporation” in the Constitution ratified in 1788.
Corporations existed before the Constitution and the idea of corporations aren’t malevolent. But corporations are creations after a charter is issued for such a collective to be recognized as such in terms of assets, liability and—yes—identity. But the charters were issued by states which assumed varying portions of the collective’s risks. More importantly, in Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819), the Court clearly interpreted the law to intend for corporations to not be public goods, but a party in contract with the state government. The Court ruled the state could not arbitrarily tear up charters at any time, but emphasized that nature of charters being contracts in order that proving a breach of the terms and conditions enumerated in the contract had to meet a burden to nullify said contract.
Individuals within these corporations break these terms on a daily basis. The government (in theory) signs its side of the charter to allow for the privileges of collectivizing as a corporation under the fundamental condition the corporation adheres to federal, state and international law. But when Blackwater mercenaries slaughter Iraqi children in a drive-by shooting, a Wall Street investment firm breaks international law by imposing odious debt on impoverished and war-torn African countries or a beverage country contracts South American paramilitary gangs to open fire on striking workers, that isn’t a breach of federal law. It rarely matters that the CEO’s OK’d said actions from a Manhattan skyscraper or Virginia compound because the Court created the corporations as ‘persons’ and these ‘person” acted within geographical areas outside of U.S. jurisdiction to make the claim these ‘persons’ that they violated the corporate charter invalid.
“American capitalism” has resulted in a dehumanizing wealth gap that begins with the U.S. government not holding individuals accountable for their crimes of murder, enslavement, theft and fraud. In “American capitalism”, the individual is just taking orders from the corporation—not a moral agent, but an antisocial fictional character minimally accountable for its atrocities. Equating “American capitalism” with “free enterprise” isn’t just a semantic pet peeve. It’s flat incorrect and deliberately being soaked into the soft minds of the youth that the status quo is actually good for them and the elements of the system that places ceilings on their potential are to be embraced.
The whole article from Mr. McKinley bugged the shit out of me, but I’m well-on-record on attacking American exceptionalism and will leave the concept of mind control to educators, psychologists, better-studied philosophers, people who specialize in developmental learning, etc. Mr. Bradley’s comment just really bit my ass.