This is from page 181 of Samuel L. Blumenfeld’s book titled, "NEA: Trojan Horse in American Education":
From the December 1923 issue of the NEA Journal, which published an article by socialist John Dewey, to the September-October 1981 issue of Today’s Education, which featured an article by socialist Michael Harrington ridiculing George Gilder’s brilliant defense of capitalism, the NEA has subjected its members to an unrelenting hatred of capitalism and an unceasing, uncritical benevolence toward socialism.
So why is the South Dakota Chamber of Commerce in bed with the NEA in regard to IM10? This review of Allen Quist’s FedEd explains it:
We should say a word about the view of business implicit in FedEd. Many so-called education reforms are promoted as "good for business," and this is often enough to gain the support of business and business organizations such as the local branch of the Chamber of Commerce. FedEd paints a rosy picture of "reformed" public schools turning out loyal, technology-savvy and business-savvy employees. Businesspeople cannot necessarily be faulted for failing to see through the smokescreen of deceptive language – although an inability to find employees who can read and understand instruction manuals should clue them in that something is wrong. A key is the phrase public-private partnership that has been seen more and more often during the past decade. This means close ties between government and business. What results is not capitalism but corporatism – in which corporations and government cooperate both to discourage the open competition characteristic of genuine capitalism in favor of policy that is established and administered jointly, with each side doing favors with the other (e.g., "tax incentives" for business; support going to certain candidates for political office from business). This method is clearly a species of central planning. It may be used to establish what kinds of vocations and jobs are desirable and available in a given region – to the point of laying out actual job descriptions (sometimes doing it badly – cf. pp 86-89). "Education" then sets out to train students for these specific vocations and jobs. On the surface, corporatism sounds very pro-business, and no doubt there are established business leaders who like it very much. But its overall view of society is statist and collectivist – and, of course, authoritarian. The New Federal Curriculum sets out to indoctrinate and train individuals to meet the needs of the state and its corporate partners. At one time, this kind of system was known as fascism. Both Nazis and Communists employed purely vocational models of education, so that students would learn what they needed to serve the state, and no more. Excessive intellectual curiosity was discouraged. It wasted time and resources (and might lead to students asking too many of the wrong kinds of questions). FedEd takes this model and modifies it for the new world order being quietly constructed, with each successive UN confab laying new girders onto the scaffolding.
This exactly what is going on when the South Dakota government becomes way too involved with "economic development". IM10 becomes a thorn in the side to those who enjoy the above public/private partnerships by exposing the favors provided by no-bid contracts. This is why the liberal blue blood Country club South Dakota Republicans came out against IM10. And upsetting the collectivist agenda of the Educrats gave reason for the South Dakota Democrat Party to also oppose IM10.
So now we have the NEA funding the big lie of the 2008 campaign season that falsely charges that IM10 restricts teachers and firefighters free speech, all to protect the far-left’s fascist agenda.
In the above quote from Blumenfeld, John Dewey was mentioned. And so did Johan Goldberg in his book, "Liberal Fascism". This is from page 9:
For starters, it is simply a fact that, in the 1920’s, fascism and fascistic ideas were very popular on the American left. "That Fascism stunk in the nostrils of the New Masses," John Patrick Diggins writes in the legendary hard-left journal, "may have been true after 1930. For the radicals of the twenties the whiff from Italy carried no foul ideological order." There was reason for this. In many respects, the founding fathers of modern liberalism, the men and women who laid the intellectual groundwork of the New Deal and the welfare state, thought that fascism sounded like a pretty good idea. Or to be fair: many simply thought (in the spirit of Deweyan Pragmatism) that it sounded like a worthwhile "experiment."
And conservatives should pay careful attention to what Goldberg said about John Dewey on page 221 (Dave Owen charged Yes on 10 for "sleight of hand"…he needs a mirror):
It was around this time that through a dexterous sleight of hand, Progressivism came to be renamed "liberalism". In the past, liberalism had referred to political and economic liberty as understood by Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke and Adam Smith. For them, the ultimate desideratum was maximum individual freedom under the benign protection of a minimalist state. The progressives, led by Dewey, subtly changed the meaning of this term, importing Prussian vision of liberalism as the alleviation of material and educational poverty, and liberation from old dogmas and old faiths. For progressives liberty no longer meant freedom from tyranny, but freedom from want, freedom to be a "constructive" citizen, the Rousseauian and Hegelian "freedom" of living in accord with the state and the general will. Classical liberals were now routinely called conservatives, while devotees of social control were dubbed liberals. This in 1935 John Dewey would write in Liberalism and Social Action that activist government in the name of economically disadvantaged and social reconstruction had "virtually come to define the meaning of liberal faith."
Given this worldview, it shouldn’t be surprising that so many liberals believed the Soviet Union was the freest place on earth. In a series of articles on the Soviet Union for the New Republic, Dewey hailed the grand "experiment" as the "liberation of a people to consciousness of themselves as a determining power in the shaping of their ultimate fate."
Note that a true conservative would be in line with the "classical liberal" ideology of the founding fathers. It is the libertarian wing of today’s Republican Party that adheres to that ideology. Unfortunately, the leadership of the GOP has been taken over by the "modern liberal", which is in line with the socialist agenda of the Educrats as evidenced by the economic development agenda that uses these "public-private partnerships". That is how you get both South Dakota political parties in opposition to IM10. The two parties battle Is over which fraternity will govern over the collectivist system.
And the deceit of those who are against IM10 includes the wrong use of "conservative as reflected here:
"Conservatives Against Initiative 10" also announced its ten-person steering committee, which consists of a cross-section of community and elected leaders from across the state. Steering Committee members include:
• Brock Greenfield, Clark
• Dusty Johnson, Mitchell
• Troy Jones, Sioux Falls
• Doug Knust, Chamberlain
• Kristi Noem, Castlewood
• Jeff Partridge, Rapid City
• Dana Randall, Aberdeen
• Larry Rhoden, Union Center
• Lee Schoenbeck, Watertown
• Jim Seward, Belle Fourche
I know some of those members of the steering committee, and I know that in their heart they want to be conservatives. Unfortunately, I think they have been duped as they are now aligned with the NEA, which is direct and active opposition to conservatives and our ideology. My hope is that they will see the truth and then come back to their senses.
This week I will continue to expose the radical far-left agenda of the NEA and explain how it has moved America away from its foundation and the house is now falling down as it sits on the shaking ground of socialism, fascism, and yes…communism. For those friends who are the above list, please read the FedEd book I gave out, and then also read Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism. After understanding the truth, I would hope you will then fight on the right side (no pun intended), verses siding with the ultra-liberal activists who have used over $1 million to lie to the good people of South Dakota.
Comments