Monday, 12 June 2017

School's brainwashing students defying the role of schools


The role of the school is not to influence impressionable children and teenagers with political ideas and rants about identity, race and the golden ticket to righteousness in schools these days, how bad Donald Trump is, but to educate students not only so they can enter the workforce and give to society as is the role of every citizen, but to educate students so they can make their own choice, not brain-washing but education and the clear line between the two is being deliberately blurred over by leftist schools wishing to force an identity-politics related agenda that is so prominent in society. And this is wrong! It is the parent’s role to influence a child, if anything, not a teacher that is paid to teach something totally different than politics. A teacher is there to teach, not brainwash, but why is the latter occurring in schools, not the former and what are the effects?

No doubt, schools are pushing an agenda, mostly identity-politics related, as this seems to be the hot topic for many to get all riled up about. Schools are getting students to watch Ted Talks on Jonathan Sri, a Greens councillor (that is the first of many bad signs) talk about oppression. Sure, his parents may have been refugees that went through hard times and Jonathan may feel as if he has to whine about something now and again (a post about Jonathan and his inconsistencies (which are many) will be coming out soon) and sure, sometimes he is onto something, like Aboriginal representation, but when he claims that the so-called meritocracy that is run in Australia, that being a government system where the best for the job are in that job, is false and being run over by conservatives and those of the rights is a total fallacy. I agree with him, meritocracy can’t work in Australia, not only is he holding a seat (anyone in the Greens really isn’t capable of holding anything) but the Labor party managed to get into power for a short spending spiel. Were they really the right ones for the job? Surely not, so the meritocracy is out the window, except it's come right back through the window with the election of the Liberal-National government. Jonathan talks about the lack of representation and meritocracy in Australia, but an Aboriginal man holds 3 portfolios in Government, one appertaining to Aboriginal affairs, and this is more than generous.

Anyhow, I digress. The fact is, schools are making students watch this man give a talk. This man is obviously spreading a political agenda, to deny it would be idiocy- he holds a political seat for goodness sake! But not only this but in his Ted Talk, Sri revealed that he hates the Australian flag. What sort of anti-Australian propaganda are schools really trying to spread? Are foreign interests in our schools? Has Sam Dastyari got hold of the education system?!

Image result for jonathan sri
Speeches by anti-Australia politician
Jonathan Sri are being included in education
The simple fact is, this anti-Australia sentiment is being spread through students, and being as impressionable as they are, it spreads quicker, more effectively and more dangerously than wildfire. After all, Nelson Mandela did say that “education is the best weapon in bringing about social change”. This is what the education system, at least in NSW is trying to bring about, social change, social change against the will of parents being let out decision-making making process. Deny it all you want, but the plain truth is out there. Look at the safe-schools scheme. No, I didn’t hear any pleas for it to be brought to NSW from supposedly “progressive” Victoria, but no doubt the leftist teachers, who have probably just emerged from their parent’s basement, have been calling for it, in their little cloud, impenetrable from the tax-paying parents who can only look on from the sidelines as Australia slowly sinks to the bottom of the ocean- the modern day Titanic.

So, what is the modern day role of the school, although, as you can probably gather, I disagree with it. Today, schools have become a political war-zone, full of teachers teaching against a strict curriculum (strict, you’ve got to be kidding yourself). However, teachers are blatantly going against the curriculum, whether it comes up in conversation or whether setting class work. Whole departments set up fancy names for areas of study like “oppression”. Really, the English guidelines are for students to study perspective, something that, from a literary point of view, could be done through the use of dual narratives or the use of genders in novels. However, most year 9 students wouldn’t have a clue what a “dual narrative” is, only that, to gain an understanding of perspective, their school made them study some far off war where one side is clearly defined as evil and one as good (in “mainstream” Australia, it seems that Israel is the bad side and Iran the good guys. Oil reserves probably aid Iran in some areas of this incorrect opinion), or where students had to decide whether some well-off politician going on another whinge (like I am now) is oppressed. Quite frankly, I doubt Sri knows much about oppression. He mentions in his speech some events like the Cronulla riots and the booing of Adam Goodes, but failed to mention how Adam Goodes vilified a 12-year-old girl who wouldn’t know a thing about identity politics, but simply made a statement, probably not politically incorrect,but hey, the world’s too politically incorrect anyway, and Goodes was overacting anyway. Nor does Sri mention how Goodes provoked the reaction by mimicking the throwing of a spear, an apparently traditional action in the Aboriginal culture. Let’s get this straight, we are in Australia, with Australian culture. This is not Aboriginal land, nor do we hold Aboriginal cultures dear. That was a culture which, while can be acknowledged as being here first, was primaeval and a world, in my opinion, better left behind. But if you disagree, you can go live on some deserted Pacific island without Wi-fi and air conditioning, things that wouldn’t be brought to Australia with the technology in Aboriginal Australia.
Image result for australian education union
But don't get angry with Jonathan, it's the leftist AEU
which leads this leftist education revolution.


Let me stop digressing and make one final point. Not only are schools brainwashing students with “progressive” leftist ideologies, but they are defying their purpose in the first place. Are students making the world a better place or are they just another generation of stay-at-home professional protestors who live in the basement of their parents home and don’t have a job. If the former was true, then why are we seeing occasions arise, most prominently in America, where students are becoming more and more “liberal”? Why are professors at Evergreen University in Washington D.C being forced out of their classrooms and having to be helped by police because they are white? Why are student protestors trying to stop students from coming to school because they are white? Is a “black-only” day even legal? Why are these student professional protestors burning cars in the streets and chanting about losing the election nearly a year later? When will schools and the education system wake up about the legacy they are creating, about the generation they are forming and about the mark they are leaving on the world? It will only happen when people begin to speak up, when people refuse to let this happen and when parents take control of their children’s education instead of useless, worthless, unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats running the education system, controlling the very leftist and “liberal” Teachers Union and forming a “whinge” society where everyone is wrapped up in bubble wrap and kept in the spare bedroom until they’re 45. That is when it will happen, not before, and I can feel parents beginning to feel fed up with the way the education system is running now.

Monday, 10 April 2017

“I’m trying not to vomit or yell about Mosul”

“I’m trying not to vomit or yell about Mosul” were the words of Assistant Professor George Ciccariello-Maher. This assistant professor, already headline material due to a comment he made last Christmas saying “All I want for Christmas is White Genocide” was supposedly outraged at a show of patriotism onboard a plane.
Image result for ciccariello maher trying not to vomit tweet 
A uniformed soldier had been offered a 1st class seat onboard a plane. To the sounds of hoots and cheers, Ciccariello-Maher couldn’t help but think of the supposedly abhorrent travesty in Mosul. Now, I don’t know much about Mosul and the attack that left 200 dead on Wednesday 29th of March, but that is irrelevant and only a minor part of this man’s comments. He’s already got a record of useless comments on Twitter, let alone racist ones, so what is he doing on Twitter? Or more to the point, what is this comment doing? We live in a world where technological material, not as provoking and disgusting as this, is being removed from social media and other media platforms due to “insensitivity”. Is this another double standard on Twitter’s behalf? Are comments about Trump and his policies not allowed on social media platforms but these comments, about a serving soldier, are?

I’m not calling for a removal of his comments, I’m all for free speech, free opinions, no matter how stupid or useless, like this one, but 1; where do we draw the line on censorship in regards to sensitive issues and 2; what are the double standards and who is creating them?

Once Ciccariello-Maher’s comments made it viral, others jumped on the wagon, supporting his ideas.

One Tweet reads; “The military worship in this country is beyond pathetic; its obscuring”

Sure, I can understand this, but does this mean that these soldiers can’t be offered a seat? Additionally, people commented on independent.co.uk’s article on the matter saying that this supposed large military worship was minimal, just largely publicised, one member saying that he had never seen a military member in his 27 years of living in the US, only on TV and occasionally at the airport. While it is true that the treatment given to soldiers in the US is higher, is it really obscuring and more to the point, is it uncalled for? Do these soldiers deserve the respect? In my opinion, yes.

Another supporter of Ciccariello-Maher tweeted that she wondered why teachers and nurses weren’t given the same respect, or boarded the planes first like some soldiers do. The simple fact is, this comment is ignorant of the simple ideals behind the fundamental respect afforded by the soldiers. The fact that these soldiers are willing to go out and risk their lives for the people, even for people that feel sick when these soldiers are given large amounts of respect. The fact is, these soldiers don’t walk into a classroom and teach docile students, spreading politically dangerous messages to children, spreading political ideals and influencing children like many teachers, especially the leftist teachers union, tend to do. These soldiers walk into a battlefield and face an enemy who won’t think twice about killing them. Think Hunger Games but a reality. They go to work, as it were, knowing that they may not make it back. And many of those who do make it back are scarred by their experiences with an array of mental health diseases including PTSD (Post-Traumatic-Stress-Disorder). Most become homeless, unemployed and living life worse off than the teacher or nurse. Many commit suicide, veterans in a supposedly military obsessed country like the US. Sure, a teacher or nurse plays an essential role in society, much like the fireman, the policeman, the lawyer, the doctor etc. But where is the risk? The respect is given on principle of the risk soldiers are willing to take to help Americans.

Image result for ciccariello maher
Ciccariello-Maher's comments reflect the ignorant
context of the modern world.
Lastly, I would like to go back to the idea of respect afforded to teachers over soldiers. Teachers like Ciccariello-Maher.  Drexel University, Philadelphia actually employs this man to teach students. Does this give you an idea as to why teachers aren’t afforded the same respect as soldiers? Teachers are meant to be smart. Most are. The minority, like Ciccariello-Maher, are not. They are so dumb, they cannot even realise why soldiers are afforded respect, so dumb, they post comments like “All I want for Christmas is white genocide” and “I’m trying not to vomit or yell about Mosul”. Yes, Ciccariello-Maher, who specialises in South-American politics, doesn’t have a clue. Why is he even in the education system, spreading poisonous ideals such as his? His odour is one of the main reasons I’m not going to Drexel University. If this is the direction of education, no wonder teachers don’t board planes first, no wonder the education rates in NSW, and nationally, are dropping at alarming rates, why English, Mathematics and Science marks are lowering. Because teachers don’t teach, they spread their toxic ideals and this is virulent for society.


So, George Ciccariello-Maher, an assistant professor (Thank goodness he isn’t a full professor) at Drexel University has unleased a barrage of toxic waste so toxic it suits his reputation. His comments, both aforementioned, are enough to earn him the sack, and his lethal ideals are being spread throughout the education system, which can be, and is proving to be nationally, pernicious for the education levels, just one pointer why this soldier was offered a 1st class seat and Ciccariello-Maher wasn’t.

Wednesday, 8 February 2017

Victory in NSW should be simple

Gladys is at a clear advantage from the likes of Mike Baird for the simple reason that she can start afresh.

Image result for gladys berejiklian
Gladys Berejiklian has a simple path to victory
Mike Baird had the unsatisfactory and election losing policy of forced amalgamations. Whatever reasons were behind the movement, the execution was a failed exhibition and it’s not as if he could have gone back on his word without losing the support of many of his followers, especially those supporting the amalgamation move. However, with the departure of Mike Baird recently, and the installation of Gladys Berejiklian, the state elections, and any by-elections should be a relatively simple affair. Sure, after some of Mike Baird’s decisions, voters may not vote for the Liberal party, but not enough to rule the Liberal party out of the election. And it’s not as if people are going to vote for the Labour party!

So, to win the election, and to win by a considerable margin, Berejiklian has to do two simple things. Things she most likely won’t do. But things she must do to ensure a profitable election result.

First, she must repeal the forced amalgamations. The Liberal party has already seen tragic losses among ranks due to the failed policy. Liberal party members, and especially Premier, haven’t spoken to the people adequately about it. She needs to either repeal the policy (which has seen Nationals leader (someone completely free of the blame) Troy Grant lose his position) or speak to the people about why she won’t. She needs to talk to the people more about it.

Similarly, Gladys needs to change the way in which she addresses the people. Mike Baird was a rare public figure. He rarely went publicly and therefore, drew a significant distinction between himself and the public of whom he was to serve. Gladys needs to speak to the people more, needs to explain the party’s position on the policies and needs to most importantly, create a link between her, and party and the public. She can’t be someone higher than the public, she can’t be on a pedestal, she needs to be on the same level as the people she serves.

In all cases, it is highly unlikely that the NSW Labour party will make an ascension into power. However, Berejiklian has a major task ahead if she wants to make a profit in a seemingly dire situation.