An Orwellian Nightmare – State Education in the 21st Century
Whenever someone decides to criticise the state of the education system, they are often quickly reprimanded, and their own ignorance is then explained to them at length. The person in charge of this telling off describes just how lucky we are to have universal compulsory education in this country, and how we should be forever grateful to the state for bestowing upon us this glorious opportunity to learn, and to enlighten ourselves without fear of violence or intimidation. Yet it is the fact that free speech is attacked so intensely, and with such hostility, that one is left feeling almost as if all of this is a lie. The message of ‘Free Learning’ is a fallacy, and the platform for ‘Open and honest intellectual debate’ that is so often lauded as a wonderful privilege by the mouthpieces of the state is little more than a nicely worded lie. The reality of attending a state comprehensive school as a student on the right is somewhat different from this utopian ideal. Behind the façade lies an orchestrated system of political subversion and indoctrination, aimed at rooting out and eradicating all forms of dissent, and by this I mean voices on the right who dare to question the status quo, or who aim to unearth this well concealed agenda that seems endemic to the modern education system.
The schooling system is undoubtedly effective in its intended purpose, that is churning out hundreds of loyal servants to the state, who cannot think outside the boundaries of their own misinformed minds, who cannot participate in reasoned discussion and who go on themselves to act as enforcers in society, seeking out, exposing and denouncing views which are seen as contrary to that which they were taught at such a formative period of their lives. This attitude of moral and intellectual superiority is carried with these people to University, and then to the workplace, where the doctrine of social justice and cultural Marxism is imparted further, spreading like a virus into the susceptible minds of those who do not wish to create a stir or to risk ‘upsetting’ anybody. This all begins in secondary School, for it is here that the initial seeds are planted in the minds of the students, and the environment in which they learn thus serves to water and nourish these saplings of Marxist, pseudo-intellectual thought into blossoming and fully-formed worldviews, which cannot stand up to the slightest bit of intellectual scrutiny yet are designed to not ever have to, strength in numbers should ensure that it is the only acceptable way of thinking and expressing political views. Someone who has views verging on libertarianism or right-wing politics finds themselves swimming against the so to speak, locked in a constant battle to have their voice heard whilst the entire apparatus of the system is busily engaged in identifying the root cause of this vocal objection to the status quo.
I have found myself almost continuously in awe of the lack of variation in the political orientation in my teachers; I cannot identify a single member of staff who has taught me over the past 5 years who has held even mildly right-wing or libertarian views. Not one. What I have found, however, is a set shocking similarities in the views of my teachers, and in the ways in which they impart them to their students. From my experience, this system of indoctrination occurs in two separate ways, both of which are highly potent, and when combined constitute a deadly knockout blow to voices which challenge the political agenda of the teacher in question. Firstly, we must take note of the organisation of the lesson and the layout of the classroom, both of which are key factors in the system of indoctrination. The students sit uniformly, often in rows or in structured squares, and this gives the teacher the ability to move anyone wherever they may choose. If someone behaves badly, they are moved to the front so that they can be observed more easily, or they are moved to the back, thus signifying exclusion. This is also an effective tool in shutting down voices which dissent against the liberal agenda. The teacher who is preaching the virtues of multiculturalism, disguised in a lesson about the Roman republic for example, may choose to single out someone who identifies and questions this blatant agenda and move them, thus serving to exclude them socially and to make an example of them to the rest of the class. I can say from my own experience that this is highly effective; people are sadly more concerned with keeping their social status intact than questioning the intricacies of the redistribution of wealth. So this is step one, to embarrass and shame those who argue for free speech, for a smaller state, for social conservatism, or for a return to tradition or to a Hoppean natural order. On the other hand, those who champion equality, social justice, and the welfare state are praised as ‘emotionally competent’ or ‘socially aware’, despite the fact they have likely never been exposed to a differing viewpoint. This system of positive reinforcement helps to create the subservient hordes of social justice warriors I described earlier in my piece, and also to banish those on the right to the icy tundra of social ostracism and exclusion. For many, it is preferable to just keep their mouths shut, and toe the line of cultural Marxism, for to be assigned the dreaded label of racist or fascist is the worst form of social death imaginable.
It is a hostile environment, one in which the History classrooms are adorned with Communist flags for no apparent reason, where the students are made to analyse the speeches of left-wing fanatics, and where anything right of militant Maoism is disgusting and poisonous, and worst of all where students who cannot handle civilised discussion break down into fits of tears or rage, and blame the intolerance of their opponent for the subsequent outpouring of infantile emotion, just because someone might have disagreed with them.
The antidote to this intolerance and indoctrination is simply to resist. It is to speak up, be heard and to make an impact. It isn’t easy; you will find yourself downcast and dejected, disillusioned at the state of your fellow students who are all too happy to swallow the lies of the left and to embrace the culture of victimhood. But we must never give up in our attempt to spread the message of liberty, and to defend the right to free speech and to open discussion. The school should be voracious in its acceptance and defence of this message, yet as of now it is quite the opposite. The odds of success are stacked in favour of those who conform to the liberal doctrine, those who do not must fend for themselves, and that is why we come back stronger and more determined every time we see the injustices of the state and of those who seek to paint us as evil. Peter Hitchens sums it up quite nicely I think: “Is there any point in public debate in a society where hardly anyone has been taught how to think, while millions have been taught what to think?” This is a rallying cry to all young libertarians. Do not succumb to the intimidation; the revival of all that is just and righteous in society depends on it.