SUBVERTING EDUCATION: A CONSPIRACY TO DUMB US DOWN

by James Reed

"If people cannot write well, they cannot think well, and if they cannot think well, others will do their thinking for them."
- George Orwell
One can be sure that a conspiracy - that is, organised intentional human action to a specific end - exists where so many extraordinary events occur together that the probability of a mere chance occurrence is diminishingly small. If I said that I flipped a coin 5,000 times and it turned up heads 5,000 times, although this may be possible as a matter of abstract logic, it is most likely that the coin used is a 'brummy' one. The same argument applies to our education system. So many events of extraordinary corruption occur that we can be certain that the matter is not due to chance alone.

The Universities in Ruin
Let us start at the top. Two phenomena have jointly destroyed the traditional liberal view of the university as preserving a culture of learning about the great works of the West. First, a large series of political reforms - most recently by Education Minister Brendon Nelson - have made the universities into an export business; indeed a $5-7 billion a year business.
Universities are flooded with overseas, primarily Asian students, and the entire institution revolves around them. Rather than being primarily concerned with achieving educational excellence with our own people, our universities have become businesses which differ from corporations like McDonald's only in what is served. In such a context, dumbing down is inevitable.

The second source of decadence and degeneracy in the modern university radiates from the humanities and social sciences departments. This source is so well known and documented that insightful articles about the decline can be found even in our daily papers. Anne McIlroy, head of the English department at Genazzano FCS College in Melbourne, in an article "Who's for Shakespeare?" (The Australian 10th February, 2005) informs us that English literature study, rather than encouraging interaction with the great works of the West, now simply supports the new class ideology of the Left - feminism, social criticism and "deconstructionism".
No longer can Shakespeare's works be considered "great", supplying insights into the human condition. Rather, Shakespeare is considered a racist, Euro-centric and patriarchal. Students, in accordance with the literary philosophy of "deconstructionism" are encouraged to consider all texts as equal, just as all men are, allegedly, equal under Leftist ideology.
Thus "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" and "Sex in the City", truly horrible television programmes, rank alongside - and maybe "above" (contradictorily) Macbeth and Hamlet. Goethe is out and garbage is in.
Clearly, a disintegration of the culture of the mind is inevitable.
Of course what applies to English literature holds true even more strongly in university departments such as politics and sociology.

The Decaying School System
Boys are suffering in the high school and primary system. On the average they achieve substantially lower grades than girls at both primary and high school. This has resulted from a feminisation of the school system where continuous assessment, which girls favour, dominates exams, which boys generally do better in. In primary schools over 90 per cent of teachers are women and most are politically Left.
McIlroy quotes Wayne Sawyer's editorial in the journal English in Australia as an example of this politicisation: Sawyer laments that the re-election of the Howard government shows that teachers have failed in their job! The result of this alienation is often violence by boys: thousands of teachers in the public school system have been bashed. Alternatively, boys commit suicide, with suicide accounting for 25 per cent of male deaths in the 15-24 year age group. Australia has one of the highest rates of youth suicide on the planet.
In another sense, both boys and girls at Australian schools are doing poorly academically. As Kevin Donnelly, author of Why Our Schools are Failing, points out in a recent article (Fads No Substitute for Teaching, The Australian 15th January, 2005) by international standards all Australian children are doing poorly.
The trends in Mathematics and Science Study, undertaken by the International Association for Evaluation of Educational Achievement which measured traditional mathematics, found a poor performance by Australian students. This is supported by the widespread existence of remedial classes in the sciences to bring first-year students up to scratch. Matters are worse in the arts where students have been found to have difficulty spelling and composing sentences with correct grammar.

The Conspiracy to 'Dumb Us Down"
Kevin Donnelly points his finger at "progressive education" as the culprit for this sorry state of affairs. Thus phonics was replaced by the "whole language approach" where students learned to guess the word by relying on memory of the shape - an Asiatic approach to language. Donnelly does not trace the origins of "progressive education" but a number of excellent books from the League do. For example, Marion Wallis in The Subversion of Australian Education and Jean M. Wallis in The Disaster Road, have, to state their thesis simply, contrasted traditional education with the "progressive education" philosophy.
A traditional education has as its philosophy, grounding in Christian philosophy as a belief in absolutes in morality and a divine ordering of the Universe. Morality is based on the natural law of God and man is responsible for his actions.
"Progressive education" is based upon Humanism - that there are no absolutes or eternal moral truths as man is alone in a purely mechanistic universe. Man is not responsible for his actions, but is a puppet of external forces. Hence, as in communism, man can and should be controlled to produce "heaven on earth".

It is no coincidence that our present Leftist-dominated school system pushes Asianisation, anti-Europeanism, multiculturalism and other pernicious ideologies, for these are mechanisms of thought control and ultimately person control. To see how this is done in detail, see these two excellent books. (Available from all League Book Services).
The decay of our education system - or rather the planned destruction of it - must of course be met by organised political action through people determined to counter this influence. This will be a long-term process, as the "Long March" of the Left through our institutions is now complete.
Those having children at school now, or about to go to school, cannot of course wait. It is recommended that you purchase a copy of John Taylor Gatto's Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling, which shows in detail that compulsory schooling kills student creativity and the young's potential for learning.
The school system has become a method of social domination and control. Having read these books parents should vote with their feet and enrol their children in "alternative" but "traditional" schools - even if it means further economic belt tightening. Our children are the future and the sacrifice is worth it. Consider as well the possibility of home schooling your children. This option is becoming more plausible with evolving home schooling networks and resources.
Remember: our chance for the future and the survival of civilisation ultimately rests with our children.

HOMOSEXUAL LOBBY SEEKS TO SILENCE CALGARY BISHOP

by Paul Fromm
A Human Rights Complaint has been filed against a Catholic Bishop in Canada - "Filed for Defence of Traditional Marriage."
Paul Fromm writes from Canada:
A decade ago, we tried to warn the churches that they were next. Once the thought police had gotten the Doug Collins and Ernst Zundels, their next targets would be the churches. The powerful homosexual lobby has been salivating at the opportunity to shut up and shut down their critics. Barbara Kulaszka, the gutsy Eastern Ontario attorney who has acted for us on occasions, repeatedly warned fellow lawyer Gwen Landolt of "Real Women", that religious groups like RW would be next. Intelligent self-interest might have dictated that groups like RW join us and intervene for freedom of speech in the Zundel case. They didn't.
Now, the churches - at least those who believe in anything more than God being some touchy feely fem - are in the firing line. The less than candid federal politicians assure churches and other religious leaders (Sikhs, Hindus and Moslems) not sold on marrying Bruce and Barry that they'll never have to perform gay marriages, if that violates their religious views.

The 'kicker' is that it's the provinces, not the feds, who actually have jurisdiction over marriage. Provincial human rights commissions have been targeting Christians for over a decade. Christian mayors (Hamilton, St. John) have been fined or forced to declare Gay and Lesbian Pride Days. Men like Scott Brockie in Ontario were fined by the Ontario Human Rights Commission for refusing to print letterheads for a homosexual archive group. Don't believe the assurances.

Columnist Lorne Gunter writes:
"Since the adoption of the Charter 20 years ago, courts - and the well-financed activist groups that use them to advance their causes - have established a hierarchy of rights. On this new totem pole, protection of religious belief is at the bottom (right next to property rights). (National Post, April 11, 2005)
In fact, strong reasons to question the assurances has arisen in Alberta. No less than his Grace Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary is now being dragged before the Alberta Human Rights Commission for a pastoral letter, no less, to his own flock reminding them that the Church's doctrine on the sanctity of marriage means a man and a woman, not Bruce wedding Barrie, or Nora having nuptials with Nancy. He also invited them to involve themselves in the political process, as the Liberal Party revolutionaries, aided by the NDP and the Bloc intend to redefine marriage.

Charter of Human Rights no guarantee
For voicing his religious views - supposedly protected under the Charter - the Calgary cleric now finds himself in peril of fines or other punishment. The bishop is a fighter and has answered his critics: "My rights to freedom of religion and free speech have been violated. Those that support same-sex marriage want to shut the churches out of this important debate. Those who favour same-sex marriage have been given full opportunity to state their views on this issue. But now they are saying that anyone who speaks out against same-sex marriage is discriminating against homosexuals." (LifeSiteNews, March 30, 2005)
Canadians readers may wish to let the Alberta Human Rights Commission or Premier Ralph Klein know their views on the matter:
To contact the commission or Alberta Premier Ralph Klein with your concerns: humanrights@gov.ab.ca https://www.gov.ab.ca/premier/feedback.cfm

IT IS OVER 30 YEARS SINCE THE LEAGUE WARNED AUSTRALIANS…
….. SENATOR MURPHY'S "HUMAN RIGHTS" BILL IS FRAUDULENT

Few Australians had heard about Senator Lionel Murphy's 1973 Human Rights Bill until some of the Church leaders, at the time, protested that the wording of the legislation could result in a restriction of the freedoms of the Churches. Although the Human Rights Bill, it was said, was designed to bring Commonwealth legislation into line with the requirements of the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it was pointed out by the Church spokesmen that the Covenant clause concerning the rights of the family had been deleted from the Murphy legislation. While the protests of the Churches were legitimate, they tended to obscure the more far-reaching implications of the Bill.
The Human Rights Bill recalled the famous satire, Animal Farm, by the former Communist George Orwell, in which the animals find that their Bill of Rights, written up on the farm barn door, did not protect them against the ruthless exploitation of the pigs after they had overthrown the farmer. It was true that it was still stated, "all animals are equal", but now it also read that "some animals are more equal than others!"

Common Law Rights
Under the guise of protecting Australians' rights and freedoms, protected until then through the separation and division of power, and common law rights upheld by an independent judiciary, the Human Rights Bill expanded enormously the power of the Commonwealth at the expense of the States, and the individual. It was a successful attempt to violate the Federal Constitution by the use of the External Affairs power. Clause 5 of the Human Rights Bill "binds Australia and each State". Federal officials are now able to force the States to conform to the pattern of law established by the Commonwealth. The consequences have been disastrous.

The roots go back to Communist ideology
The roots of the Human Rights Bill go back to the establishment of the United Nations, and the dominant role of the Communists. In the numerous conferences concerning human rights, there was a clear-cut cleavage between the Western and Christian view that certain rights are inalienable, derived from God the Creator and not from the State, as argued by the Communists.
At the time, Dr. Charles Malik, Chairman of the U.N. Human Rights Commission, disclosed that a study of the discussions of the Commission revealed how the Soviet influence dominated. He explained: "The concept of property and its ownership is at the heart of the ideological conflict of the present day. It was not only the Communist representatives who riddled this question with questions and doubts; a goodly portion of the non-Communist world had itself succumbed to these doubts."
The Communists reluctantly permitted the right to own private property (clause 17) to appear in the wordy Declaration of Human Rights, but by the time the Covenant was drafted, clause 17 had disappeared!

What 'the state' grants today it can take back tomorrow!
There was no reference to property rights in Senator Murphy's Human Rights Bill. It reflected the humanistic philosophy of those who drafted the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. If individual rights are granted by the State, then it is obvious that what the State grants today it can take away tomorrow.
Looking back on some of the actions of the Whitlam Government, it was rather hypocritical for Senator Murphy to be stressing how concerned he and his colleagues were about the "individual's rights". They most surely had mastered George Orwell's "double-speak".

Section 11, sub-section (2) stated:
"Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression, including freedom to speak, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice."

The League reported at the time
One of the first acts of Senator Murphy and his Labor colleagues when they came to office was to attempt to close down the Rhodesian Information Centre in Sydney. They also tried to deprive the Rhodesian Information Centre of postal services. Here was a blatant example of an attempt to deny Australians the right to receive information "regardless of frontiers". That right was only protected by a decision of the High Court!
Australians take note: The Western Christian nation of Rhodesia no longer exists.
The biggest threat hanging over our heads to our rights and liberties is the on-going push (no matter which political party is in power) of centralising all power in a central government at Canberra and the destruction of the Federal system of Government, which was designed to keep power divided between the Federal and State Governments.

Senator Murphy's Human Rights Bill, introduced into the Senate on November 21, 1973 was a giant step in the 'long march' of centralising the powers of the Commonwealth Constitution in Canberra. But the communist/humanist Human Rights legislation is now 'lining up' the Church in its sights. What a pity Churchmen could not see that Ernst Zundel's, and Doug Collins' battles, for their right to freedom of speech was just as much their battle.
As Paul Fromm of "Canadian Assoc. for Free Expression" noted in his article:
"Barbara Kulaszka, the gutsy Eastern Ontario attorney who has acted for us on occasion, repeatedly warned fellow lawyer Gwen Landolt of "Real Women", that religious groups like RW would be next."
Welcome to the battle fellow Christians!

SAFEGUARD THE OATH OF OFFICE

by Phillip Benwell, MBE
National Chairman, Australian Monarchist League
The moves by the State Labor (Republican) Governments to remove the Oath of Allegiance to The Queen are morally, if not legally, unconstitutional.
The current Oath in New South Wales for all Members of the Parliament is to: "be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, Her Heirs and Successors according to law. So help me God." This inviolate Oath is taken not just to The Queen as a person, but to the institution of Government under The Crown, binding Members of the Parliaments to protect all tenets of our constitutional democracy.

The proposed Pledge, which is not an Oath, of: "loyalty to Australia and the people of NSW" is essentially meaningless as it does not bind the Parliamentarians in the same manner as the current constitutional Oath does.
Given the fact that the people voted in a referendum less than five years ago, it is strange that politicians are now wanting to be 'loyal' to the people by rejecting out of hand the decision of those very people to retain our Constitutional Monarchy!

The fact that the NSW Constitution Act empowers the Legislature to alter the Constitution without the requirement of a referendum, does not absolve the Parliament from their responsibility to seek a special mandate from the people on this issue.
It is important that as many people as possible phone talk-back radio and write Letters to the Editor protesting at these moves to remove by stealth that which the People have voted to retain.
P.S. According to one guest at the Queen's reception to Charles and Camilla, which followed the service of prayer, Charles responded "from the heart" when he said: "God bless my parents, my family, my wife and damn the British press." Source: International Express, 12/4/05.

FROM 'FIREBRAND' TO - 'SCHOLARLY TRANQUILITY'?

by Betty Luks
Is the Michael Brander who wrote the Quadrant, March 2005 article, "Alexander Solzhentisyn and the West" the same Michael I have known of and whose paths have crossed, now and again, for the past 25-or so years? That Michael, over the years, has been quite a firebrand. The Quadrant article suggests a more mature and reasonable Michael.
Brander insists the West failed to understand Solzhentisyn - including those who admired him. In his 1978 Harvard University address, "A World Split Apart," Solzhenitsyn delivered a "polemic against the modern world in general" and the Western World in particular."
"Even those commentators wishing to defend Solzhenitsyn, by trying to reconcile his statements with respectable currents of Western thought, failed to understand what he was driving at," charged Michael Brander.
Solzhenitsyn, through personal experience had understood what "modern Western thought" couldn't. Modern western thought itself was "the problem and …the Soviet system was one consequence of it." His Harvard University audience found that accusation "hard …to hear."
As for the critics of the great writer, Brander thought they tried, "to compartmentalise him ideologically, not realising that he was voicing a traditional Western view of society that preceded the modern world itself and countered every 'advance' towards the modern society we have today.

The mistake is at the roots
"How did the West decline from its triumphal march to its present debility?" Solzhenitsyn asked … "the mistake must be at the root, at the very foundation of thought in modern times. I refer to the prevailing view of the world which was born in the Renaissance and which has found political expression since the Age of Enlightenment, the proclaimed and practiced autonomy of man from any higher force above him." Solzhenitsyn had summed up the matter elsewhere: "Men have forgotten God."
Well done Michael, a good read.

A TRULY GREAT 'SPECIAL' ON SOLZHENITSYN'S BOOK & SPEECHES

MORE 'BRICKBATS' AND 'POSIES'

SYDNEY CONSERVATIVE SPEAKERS' CLUB

THE FINANCIAL VULTURES ARE GATHERING AROUND TELSTRA

The "Herald Sun" 30/3/05 reported:- "A global heavyweight and a local boutique corporate advisory outfit have won the first stage in the $30 million-plus race to sell the rest of Telstra. UBS and the Caliburn Partnership will conduct the first stage of the Telstra sales process, dubbed T3, by spending several months studying how the Government can maximise the financial windfall from selling its 51.8 per cent stake".
The government says that this early win does not guarantee this organisation a role in the actual sale. However the companies that did the initial studies in the first two Telstra sales eventually gained the contract for those sales.

What does this mean for us - REDOUBLE OUR EFFORTS TO MOBILISE PEOPLE TO ACT to keep Telstra in public hands.

HASCO BOOKLET NOW AVAILABLE FOR THE BATTLE:
Hasco Inc., have produced an excellent booklet outlining the details of the battle and further financial information. Send - DIRECT TO HASCO - for your copies NOW ! Distribute them as far and as wide as you can.
HASCO'S address is: P.O. Box 642, Nanango, Qld. 4615
Prices are: $5.00 single copy posted. Ten or more copies $4.00 each posted.

CD ALSO AVAILABLE: a CD by Jeremy Lee on the sale of Telstra - $5.00 Single copy posted. $4.00 each ten or more copies posted.
PLEASE DON'T PUT BROCHURES UNDER WINDSCREENS:
This has been illegal in Victoria since the 1980's. Please folk, let us not upset those we want to encourage to act and let us not break the by-laws either.

CD-ROM "LIONS FOR FREEDOM"