Savage Tory cuts could force schools onto a four-and-a-half day week, and the extreme action would be the last resort imposed on them by ministers disregarding the schools funding disaster.
Ministers are disregarding their situation and simply regurgitating the same old mantra that spending on schools has never been higher.
Ministers should examine every feasible alternative accessible to schools and it is immoral to cut funds to schools, and this sort of behavior by the government should be reversed now.
This sort of behaviour from our government will turn our educational system upside down, and this kind of caper from our government is shocking. It’s not only vile but unforgiving since the children are our tomorrow and the government plan to design our children and our children are going to be their exemplars.
This is the plan for the 21st century you’re living in today, for a brave new world where all that you value and held true will no longer exist.
They will ultimately restructure the family unit and there will be the suicidal undermining of the family and eventually, your children will be owned by government or the state.
The question I asked myself numerous times is how the people who are executing these things expect to do this and make it last?
The answer to that is that you steal a generation of children and you teach them so that they believe these concepts and they become global subjects in the effective global community. The whole idea of second-grade social studies is the transfer the loyalty from the family to the government, and they have been doing it for years, and people haven’t even realised it.
You are being manipulated layer by layer. They are already your children’s guardian without you even knowing it.
It is illegal for a parent or carer to spank their child, except where this amounts to reasonable punishment.
Whether a smack amounts to fair discipline will depend on the circumstances of each situation taking into consideration factors like the age of the child and the nature of the smack.
However, Boris Johnson supported calls for parents to be permitted to spank their children to teach obedience.
The Mayor of London expressed following a senior Labour MP accused his party’s partial prohibition on spanking children for the August riots.
The former education minister David Lammy asked for a return to Victorian regulations on restraint, stating that working-class parents needed to be able to use corporal discipline to prevent violent kids from joining gangs and brandishing knives, and he is correct.
There are countless parents out there that are far too afraid to spank their children, just in case they get into trouble or are faced with a conviction or even a prison sentence. It is right that parents should not be beating their kids to a pulp, however, there is a distinction between smacking and beating.
There were the days when smacking was allowed and caregivers at school to teach some compliance into their children. I know it did me no wrong and it unquestionably did not do my children any wrong, they were all raised to become decent citizens.
Countless parents have been brainwashed into thinking that it is wrong to smack their children and that simply saying “no” and aiming a finger at them will serve well, but regrettably, that is not the case.
I can remember in around 1989 I was getting ready to go someplace and as I stepped out of my front door, there was a young boy of around 7 years old outside all on his own, he should have been at school, but as I strolled out the door he simply stared at me and said to me quite bluntly, “Fuck off”. I was completely astonished and responded back to him that his mother should rinse his mouth out with soap, he thereupon responded, “If she did that, I would phone the police and have her nicked”.
I can remember reflecting and answering, “Watch this space” and I was right, things simply began to get worse, violence rose on the streets and children believed they could do as they desired since their parents now had no authority over them.
Over time parents have become more brainwashed because now I learn of parents who will actually go into schools to have a go at teachers because a teacher has yelled at their son or daughter, and everything has got proportionally worse.
It’s essentially grown into a fear with parents, that they just won’t smack their child for worry that they will be prosecuted for simply smacking their child and legislation should be lifted as the system leaves families feeling concerned that they would risk prosecution if they endeavored to force authority over their children.
The reasoning was basically that lifting the embargo that smacking would help to put a close to rioting, gangs and knife violence.
Numerous parents stated that the action of smacking counts as child molestation and neglectful parenting. Others, nevertheless, believe there is a distinct difference between smacking which is an efficient disciplinary tactic and abuse which can be carried out in a diversity of ways that are detrimental to the child and would be done so whether there are grounds against smacking or not.
So what do you think?
There is an apparent distinction between discipline and abuse that the majority of parents understand. It is more dangerous to children to grow up with no restraint or control in their lives and has led to many of the stigma suffered by young people today.
There is a distinction in tapping or smacking to correct a behavioural problem and beating a child and losing direction. If a child is disciplined by smacking in a caring environment where the majority of the time the child is appreciated and loved then the random smack will not cripple their growth.
Firstly, since a reasonable smack is a short-term shock that tells the child in no uncertain terms that he/she must grasp the rules. Furthermore, because screaming at a child, is more traumatic. Either the child turns out to be a tormentor or else becomes withdrawn and afraid of others.
They tell you that beating a grown-up is never acceptable, so neither should beating a child. If you lock an adult in his or her bedroom and denied him/her the right to leave, you would be guilty of false imprisonment.
If you seized an adult’s property, you would be guilty of stealing. Will the anti-smacking lobby make it impossible for parents to do this to a child too? Should adults only be able to punish a child after the case has been brought before a court or another legally constituted tribunal?
Mind you, saying that, bailiffs appear to believe they have the right to take a person’s possessions because they have been disobedient and have not settled their outstanding bills, perhaps that should be discontinued as well?
After all, if it’s good enough for a child, surely it’s good enough for an adult. Furthermore simply because an adult for whatever reason can’t manage to meet their bills, sometimes through no wrongdoing of their own, why are we not allowed to have the equivalent allowances as children, after all, we were all children once.
Smacking should be down to the individual. There will always be parents who abuse smacking, but that is because they are not good parents, and does not suggest that smacking in itself is not an acceptable method of controlling children.
Parents are no longer sovereign in their own homes and worry that social workers will take their children away if they discipline them, and the current law was confusing, suggesting that parents do not know how far they can go in terms of smacking their children.
People feel uneasy about inflicting punishment on their children, and whether the law will support them. Of course, they won’t support them, because the government doesn’t want parents to have control of their children anymore, they want authority over them since all they want to do is educate them about is sustainable economic consumption.
Where students create their own perception of reality and realise that objective reality is not visible, so why bother?
The truth is, the truth, what keep men free is being defeated in order to prop up the attitude training agenda. They discover that mathematics is man-made, that is arbitrary, and good solutions are reached by agreement among those who are recognised as masters.
Most of us believe that 2×2=4, you’re wrong, we might reach a new consensus 2×2=5.
Our children have become mathematically illiterate by design.
Generally, more highly educated people, who have greater incomes, use more resources than badly educated people, who tend to have lower earnings. In this instance, more education increases the threat to sustainability.
This is a deliberate dumbing down.
The four-and-a-half day week must be seen as ultimately, the very last option. However, it won’t be, and it’s not all about money, it’s about sustainability, and we hear that word more and more.
All children start out naturally inquisitive and love to learn. When they’re sent to school, rather than learning, it’s a repeated method of learning and repeating knowledge.
The better you are at regurgitating this knowledge, the better you will do in the school system.
The true education is obeying authority.
We are instructed to request permission and we are instructed to not think outside the box. We are taught multiculturalism, drugs, sex, and death education. We are taught to remember and repeat information, an input-output method, not much different from a machine or a slave.
We are taught to react to a bell, just like a factory floor. We are taught to keep our head down and just make it through the day and we are taught to lower our expectations, and that is simply inside of the school.
Outside of school, our communication is impaired as people literally lose the capacity to speak and relate to one another.
Our economic culture is one of slaves, promoting debt. Our political system is one of erroneous decisions. Our media is normalising narcissistic behaviour and we are not taught to develop evaluative reasoning.
We are not taught about debt based money and the principles that our originating ancestors strived for. We are not taught to help and see each other as a team, with different skills and abilities and we are not taught to challenge authority or even the actions required of us.
We are brainwashed not taught. Brainwashed like little slaves.
The secret of education is that it doesn’t teach the way children learn nor is it supposed to. Schools were invented to assist the economy and the social order rather than the children and the families, that is why it’s mandatory.
As a result, the school cannot help anyone grow up since its prime directive is to hinder development. It does it by teaching that everything is hard, that other people control our lives, that our neighbours are unreliable and even bad.
School is the first impression children get of society because first impressions are usually the most crucial ones. School imprints children with doubt, mistrust of one another and specific addictions for life.
It ensnares natural foreknowledge, faith, and the enjoyment of venture. Wiping these out in support of reasonable behaviour and rational management.
In 1880 in England education was made mandatory until the age of ten, following campaigning by the National Education League. Under the Elementary Education (School Attendance) Act 1893 it was raised to 11 and the right to education was extended to deaf and blind children. In 1899 the leaving age was raised again to 13.
The 1870 Education Act stands as the very first piece of legislation to deal particularly with the requirement of education in Britain. Most importantly, it showed a dedication to provision on a national scale.
The Act granted voluntary schools to carry on unchanged but installed a system of school boards to develop and maintain schools in areas where they were required. The committees were regionally selected groups which drew their funding from the provincial rates.
Unlike the voluntary schools, religious education in the board schools was to be non-denominational. A separate Bill extended comparable requirements to Scotland in 1872.
The issue of making education mandatory for children had not been established by the Act. The 1876 Royal Commission on the Factory Acts suggested that education was made obligatory in order to prevent child labour.
In 1880 an additional Education Act eventually made school participation mandatory amid the ages of five and ten, although by the early 1890s attendance within this age group was falling short at 82 per cent.
Numerous children worked outside school hours, and in 1901 the number was put at 300,000, and truancy was a significant dilemma owing to the fact that parents could not afford to give up revenue made by their children.
Charges were further obligatory until a shift in the law in 1891. Additional legislation in 1893 increased the age of obligatory participation to 11, and in 1899 to 12.
Meanwhile, in America amid 1906 and 1920 a handful of world-famous manufacturers and investors came together, schoolmasters, private companies, handpicked university officials, house legislators contributed more consideration and more capital towards forced schooling than the national government did.
Andrew Carnegie and Johnny Rockefeller contributed more funds than the government did mid-1900 and 1920 on education.
Mandatory education Rockefeller to blind and deaf children under the Elementary Education (Blind and Deaf Children) Act of 1893, which installed special schools. A similar plan was made for physically impaired children in the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Act of 1899.The method of modern schooling was created outside of the public eye and outside the public’s representatives.
In our thoughts, people accept themselves with complete obedience to molding hands. The modern education practices of intellectual and character education evaporate from their thoughts and unhampered by tradition they work your own good will upon a vast structure of responsive people.
They will not work to make these people or any other children into philosophers or men of science. The purpose was not to raise them up to become authors, educators, poets or men of letters. The purpose was not to hunt for great artists, painters, musicians nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen all of who they had an adequate supply of.
The assignment is easy, they organise the children and teach them in a certain way, the things their parents are doing in a flawed way.
The purpose of public education is not to fill the young of the species with knowledge and stimulate their mind, nothing could be further from the truth. The objective is solely to conquer as many as children as possible, the same sustained level, to develop and nurture standardised citizenry, put down dissidence and imagination, that is the plan.
This lowest common denominator citizen is most valuable in a corporate, military or welfare state. Companies, governments, and militaries do not deal with disagreement efficiently, so it’s in their best interest not to have participants that question everything.
In the military, they don’t beat around the bush about this idea. In boot camp, they want instant and compliance to regulations. Throughout life, you will learn the same education, only more subtly. This is why military men are more solicited for corporate positions.
Education should be directed at suppressing free will so that after students leave school they shall be incompetent throughout the remainder of their lives of reasoning and performing differently than their schoolmasters would have hoped.
Our education policy is centred on an input-output method of knowledge. Our achievement or failure depends on our ability to take what the teacher tells us and then repeating that corresponding knowledge to an exam.
Those that are able to instinctively repeat that knowledge the best are compensated with higher grades and they are told that they are smart but in fact, they are completely brainwashed.
This input-output method is no different than a machine or what a slave does. You give it a command and it just does it without question. This method was deliberately designed to fashion us into what we are today.
The masses foolishly stream through this education system and directly fed into centralised systems that want good little loyal workers who take orders without issue. We all know that person who is really smart or brainwashed, that exceeds in a business, military or government position and still, they lack any street smarts, to see what’s really going on in their lives.
When you realise that the mind only performs on what you are shown, it becomes obvious to you, that you are only able to become victorious in a centralised method where taking orders is a way of life.
I think, therefore I am. It is a classic, philosophical declaration on human cautiousness and survival. But what about the people who don’t actually think, do they truly exist?
This input-output mindset is reinforced outside of school in the career world. Our society is about what is actually popular. From early on in our lives, we are pressured into doing what is popular and not what’s best for you.
This is the way a collective gets people to sacrifice what is different and unique about themselves, to become the lowest common denominator in a group that really doesn’t care about you at all.
The most profound publicity technique will produce no progress except if one key principle is displayed in the mind continually. You must restrict it to a few points and duplicate it to them repeatedly.
When you watch the headlines or political discussion on TV, it is encouraged by talking points, where they are reconstructed with such skill it scary. Where you see news reporters repeatedly say the identical information in a corresponding way on various channels.
It’s all the alike but reformed perhaps in a somewhat unconventional way.
If this works for late night TV, what else could this be beneficial for?
All politicians will tell you that duplicating everything is good because in their line of work they keep having to recite themselves over and over for the facts to soak in because they have to catapult the propaganda.
They will tell you about terror, terrorists, terrorist groups, terrorist strikes, terrorist networks, instruments of terror, terrorist sales, terrrorising terror and murder and then they will tell you but we have to keep going over the facts because they have to soak it into the people and catapult the propaganda.
Intelligent debate in the society somehow passes for those who can screech their talking points over the other. This is done intentionally to get a confrontational impassioned response from the brainwashed and to prevent the logical and objective intellectual from even joining the debate.
Through this method, the collective is intellectually sheltered from any challenge to its control.
Do thoughts help to free you or to simply make you freely serve?
These talking points are designed by people who do think about how to dominate society. They manufacture this input-output slave thought into a Hegelian Dialectic that they control. They basically have a society that argues over problems that have no true bearing on the real power of the world.
Revolutionists in power have built financial turmoil, deficits in food and fuel, confiscatory taxation, a disaster in education, the intimidation of conflict, and other deviations to shape Americans for the New World Order.
The method is as ancient as politics itself. It is the Hegelian Dialectic of bringing about transformation in a three-step process. Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis.
The first action (thesis) is to generate a dilemma. The second action (antithesis) is to create hostility to the dilemma (panic, fear, and confusion). The third action (synthesis) is to give the answer to the dilemma generated by step one.
A change which would have been unlikely to force upon the people without the proper mental conditioning performed in steps one and two.
Using the Hegelian Dialectic, and overwhelming economic power, hidden change agents try to destroy cultural and political structures by which independent men govern themselves, antiquated monuments built at great sacrifice in blood and riches.
Their goal is to weaken sovereign countries, unite societies under universal government, centralize financial powers, and control the world’s people and resources.
Millions of American’s support free speech. They strongly think that they are the only nation to have free speech and that anyone who even questions free speech had damn well better shut up.
However, European nations and Israel ban specific kinds of address, Nazi emblems, anti-Semitic accusations, and Holocaust rejection, and address that encourages prejudice on the grounds of nationality, faith, and so on.
The American rule of free address believes that the single purpose of the legislation is to defend people against bodily injury, but it allows extensive emotional abuse. The new investigations (not quoted) point that emotional abuse is similar in magnitude to that encountered by the body, and is even more long-lasting and traumatic.
Therefore, the victims of hate address, experience as much as or more than victims of hate crime. So, why should speech be excluded from public welfare matters when its social costs can be even more dangerous than that of bodily harm?
I firmly believe in free speech, however, I believe that the supporters of free speech must face two factors, first, the American policy of free speech is not the only one, most liberal governments maintain comparatively open societies under a separate collection of rules. Next, the system isn’t cost-free. Controlling speech has costs, but so does allowing it. The only mature way to resolve the system is to look at both sides of the ledger.
We all have the freedom to express any viewpoints without restriction and that would be almost true so long as you’re not on the receiving end of it.
Hitler had freedom of speech and look what transpired there, thousands of Jews became his target and he took over nations solely because he had freedom of speech, and he was a great speaker, and people listened to him like lambs to the slaughter.
Of course, you can’t imprison a person’s freedom of speech but when it transforms people’s behaviours in such a way that it’s harmful to another’s well-being, that’s when freedom of speech becomes dangerous and we lose perception of why we needed free speech in the first place.
However, we should be entitled to preserve our free speech, so long as it doesn’t take over an entire race of people or harm their dignity or harrass.
Most people that want their freedom of speech is usually to do with politics and what they avoid telling us, therefore obviously people want their say on things, and rightly so. Nevertheless, freedom of speech was never about that at all, it was getting people to say what they needed to say and to create anarchy and disorder so that the people would end up competing against one another since obviously not everybody’s mindset is identical.
But have you met the Stepford students? They’re everywhere. On campuses across the country. Sitting stony-eyed in lecture rooms or secretly patrolling beer-fuelled banter in the uni bar. They look like students, dress like students, smell like students.
But their student’s brains have been replaced by brains deprived of critical faculties and processed to conform. To the untrained eye, they seem like your average book-devouring, ideas-discussing, H&M-adorned adolescent, but anyone who’s spent more than five seconds in their company will know that these students are far more interested in closing debate down than lighting it up.
Stepford concerns are over-amplified on social media. No sooner is a controversial topic raised then a university campaign group emerges on Facebook, or a hashtag on Twitter, demanding that the debate is closed down.
Technology means that it has never been simpler to whip up a fake sense of mass abuse and target that false outrage at those in charge. The authorities on the receiving end feel so attacked that they yield to the demands and threats.
Heaven help any student who doesn’t kneel before the Stepford reasoning. The students’ union at Edinburgh recently passed a proposal to End lad banter on campus. Laddish students are being ordered to abandon their bantering ways.
Last month, the rugby club at the London School of Economics was dismissed for a year after its members gave out flyers encouraging rugby boys to shun mingers (ugly girls) and homosexual lewdness. Under pressure from LSE bigwigs, the club openly recanted its unforgivably disgusting performance and announced that its members have a lot to learn about the harmful consequences of teasing.
They’re being made to take part in fairness and diversity education. At British universities in 2014, you don’t simply get training, you also get re-education, Soviet style.
The censoriousness has reached its depth(s) in the rise of the safe space policy. Loads of student unions have established large swaths of their universities and listed them safe spaces, that is, areas where no scholar should ever be made to feel unsafe, repellent or depreciated, whether by teasing, bad reasoning or Blurred Lines.
Protection from physical attack is one thing, but protection from words, concepts, Zionists, boys, pop tunes, Nietzsche? We appear to have trained a new age that thinks its self-esteem is more superior than everybody else’s freedom.
This is what those complaining Cambridger’s meant when they kept stating they have the right to be comfortable. They weren’t speaking about the freedom to lay down on a chaise longue, they meant the right never to be challenged by disturbing ideas or mind-battered by offensiveness.
At precisely the time they should be jumping brain-first into the rough and tumble of grown-up, testy debate, scholars are cushioning themselves from anything that has the smell of debate. We’re seeing the conquest of political precision by underhandedness.
As the irritating PC gone mad army clattered on and on about extreme examples of PC, schools forbidding ‘Baa Baa, Black Sheep’, et cetera, nobody appears to have noticed that the key principles of PC, from the desire to stop bad language to the urge to re-educate clearly warped minds, have been eaten whole by a new age.
This is a tragedy, for it suggests our universities are growing into breeding grounds of dogmatism and if we don’t allow our judgment to be sufficient, frequently, and fearlessly addressed, then that opinion will be handled as a stagnant doctrine, not a breathing truth.
One day, these Stepford followers, with their desire to ban, their fight on foul dialect, and their terrifying discussion of pre-crime, will be controlling the country. And then it won’t only be those of us who occasionally have reason to attend a campus who have to bear their lifeless doctrines.