Sunday, April 7, 2013

Nationalizing Children

Commissar for Children: Anton S. Makarenko, depicted in a Soviet Postcard

We must remove the children from the crude influence of their families. We must take them over and, to speak frankly, nationalize them.

Instructions given at a congress of Soviet educators in 1918 (cited in Separating School & State: How to Liberate America’s Families, by Sheldon Richman, pg. xv).

[The Soviet family] is an organic part of Soviet society. Parents are not without authority … but this authority is only a reflection of social authority…. In our country he alone is a man of worth whose needs and desires are the needs and desires of a collectivist…. Our family offers rich soil for the cultivation of such collectivism. –

Soviet family theorist Anton S. Makarenko, The Collective Family, A Handbook for Russian Parents, pgs xi-xii, 42.

If we want to talk about equality of opportunity for children, then the fact that children are raised in families means there’s no equality…. In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them. –

Dr. Mary Jo Bane, Assistant Secretary of Administration for Children and Families at the US Department of Health and Human Services, 1993-1996; currently Thornton Bradshaw Professor of Public Police and Management, Harvard Kennedy School; quoted in “The Family: It’s Surviving and Healthy” by Dolores Barclay, Tulsa World, August 21, 1977. 

 Whenever a progressive refers to “investments,” he or she is referring to confiscation of private wealth.

Whenever a progressive invokes the “community,” that term refers to a state-engineered collective in which the individual has no rights.

Whenever a collectivist refers to “public education,” that phrase is shorthand for the process of destroying a child’s developing sense of self-ownership and indoctrinating them in the notion that they are the property of the “community.” This process is also known as “socialization,” which is the indefinable value-added element that supposedly makes “public education” superior to homeschooling.

Whenever an advocate of “public education” refers to “our children,” conscientious parents should take a quick inventory of their arsenals.
Melissa Harris-Perry, a slogan-spewing news reader for the Stalinist media outlet called MSNBC, ran the table of these collectivist nostrums in a recent installment in the network’s “Lean Forward” ad campaign. The “Lean Forward” spots feature various MSNBC luminaries holding forth like Communist Party functionary exhorting the cadres at a “struggle session” in the Chinese Cultural Revolution.

Harris-Perry is a collectivist of such passionate conviction that she regards opposition to Obama's radical centralization of power to be a species of sedition. She considers private firearms to be a pestilence, but embraces a vision of social engineering that would require a great amount of gun-related violence by state functionaries. 

Although – or perhaps because -- Harris-Perry is a credentialed academic, she has the odd and annoying habit, so common among adolescents, of ending every statement with a vocal inflection that suggests a question. In her "Lean Forward" ad, she uncorked this specimen of unfiltered collectivist cant:

“We have never invested as much in public education, because we’ve always had a sort of private notion of children – your kid is yours, and totally your responsibility. We haven’t had a very collective notion of, `These are our children.’ So part of it is that we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities. Once it’s everybody’s responsibility, and not just the household’s, then we start making better investments.”

Harris-Perry’s disdain for parental authority is wedded to a denial of the idea that the individual child has a right to self-ownership. During an MSNBC discussion about a North Dakota law that would ban abortion after six weeks, she used the expression “this thing” to refer to the developing fetus and warned that “if this turns into a person, there are economic consequences.” 

It’s important to understand that Harris-Perry’s commitment to legalized abortion doesn’t grow out of a misapplied commitment to individual liberty, but rather her devotion to the collective management of the human population. It’s akin to the view expressed in the early 1970s by then-Rutgers professor Ruth Bader Ginsburg that the Roe v. Wade ruling was a product of “concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations we don’t want too many of.” 

Belief that the unborn human child has a right to be protected against lethal aggression, according to Harris-Perry, is a “faith claim … not associated with science.” However one views that moral proposition, the humanity of the developing individual is an incontestable scientific fact.  The existence of the invisible, intangible abstraction called the “state” is based entirely on faith claims that Harris-Perry is willing to impose through coercion. 
Nationalize children: Dr. Bane.

In an essay she wrote for The Nation magazine three years ago – then, as now, she wore her surname fashionably parted in the middle, but in a slightly different style – Harris-Perry described how she catechizes her unfortunate students in the gospel of the Almighty State: 

"I often begin my political science courses with a brief introduction to the idea of `the state.' The state is the entity that has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, force, and coercion. If an individual travels to another country and kills its citizens, we call it terrorism. If the state does it, we call it war. If a man kills his neighbor it is murder; if the state does it it is the death penalty. If an individual takes his neighbor's money, it is theft; if the state does it, it is taxation."

In addition to instructing other people’s children in the fear and admonition of the Divine State, Harris-Perry is eager to see its heretical enemies put to the torch.

"The Tea Party is a challenge to the legitimacy of the U.S. state," Harris-Perry insisted. "When Tea Party participants charge the current administration with various forms of totalitarianism, they are arguing that the government has no right to levy taxes or make policy. Many GOP elected officials offered nearly secessionist rhetoric from the floor of the Congress [during the debate over nationalizing health care]. They joined as co-conspirators with the Tea Party protesters by arguing that this government has no monopoly on legitimacy."

The overt act that made that impious “conspiracy” a prosecutable crime, according to Harris-Perry, was an anti-Obamacare protest in which Tea Party activists heckled Georgia Rep. John Lewis. As an elected official, Lewis is not merely a human being, according to Harris-Perry, but an “embodiment of the state” – or, to use appropriate creedal language, al living  image of the invisible deity.

"When protesters spit on and scream at duly elected representatives of the United States government it is more than an act of racism," snarled Harris-Perry, making a de rigueur – and entirely gratuitous -- reference to Lewis's ethnic background. "It is an act of sedition."

String up the barbed wire, sharpen the guillotine, ready the basement cells of the Lubyanka: There are "seditionists" to be dealt with! 

Like many others of her ideological persuasion, Harris-Perry is a stranger to concision. In describing the totalitarian state’s proprietary claim on children, someone who represented a slightly different strain of collectivism – albeit not as different as Harris-Perry would insist – stated the matter much more tidily almost exactly eighty years ago:

“When an opponent declares, `I will not come over to your side,’ I calmly say: `Your child belongs to us already…. What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in this new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.”

Those words were spoken on November 6, 1933 by the community-organizing, civilian-disarming, socialized medicine-promoting, government stimulus-peddling, unitary executive who presided over Germany’s National Socialist government. When Harris-Perry and her comrades demand that we "Lean Forward," that's the direction they have in mind.

If you can, please help keep Pro Libertate on-line. We really appreciate your generosity. Thanks, and God bless!

Dum spiro, pugno!


mickeyman said...

The mental illness of the Progressives knows no limits.

It never stops because she thinks she's doing it for our benefit.

Keith said...

Thanks for yet another excellent piece.

IIRC the first use of CS spray by cops in Britain was to torture a single mum who was (in their opinion) taking too long to allow the thugs in blue to confiscate her baby.

Like tazers, the propaganda claimed that CS spray was to save the lives of doughnut munchers, and provided a less lethal alternative to shooting.

I guess those claims were broadly correct

It saved the plods a few minutes of their lives, waiting for the mum to hand to them what belonged to ceaser, and presumably allowed them to be back in time for coffee, and to go home to their families, on time.

and it saved the peon from a more rigorous assault.

Interestingly, the British plod chose CS over pepper spray as CS came with more pieces of paper claiming that it was "safe"

The British spray is a 5% solution (compared to 1% solution used by Us cops) and issues at five times the rate, resulting in 25 times the dosage compared to a Us spray.

"Initial internal testing of sprays [by the British plods] began in early 1995, but was called off due to a number of serious injuries to officers who later ended up claiming compensation."


Keith said...

Just thinking,

wasn't it Ignatious Loyola, founder of the Society of Jesus, who said;

"Give me the child until he is seven, and I'll give you the man" ?

Anonymous said...

All your children are belong to us. Are people figuring yet that we are in the midst of the second bolshevik revolution? We're all kulaks now comrades.

kirk said...

the arrogance of this woman and her ilk is what allows them to make such claims.

made of finer clay than the rest of us (their continuous delusional state), they are capable of making such claims for the simple reason that they are, indeed, of a (self proclaimed) finer clay than we, the great unwashed masses. it is their delusion that feeds their arrogance.

it is time to physically split this nation into two separate nations, one for those that worship at the altar of power and those who do not.

personally, i respect the freedom of this woman to say what she thinks. unfortunately, she and her ilk never respect those with differing opinions, or those who would choose NOT to have such people as she in charge. they prefer to shove their way down our throats and label those who disagree as enemies to be put away, or, if not,mentally insane.

they want the children for a reason. the reason is 'socialization'. 'socialization' is defined as the production of a socialist. they will use children to produce the socialist utopia they speak of, with themselves in charge, of course, on the backs of the children they claim to love.

these people have dark hearts and dark souls.

Musashi said...

Stupid, worthless, lisping whore.

MoT said...

"if this turns into a person...."

And WHO exactly would "define" what a person is, hmmmm? Using that sort of evil pretzel-logic one could simply wave the hand and define bitchy female reporters as being non-human and worthy of extermination for the good of the collective. Now watch as she'd wail to the heavens that it's unfair to be lumped in with the common rabble. Tut..tut.

Jeffrey Ruzicka said...

Great blog. I listen to you on Dr. Stan and donated $ 25 to your site because a Christian like you deserves support. No need to reply sir, keep writing ! : )

Anonymous said...

Off Topic, but, are any of you aware of the family on the run in FL after the state took their children away for attending an "anti government" protest?

Boaters aid search for missing Florida boys

Florida authorities are asking recreational boaters to keep an eye out for a boat owned by Joshua Michael Hakken that could hold two kidnapped boys.

The Hakkens lost custody of the children last year after Joshua Hakken was arrested on drug charges while attending an anti-government rally in Louisiana. The couples' parental rights were terminated on Tuesday and the boys were turned over to Sharyn Hakken's parents, according to the Tribune

Josh Parris said...


Thanks for all you do. Been reading your work since the early 2000s when I would comb through my dad's old copies of The New American.

dum spiro, spero

Anonymous said...

The end result will be the same as Germany suffered under their dear utopia building community organizing leader, a smoldering heap of ruins as far as the eye can see and a fifty year recovery.

Keith said...

Here's an example from a place, which in some respects is further down the road to serfdom than some p[arts of the united state, in other respects, not so far;

"On June 25th of 2009, officials of Gotland, Sweden boarded a plane bound for India and removed Domenic Johansson from his parents’ custody without a warrant or reasonable cause to believe that he was being harmed. Their supposed crime? Choosing to home school Domenic and to delay or decline certain immunizations. Ironically, home schooling is legal in Sweden, and historically parents have always been given the option to legally delay or decline immunizations if they thought it in the best interest of their particular child or children. To learn more about the Johansson family and their struggle, please read BECAUSE THEY LOVED..."

Keith (yet again:-) said...

"The four families involved were from four different faiths - Jewish, Church of Scotland, Baptist and Quaker. Suspicions intensified when the authorities learned Quakers prayed without a minister present - and gathered in a circle."

The Orkney "satanic" abuse scandal

"Like the 119 other children ensnared in what was Britain's first and biggest abuse scandal, they were interrogated by social workers and endured a battery of the most intimate examinations by doctors.

As a toddler Lindsey was photographed or examined for signs of sexual abuse 17 times, according to her own medical records. In fact, it may have been many more - she will never know. For, mysteriously, the official files on the Cleveland debacle, provoked by Dr Higgs's blind faith in an unproven medical technique to prove child abuse, have since been destroyed."

These were both from a Britain under Thatcher, in the 1980s.

abuses such as mass seizures are not new - those with "authoriteh" have much precedent experience to draw upon - right back to the seizures of American Indian, Australian Aboriginal and Swiss Gypsy children.

and having a supposed conservative government in place (such as the recently croaked Thatcher's) is no protection.

Keith said...

Sorry Will, I think I missed out a link to the Cleveland seizure of 119 children

Anonymous said...

Children do not belong to anyone. We birth them raise them teach them so they won't follow a bad path but in the end the final decision is theirs not ours and certainly not the states no matter what they think.

Seems the state wants to raise slaves from birth

Anonymous said...

Do these arrogant finer-clay-than-yours educated derelicts actually think they are going to be revered and loved when they overthrow a system that has worked fine for 230 plus some odd years and plunge a society into chaos just so they can get their hands on the capitalist pig's filthy lucre they hypocritically claim they disdain?

Indy InAsiaPacific said...

Un-Nationalizing Children:

Anonymous said...

That homeschooling project seems magnificent in comparison to the theme of this article.

I can't figure out how to help it advance and get compensated. Maybe others will?

I want to stop supporting Empire as much as possible. Or at least not further it.

So, which jobs or occupations don't further it?

It would seem farming wouldn't further Empire, but the farmers feed them too.

How do others deal with that dilemma?

I support the idea of the 2nd Amendment, would working for a gun manufacturer further Empire? Even if the gun manufacturer didn't sell to cops in states like NY, they still market and sell to cops.

Is it wrong to work for the gun manufacturers?

Too many industries are tied to supporting Empire in one way or another, it makes it very difficult to decide who to work for or do business with.

I'm not sure what I'm looking for here, there are probably others in the same boat, maybe a list of Will Grigg approved businesses and manufacturers would be useful?

Bob said...

Such words come only from the mouth of a Vlad Lenin, Joe Stalin, or Dolf Hitler in drag.

What a whore!

Great post, Will.

Bob said...

Once again, kids are being exploited for the political gains of the statists and their globalistic financial allies.

ray said...

the rise of the tyrant-State in the mid nineteenth century and the rise of "Women's Rights" are inseparable

what the "community" really means is the same as Hilary's "village" (collective female power, fronted and enforced by men, setting brother against brother)

Harris-Parry and Bader-Ginsberg and the appropritately named Doctor Bane are merely that power, long dominant in the u.s., coming into overt view

now that The Revolution is won (Pharaoh times two anyone?) it is safe for certain realities to be made manifest and visible

thank you mr grigg

Keith - commenting far too often on this thread said...

Mild disagreement with the wording of Ray's comment.

Chances are, we're probably in total agreement, if we (me especially) can find the words...

Natural rights; those norms which we seek to establish in which we refrain from inflicting on individual others, those things which we don't want others to inflict upon our individual selves

those natural rights are not a zero sum game, and are no different whatever the individuals gender, race, religion...

all benefit from identifying and respecting them - it is in our own (whether selfish or altruistic, it doesn't matter) interest to respect them.

the difficulty comes when someone gets the idea that they are owed something more than others restraining themselves.

sure, I'd love have the "right" to be waited on hand and foot - to have someone else do all of the hard work and me to enjoy all of the proceeds -

but that implies that some other individuals have the obligation to provide me with

that way lies unlimited greed and the hobbesian war of all upon all

That is what politicians constantly dangle before us, in the hope that some will bite, and take their hook.

any "right" which imposes a duty on another to provide (rather than to refrain from) is not a natural right

it is a "posited" or a "positive" "right"

It is not a right at all - it is a construct of politicians - of ignorant or greedy individuals.

It leads to a Hobbesian war, and (onwards brave comrades!) to the likes of the soviet gulag and the Cambodian killing fields

Paul Bonneau said...

Sometimes I think it is a good thing collectivists talk like this, because it irritates and alarms so many normal people.

Leonidas said...

She is free to say whatever she wants, no matter how despicable.

We, however, are equally free to try, convict, and execute her for planning crimes against humanity.

These scum are on the lists of many people who live near them. When this country blows apart at the seams, there will be a reckoning.

Michael Alford said...

Ms Haris-Perry is the most dangerous type of crazy person; the one who really means well and will crack your skull while trying to help you 'move forward'