Home schooling: here’s what our masters say

And you’d better pay attention

by Jon Rappoport

May 23, 2022

(To join our email list, click here.)

Daniel Greenfield, writing at Front Page Magazine, offers this gem:

“Elizabeth Bartholet, the director of Harvard Law’s Child Advocacy Program, described the ‘homeschooling phenomenon’ as a ‘threat’ to society, claiming that conservative parents ‘homeschool because they want to isolate their children from ideas and values central to our democracy’, ‘promote racial segregation and female subservience’, and ‘question science’.”

“Her paper called for a ‘presumptive ban on homeschooling, with the burden on parents to demonstrate justification for permission to homeschool.’ These views are not fringe.”

Of course, this elite Harvard titan, Bartholet, knows which ideas and values are central to our democracy; and the place to drill them into children’s heads is public school.

Which pretty much sums up what public schools are for.

She also has a complete grasp of science in all fields, and she can identify disruptive questions which would lead unsuspecting people down the wrong track.

Appoint her the head of Something Big immediately.

Like all of her super-educated colleagues, she manages to forget that the United States is a Republic, not a democracy. But a democracy is what she needs, because under that system the well-oiled systems of money determine which voices are heard and which are silenced.

The voices that are heard are called “the will of The People.” So says the press, which is basically a PR and marketing operation on behalf of Money. As a cover, the press pretends to be an advocate for the poor and the underserved.

Elizabeth Bartholet should be pumping gas and collecting tumbleweed at a station in Death Valley, where she can talk to herself and right all the wrongs of society.

It’s always this way with elites; they know what we need because we can’t know it. They labor to supply us with their values because ours are worthless.

Their bottom line, when it comes to education? Children don’t belong to their parents. They belong to the State. So you see, their territory of operation is far wider than schools. They’re werewolves, and parents are silver bullets.

In 2020, Bartholet was a co-organizer of a Harvard summit on homeschooling, along with law professor James Dwyer. The announcement for this summit included the following profile of Dwyer. Buckle up:

“James Dwyer, a law professor at the College of William and Mary. He is the professor famous for claiming that ‘The reason parent-child relationships exist is because the State confers legal parenthood …’ In his 1994 law review article ‘Parents’ Religion and Children’s Welfare: Debunking the Doctrine of Parents’ Rights’ (82 Calif. L. Rev. 1371), Dwyer argued that ‘the claim that parents should have child-rearing rights—rather than simply being permitted to perform parental duties and to make certain decisions on a child’s behalf in accordance with the child’s rights—is inconsistent with principles deeply embedded in our law and morality’.”

Yes. Democracy. Certainly.

Isn’t this what you’ve always wanted? Permission from the State to perform certain limited parental duties?

Dwyer’s deep understanding of the Constitution is evident here. He realizes that, contrary to popular belief, the founding document never intended to limit and constrain central government and guarantee wide freedom to the individual.

No. Instead, it embedded government EVERYWHERE, especially within the family. Parents, the Founders reasoned, were no better than British Kings. They had to be hamstrung and placed in homes as carefully watched and monitored agents of the State, to carry out instructions on how to raise children.

Aha. Yes. Of course. How could we have missed that?

And it’s only fitting that we should receive such wisdom from Harvard, where posing as guardians of the disenfranchised while sitting on a pile of endowment money that reaches to the moon has been raised to an art form.

At Harvard, the elites play in the fields of the Lord and stoop to offer us mandates about the basics of life itself.

Mother? Father? Son? Daughter? These are grave misnomers which arose owing to parental ignorance and overreach.

A vast course correction is needed, and our rulers will define the law and guide the way.

Bow the head, bend the knee, and give thanks.

Or you could build a moat around your home and fill it with crocodiles. While you home school your children.

You know, mothers—the children YOU GAVE BIRTH TO.

Unless you believe sex, conception, pregnancy, and birth are mere footnotes of State law.

Decreed by Harvard.

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

When philosophy goes begging in society

Apr18

by Jon Rappoport

April 18, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

“So Jones, according to you, society should be all about Love. (laughter in the classroom) No, this is important. In fact, looking at some of your gruff mugs, my dear students, I’d say some of you could use a good dose of Love. All right, Jones, how is this spread of Love accomplished? In schools, you say? So what is taught in the classes? No, not generally taught. Spell it out. Your job is to figure out exactly how you teach Love. Since it’s the most important thing to you, you need to find out how you impart it. You can’t just say leave it to the experts. That would be like me saying what I want the most for the world is to turn into a Utopia, and we’ll do that through universal education centers, where people in charge who know how to accomplish this goal practice their skills. I do nothing. I just watch Utopia happen. —-No, you need to become a teacher of what you think is most important. What do you teach in order to impart Love? How do you do it? You program it into people? Is that what you’re advocating? What about the students who don’t want to be programmed? Is something wrong with them? Is freedom important?…Start talking, Jones, I’m listening…”

In 1960, I graduated from college with a BA in philosophy. One of the most glaring deficiencies was a lack of exploration of ethical values.

The famed dormitory “bull sessions” among students rarely, if ever, took place. In the classroom, there was never a wide-ranging discussion of students’ own values.

Creating a civilization in which ethics take center stage is, at best, a difficult proposition. If education doesn’t include a probing search for answers on this subject; if instead, it’s assumed that every person has his own relative point of view, then of course you end up with mobocracy and quite heavy propaganda. Ultimately, elites take charge of the propaganda.

A version of the Socratic Method should infiltrate college classrooms to the core. What are your most important beliefs? How would you implement these beliefs in society, if you could? What would that look like? What would be the implications of a society governed by your beliefs? Spell them out. What would constitute the unforeseen results? How would you deal with these results?

These and other questions draw out the students. They begin to reflect. They learn how to think about their own ethical values. They encounter other sets of values. They respond to these differing pictures of reality. They come up against the question of individual freedom and what it means in practice. They compare what they believe with other basic beliefs—for example, the American Constitution’s. Or Plato’s Republic. Or Marx’s Communist Manifesto. Or the student’s who sits two chairs away.

A real teacher knows how to initiate and preside over such discussions. These classes become interesting, exciting, vital, energizing.

In a modern “democracy,” where this sort of education never occurs at a deep level, propaganda eventually becomes all inclusive, and one side seeks to shut down the other—which is what we are seeing now.

The process of education itself is devalued because it isn’t impacting the student at his center. It’s superficial to the extreme, and it rarely brings about vital personal change. Instead, at best, the student is viewed as a robot who needs to ingest information. I’m not downplaying the role of information; I’m saying it needs to be supplemented by an ongoing process of reflection on, consideration of, and extensive dialogue about, personal values.

Schools that feature true values-education need to be created from scratch. Obviously, this is no easy job. It might be the hardest job in a society that has already sunk into half-light indifference on multiple fronts. However, I can tell you from experience that there are many families who want what I’m suggesting for their children; they just don’t know where to go. They don’t want their children to take on a set of values by belonging to some group who will, supposedly, protect them and give them legitimacy. They want their children to be able to stand on their own two legs and live according to their best ideas.

This is what a so-called “liberal education” is really all about.

“All right, Smith, you keep referring to Justice as a core value. You’ve read at least part of Plato’s Republic. You know he believed that Justice, as well as many other core concepts, already existed on a higher level of reality. What do you think of that? Give us 800 written words on the subject. I don’t want vague generalities. And give us your own experience. What is Justice to you? How did you decide what it is? Did you discover it? Did you invent it? Do we all need to have the same notion of Justice? If so, what would society then look like? How would it function? Who would run things? Would a few people be born with a higher understanding of Justice? We’ll have a full discussion of your ideas. But we need to know what those ideas are, specifically…Maybe it’s time to remind you that I want at least some of you, when you graduate, to go out into the world with the solid ambition of bringing your best values into wider existence, for real, in this thing called Life. We’re not only doing academics here. We’re doing preparation. I refuse to allow the preparation to be flimsy and separate from you. It has to reflect deep parts of you. You’re not going to forget what you did here the minute you walk out the classroom door for the last time…”

In society, there are those who consider ethics a sport, a game to be taken lightly. There are those who have no ethical values at all, beyond their personal ambitions. There are those who buy the values of their elders, without thought, and thereby close the book on the whole subject. Worst of all, there are individuals who have a massive commitment to impose their values on everyone else, but have never truly reflected on the negative implications of a civilization which accepts their version of life. They seek power, and they take it, no matter the consequences.

One of the great roles of education—and philosophy in particular—is to bring true personal engagement into the field of ethics. This would be accomplished despite widespread resistance and apathy, and despite a feeling that nothing can be changed.

Resistance is always present. It is no reason to abandon the work.

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

Why I love schools that ban books

Jul21

Why I love schools that ban books

by Jon Rappoport

July 21, 2017

Let’s start here. In 2016, as US News reports, “The Portland Public Schools Board on Tuesday decided to ban any classroom materials that cast doubt on climate change. The resolution passed unanimously and requires that textbooks and other material purchased by the district present climate change as a fact rather than theory. Material will also need to present human activity as one of the phenomenon’s causes.”

This is good news. Why? Because a school system has asserted how it wants education to be managed. This is how children will be taught. No tap-dancing around the issue. Here it is. Boom. Out in the open. If you don’t like it, too bad.

If you don’t like it as a parent, take your child out of the Portland system. Launch home schooling. Start your own private school. Move out of Portland to another public school district.

Let’s go all the way back to the beginning of the American public-education system and Thomas Jefferson, who tried (and failed) to get a bill passed in the Virginia legislature. Jefferson:

“But if it is believed that these elementary schools will be better managed by…[any] general authority of the government, than by the parents within each ward, it is a belief against all experience.…No, my friend, the way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to.”

Jefferson’s vision was hundreds of small wards within each state. Each ward would have its own public school, and the parents—not the government—would manage it and fund it.

If, in one school, the parents decide children will learn the moon is a painted illusion on the sky, so be it. If they decide that stones can speak or logic is a European plot against human reason, so be it. If they decide to assemble a list of a thousand banned books, which must be burned, so be it.

With this sort of vast decentralization, it wouldn’t be long before disgruntled parents within a ward would break away and start their own school.

The opposite system is federal. Federal mandates, funding, programs, curriculum.

Education run by the individual states is hardly better. These governments are also huge and demanding.

I don’t care what excuses parents come up with, in order to opt out of taking charge of education. It’s their burden, whether through home-schooling, by creating and sustaining their own private schools for their children, or deciding which schools to send their kids to. The responsibility is theirs.

The usual caterwaul goes this way: “But many, many parents aren’t equipped to understand what goes on in the classroom. We need government-run schools to make sure children receive a good education.”

Baloney. Since when is it necessary to design an entire school system around the ignorance of parents?

Why not say most parents don’t know how to raise their children, and therefore the state must take over that function, too?

Well, if you took a few hours to research the work of Child Protective Services bureaucracies around the US, you’d realize this is, in fact happening. The brutal overreach of these agencies, in many cases, amounts to kidnapping. On false pretexts, the State takes children and dumps them into foster care, where violent abuse and high-dose drugging with toxic psychiatric meds is endemic.

Face it, the government loves parents who say they don’t understand education, medical treatment, child-rearing—whatever responsibility parents are willing to abdicate, it’s a cause for celebration in government circles.

The State promotes a consensus of cluelessness and victimhood.

If I were a top federal bureaucrat, I’d sponsor a program (a few billion dollars ought to cover it) to investigate and discover the most ignorant set of parents in America, the mother and father who can’t think their way out of a wet paper bag. I would profile those parents from head to toe, and based on the information gleaned, I would then form 1000 federal programs (adequately staffed) to assume all the child-rearing functions those parents can’t perform AND IMPOSE THOSE FUNCTIONS ON ALL FAMILIES AND CHILDREN IN AMERICA.

“It takes a village.” And this is the kind of village we’re really talking about. Not some African tribal outpost. A federal ghetto.

So good work, Portland, in banning all books that question climate change. My only problem is you haven’t gone far enough. You should have daily chanting sessions for all the children: CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL, CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL, intoned for a half-hour after lunch. Perhaps you can attach electrodes to the children’s heads and produce readouts of secretly dissenting young minds in the classroom, and shunt those kids off to a Chinese-style re-education facility and call it “enrichment.”

Then, perhaps, more parents in your district would wake up and grab their kids and run for the hills and start their own schools, because they can’t deny what you’re doing any longer.

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

(The Matrix Revealed includes my 18-lesson Logic & Analysis course
for high-schoolers)

Jon Rappoport

Home School Excellence

May5

Home School Excellence

Logic & Analysis

by Jon Rappoport

May 5, 2017

I have been a supporter of home schooling for many years. There is one overriding reason: the quality of the education can exceed, in many cases, what is offered in public or private schools.

There are, of course, other reasons. For example, parents who are dedicated to educating their own children will take part in a great adventure. Although the experience will present many challenges and struggles, the potential rewards are enormous on several levels.

With all this in mind, I offer an advanced Logic & Analysis course to home-schooling parents and to parents who provide extra tutoring after the regular school day.

These well-shaped courses will present vital material on the art and skill of LOGIC.

In most schools, the subject of logic has been lost. Therefore, the ability to analyze written and spoken material has faded into obscurity.

During my 30 years as a reporter, I’ve run into hundreds and hundreds of claims in which evidence has been lacking. I’m talking about vague, partial, and fragmentary evidence being accepted as complete.

To put it another way, people argue for a particular position, and in support of that position, they offer proof which isn’t really proof.

When you understand and can apply logic, you see through this false proof quickly.

Once upon a time, there were textbooks which listed 15 or 20 traditional logical fallacies, and students were taught how to spot those fallacies in any argument or presentation. Such students became very confident in their own analytical skills.

However, as public education descended into a stagnant pool of political correctness, fraudulent graduation rates, and “new values,” logic was diluted and discarded. It was considered an enemy of preferred group-think.

In addition to this disintegration, many bright students (more than ever) were being drawn into law schools, where they learned that any side of any issue could be compellingly argued—by the practice of twisting logic into knots.

When I was a college student, I was lucky to study under a professor who taught very rigorous courses in logic. I found myself in possession of tools I could use in any course.

I’ve now developed materials that are effective for teaching logic and analysis. These courses do not challenge faith or personal conviction. They are designed to enable a bright student to take apart a written text, an argument, a visual presentation—and discover whether it is valid, whether it truly makes sense, whether it has holes in it.

These courses teach the traditional logical fallacies, offer many sample passages and exercises, quizzes, tests, and simple teacher’s manuals and daily lesson plans.

The Logic & Analysis course is included in my Matrix Revealed collection. I have seen other people offering school courses that are amazingly expensive. I undercut those levels by a wide margin.

Let’s face it. We are living in a world where the notion of individual freedom and power are under attack. Sustaining that freedom involves knowing how to deal with propaganda designed to make us into confused collectivists. When young people possess the know-how and the confidence to see through these shams, they are equipped to succeed.

Here are the contents of The Matrix Revealed:

* 250 megabytes of information.

* Over 1100 pages of text.

* Ten and a half hours of audio.

The 2 bonuses alone are rather extraordinary:

* My complete 18-lesson course, LOGIC AND ANALYSIS, which includes the teacher’s manual and audio to guide you. I was previously selling the course for $375. This is a new way to teach logic, the subject that has been missing from schools for decades.

* The complete text (331 pages) of AIDS INC., the book that exposed a conspiracy of scientific fraud deep within the medical research establishment. The book has become a sought-after item, since its publication in 1988. It contains material about viruses, medical testing, and the invention of disease that is, now and in the future, vital to our understanding of phony epidemics arising in our midst. I assure you, the revelations in the book will surprise you; they cut much deeper and are more subtle than “virus made in a lab” scenarios.

The heart and soul of this product are the text interviews I conducted with Matrix-insiders, who have first-hand knowledge of how the major illusions of our world are put together:

* ELLIS MEDAVOY, master of PR, propaganda, and deception, who worked for key controllers in the medical and political arenas. 28 interviews, 290 pages.

* JACK TRUE, the most creative hypnotherapist on the face of the planet. Jack’s anti-Matrix understanding of the mind and how to liberate it is unparalleled. His insights are unique, staggering. 43 interviews, 320 pages.

* RICHARD BELL, financial analyst and trader, whose profound grasp of market manipulation and economic-rigging is formidable, to say the least. 16 interviews, 132 pages.

Also included:

* Several more interviews with brilliant analysts of the Matrix. 53 pages.

* The ten and a half hours of mp3 audio are my solo presentation, based on these interviews and my own research. Title: The Multi-Dimensional Planetary Chessboard—The Matrix vs. the Un-Conditioning of the Individual.

(All the material is digital. Upon ordering it, you’ll receive an email with a link to it.)

Understanding Matrix is also understanding your capacity and power, and that is the way to approach this subject. Because liberation is the goal. And liberation has no limit.

I invite you to a new exploration and a great adventure.

Jon Rappoport

The best reason not to home-school your children

Apr30

The best reason not to home-school your children

by Jon Rappoport

April 30, 2017

After conducting a multi-center, phase-3, double-blind, placebo controlled, independently reviewed study, encompassing 39 countries, various undersea kingdoms, and the moon, I’ve concluded that the best reason parents shouldn’t home-school their children is:

They can’t.

They can’t, because the public education they received was so wan and thin and bereft of substance, they’re unfit to teach.

For those parents who did receive a decent education, and who can handle the schedule, home schooling is a rational decision.

At minimum, it removes them and their kids from a system designed to impart values, values that should be taught at home.

Sex. Politics. Mental health. Vaccination. Gender. Contraception. Abortion. Diversity. These are a few issues schools now consider “public.” Schools become society’s parents. It takes a village. Their kind of village. They run it. They own it. “For the children.”

Put a bright parent and his/her children in a room, and who knows how quickly learning can take place? What schools try to impart in a year, in standard course work, might be accomplished in a month.

Plus, the commitment to educating one’s children to be as smart, sharp, independent, strong, free, responsible, and creative as possible revolutionizes the whole idea of what a family can be.

Of course not all parents are up to it. But those who are need not wait around and believe that catering to the lowest common denominator of society is a moral position worth taking.

There are home-schooling challenges. One of the deepest occurs at the intersection of fostering independence in a child vs. the parent imparting his own values to that child. There is no manual or system for solving this situation. It is ongoing. Working it out is part of working out the whole relationship within a family.

It’s called life.

The so-called “progressive agenda” is unrelenting. It is aimed at programming new citizens for a Globalist world. Everyone is tolerant, everyone is equal, everyone is dependent, everyone gives in to the Super State.

Against that, cultivating the emergence of a child’s unique and independent interests, desires, and talents is a genuine North Star. No matter which way civilization heads, this is vital.

The individual can never be eradicated. But why promote the deflated and purposeless individual? Why not work to bring forward his power, through actual, not fake education?

Thomas Jefferson’s central idea in promoting public education was: teaching students how to be citizens in Republic. A Republic equals severely limited federal government and individual freedom. Jefferson’s premise, of course, has been turned on its head. Now public education entails teaching students to fit into a nation/planet of centralized power coalesced at the top.

That reversal doesn’t happen by accident. It was planned and spread as a form of mind control.

It aims to destroy forever the axioms of a Republic.

Parents are the best line of defense.

“Why is it that millions of children who are pushouts or dropouts amount to business as usual in the public schools, while one family educating a child at home becomes a major threat to universal public education and the survival of democracy?” (Professor Stephen Arons. Compelling Belief: The Culture of American Schooling)

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

The three branches of logic

Mar29

The three branches of logic

by Jon Rappoport

March 29, 2017

In my collections, The Matrix Revealed, and Power Outside The Matrix, I offer a basic course in logic, and a more advanced audio presentation on analyzing disinformation.

After working for 30 years as a reporter, I recognized I was using “three branches” of logic. Each one helps. Each one contributes to investigations. Each one enables a person to spot flaws.

Branch one: this is called formal logic, or the logic of implication, or symbolic logic. It began with Aristotle. It offers rules for determining what is valid and what is invalid. In the simplest terms, for example: “If it snows, there are clouds; there are no clouds; therefore, it isn’t snowing.”

Branch two: the logical fallacies. There are many lists. Some fallacies overlap with others. Example: If I want to defend the existence of manmade global warming, I attack the PERSON who argues that warming is pseudoscience— and I ignore the CONTENT OF HIS ARGUMENT. This fallacy is called ad hominem; “toward the man.” Or I find a person making an extreme and ridiculous argument against global warming: “The sun actually exudes very little heat, so warming is impossible.” I use that person as my Straw Man. I imply he represents ALL people arguing against global warming, and I knock him down. The Straw Man fallacy. It is extremely helpful to study these fallacies and become able to spot them.

Branch three: You ask, “What point is an author trying to make? What is he arguing for? What is his conclusion?” Finding that, what evidence does he offer for his conclusion? Does the evidence justify the conclusion? Many arguments these days are circumstantial. They involve degrees of probability. They need to be approached on a case-by-case basis.

I’ve described the “three branches” in bare-bones terms. There is much more to learn about each one.

If schools taught these three aspects to students, if teachers gave students increasingly complex arguments to analyze, a whole new generation of thinkers would arise. Education would be revolutionized.

Since most schools don’t do that job, the task often falls to home schoolers.

For a teacher, there’s nothing quite like seeing the lights go on in a student’s mind. The student suddenly understands what using logic means. He can deploy it to take apart information. He no longer wanders from one bit of information to another, selecting what he already agrees with or what strikes his fancy of the moment. He has staying power. He can work on his own. He can find fallacies and explain them. He can assess degrees of probability.

He’s launched.

This is independence. This is power.

Jon Rappoport

Home School Excellence

Nov23

Home School Excellence

Logic & Analysis

by Jon Rappoport

November 23, 2016