Monday, November 21, 2005


The first impulse is to tax you and get your money and make you dependent on one more junkie program that only one Party will fully fund. But once you have them, you can ensure the uniform conditioning of voters/consumers/workers.

As this scam goes health-care style, and taxes go up, more and more people will be forced to send their children to these places.

No normal non-rich working person should be compelled by tax rates to either a) remain childless or b) send their children for conditioned Pavlovian training in whatever empty buzzword "values" are being parroted by the establishment during this or that decade. Instead of, taken altogether, experiencing a huge variety of early influences that contribute to making them very different (and diverse) adults, generations of toddlers will ALL be conditioned with guilt trip original-sin-esque notions such as "diversity" -- or whatever other doctrines will take diversity's place in generations to come.

No way would I want a potentially bright and inquisitive new brain spending every weekday under the supervision of authority figures so troubled as to take global warming seriously enough to want to scare defenceless young minds with it and punish those yet wise enough to disbelieve in their ideology. Would you want snake handling Christians taxing you and all your potential customers so that they can tell toddlers all about the Devil and the great work the missionary David Suzuki^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HRev. Jim Smith is doing?

Moreover if diversity is such a great value and we're all so accepting of each other's differences and varying life experiences, why on earth would we want to REDUCE the diversity of how children are raised, by institutionalizing them? It's almost as if the whole thing were designed to create identically conditioned Liberal worker/consumers.

In that same paper mentioned by Darcey, we are introduced to the two dominant theoretical brands of Early Childhood Education and Care, known in a more straightforward era as fascism and communism. As the researcher puts it, "One regards childhood as a special period calling for care; the other sees it as preparation for the future."

First, the fascist argument:

In countries that share the view that children need to be prepared to learn or to start school so that they can eventually take their places as workers in a globalized economy, provision may emphasise the importance of good quality early childhood experiences to prepare children to succeed in formal schooling, the labour force, and society. Within that perspective, countries may either target programmes to specific groups — as a way to compensate for the disadvantage experienced by children from home environments that are deemed deficient in some way — or make it a policy priority for all children to have the right to high qualityeducation from an early age, regardless of socio-economic status or ethnic origin. In both cases, there is a similar focus on children as a human capital investment, which shapes the purposes of the provision of ECEC.
We are then introduced to the communist school of ECEC thought:
Thanks to developments in this field including the UN Convention on the Rightsof the Child and research on the sociology of childhood, a new view of childhood as an important phase of life in its own right is gaining ground. Children are valued as individuals, groups and communities, as having their own culture, rights and voice. In this view, they are able to take part in the choice and planning of activities or to participate according to their maturity in the evaluation of the institutions they attend. For this view, ECEC does not seek to influence later school or workforce performance, or to prepare children for the future. Rather, ECEC institutions are viewed as places for children to live out their lives in the “here and now”. The adoption of this view of childhood has moved the teaching and learning approach of ECEC and school away from the dominant tradition.
More here.