Two weeks ago, Elon Musk stirred unusual hysteria about the prospects and future of German democracy by tweeting that “only the AfD can save Germany.” In the days since, Musk has repeated the sentiment, both because he believes it, but also because (one suspects) he likes to troll unreasonable ridiculous people. German biens pensants can’t help but lose their minds every time Musk tweets anything positive about the AfD, and so Musk will probably never stop poking them by doing precisely this.
There are two reasons that they react in such absurd and self-defeating ways:
1) Musk’s tweets confront our political establishment with an outside view of the insane, benighted and insular politics they have imposed on the Federal Republic. This is very uncomfortable for an elite who larp as adult, serious and farsighted people, while advancing some of the craziest policies the West has ever seen.
2) Our political establishment are correspondingly anxious that none of their subjects get wind of what people like Musk think about German political lunacy, lest these subjects awaken to the depressing fact that they are governed by crazy people with totally crazy ideas removed from all real-world considerations.
Some days ago, Musk submitted an editorial to Welt am Sonntag explaining his advocacy of the AfD at greater length. On the one hand, Welt editors surely felt compelled to print his newsworthy op-ed, not least because it looks like Mathias Döpfner, head of Axel Springer (which publishes Welt), solicited it. On the other hand, the prospect of printing Musk’s editorial inspired great anxiety among Welt staff, because nobody in legacy media is eager to let ordinary Germans in on the secret that many people outside of the Federal Republic find our entire political culture exceedingly stupid.
Yesterday morning, Welt finally figured out how to square the circle. They published Musk’s text, headed by a bolded warning that his words “call out for refutation,” and followed by one of the dumbest rebuttals the world has ever seen – penned by none other than Welt chief editor Jan Philipp Burgard. Imagine being so terrified of the political opinions of a wealthy American industrialist with libertarian leanings, that you feel you can only print them surrounded by screeching disclaimers and flimsy schoolmarm refutations. Even this was not enough to assuage the outrage of many Welt reporters at the prospect of releasing this dangerous editorial infohazard into the wild. Welt opinion editor Eva Marie Kogel has even resigned in protest – that is how serious this is.
So that you may judge for yourself the depths of Welt’s offence against German political propriety and representative democracy, I provide Musk’s editorial in full:
Germany is at a critical juncture. Its future teeters on the brink of economic and cultural collapse. As someone who has made significant investments in German industry and technology, I believe I have the right to speak candidly about its political direction. The Alternative for Germany (AfD) is the last spark of hope for this country.
Here are the reasons:
Economic renewal: The German economy, once the engine of Europe, is now mired in bureaucracy and stifling regulations. The AfD understands that economic freedom is not only desirable but also necessary. Their approach to restricting government overreach, lowering taxes and deregulating the marketplace reflects the principles that have made Tesla and SpaceX successful. If Germany wants to regain its industrial strength, it needs a party that not only talks about growth but also takes political action to create an environment in which companies can flourish without heavy government intervention.
Immigration and national identity: Germany has opened its borders to a very large number of migrants. While this was done with humanitarian intent, it has created significant cultural and social tensions. The AfD advocates a controlled immigration policy that prioritises integration and the preservation of German culture and security. This is not about xenophobia, but about ensuring that Germany does not lose its identity in the pursuit of globalisation. A nation must preserve its core values and cultural heritage to remain strong and united.
Energy and independence: The energy policy pursued by the current coalition is not only economically costly, but also geopolitically naive. Germany’s decision to phase out nuclear energy and instead rely heavily on coal and imported gas, as well as volatile wind and solar power, without the battery storage necessary to maintain a stable power supply, has left the country vulnerable, especially to power outages. The AfD has a pragmatic approach to energy and is advocating a balanced approach. I hope they will consider the expansion of safe nuclear energy combined with battery storage to cushion major fluctuations in electricity consumption, because that is the obvious solution.
Political realism: The traditional parties have failed in Germany. Their policies have led to economic stagnation, social unrest and the erosion of national identity. The AfD, even if it is labelled as far-right, represents a political realism that resonates with many Germans who feel their concerns are ignored by the establishment. It addresses current issues without the political correctness that often obscures the truth. The description of the AfD as far-right is clearly wrong when you consider that Alice Weidel, the leader of the party, has a same-sex partner from Sri Lanka! Does that sound like Hitler to you? Please!
Innovation and the future: I have built businesses on the principle that innovation requires liberation from unnecessary constraints. The AfD’s vision is consistent with that ethos. It advocates educational reforms that promote critical thinking instead of indoctrination and supports the technology industries that represent the future of global economic leadership.
To those who condemn the AfD as extremist, I say: Don’t be fooled by the label. Look at its policies, economic plans and efforts to preserve culture. Germany needs a party that is not afraid to challenge the status quo and that is not mired in the politics of the past.
The AfD can save Germany from becoming a shadow of its former self. It can lead the country into a future where economic prosperity, cultural integrity and technological innovation are not just pipe dreams, but reality. Germany has become too comfortable in mediocrity – it is time for bold change, and the AfD is the only party that opens up this path.
I hope we can all agree that nothing Musk says here is very remarkable. He is a battery salesman who wants to sell Germany more batteries, and beyond his support for the AfD, his direct political observations would not be out of place coming from a centre-right CDU or CSU politician. This is an extremely moderate thing to freak out about.
This brings us to Burgard’s (or rather, Burgtard’s) rebuttal. Our valiant policeman of German political opinion at first confirms our initial impressions, conceding that “Musk is right when he sees our country in economic and cultural crisis”, and that “the failed migration, energy and social policies of the Merkel era and the traffic light coalition have put our prosperity at risk”. Indeed they have!
While Burgtard believes that “Musk’s diagnosis is correct”, he argues that “his approach… that only the AfD can save Germany, is fatally wrong”. I find it hard to see how that can possibly be true, and I mean this objectively. The CDU won’t be able to reverse “failed migration, energy and social policies” if they govern with the Greens or the Social Democrats. The only chance to address any of these problems lies with ditching the cordon sanitaire and forming a government with the AfD. All of this is so extremely simple, that there are really only two options for the honest editorialiser: One can argue that Germany is doing just great and that mass migration is fantastic and the energy transition is going swimmingly, or one can propose forming a right-of-centre government with the AfD.
Burgtard continues to say Burgtarded things:
Demands for bureaucracy reduction, deregulation and tax cuts are not wrong just because they come from the AfD. But Musk seems to be overlooking the geopolitical framework in which the AfD wants to position Germany. According to its election manifesto, the AfD “considers it necessary” for Germany to leave the European Union. For Germany as an export nation, that would be a disaster. More than half of all German exports go to the European single market.
With economic welfare gains of around 83 billion Euros per year, Germany benefits from the single market like no other country. According to a survey by the Cologne Institute for Economic Research (IW), 60 per cent of companies view the AfD’s position as a risk. The director of the IW, Michael Hüther, even describes the AfD as “poison for our economy”.
The AfD in a coalition with the CDU would be in no position to leave the European Union, so all of this is moot. Also too, though, the AfD are not opposed to the European single market, which is the sole source of all the benefits Burgtard adduces. The AfD are merely opposed to the bureaucratic behemoth that Brussels has become, which behemoth is actively strangling the German economy.
AfD co-chair Alice Weidel has been very clear about this, for example in her Bloomberg interview from a few weeks ago:
We don’t see that the European Union in its current state is an institution that is working well. What we need to have is free trade among the European countries, but we don’t need all the bureaucracy. … [W]e say, look, we don’t need a Commission that is actually destroying the foundation of our continent. What we need is free trade among the European countries…
[W]e think that the European treaties need to be reformed, so that every country within the European Union has the right, first of all, to have a veto against the Commission… And if a country wants to leave the European Union, why not by falling automatically into a free trade zone?
What the AfD actually propose, then, are EU-level reforms that will open to all member states the option of leaving the EU itself while remaining within the single market. Should these reforms be realised, the AfD would support leaving the EU while maintaining all of its prior EU-associated trade relationships. Now, you can agree with Weidel’s arguments or not, you can find her proposals realisable or reasonable or not, but what is very tiresome and also unsettling, is the outright refusal to address them at all, in favour of simply attacking strawman AfD policy proposals.
This is a pervasive problem: Establishment discourse always insists that the AfD is very bad, but when it comes time to explain why the AfD are very bad we get nothing but transparent lies and mischaracterisations about what the AfD stand for. Our betters want the AfD to be very bad in a way that it is not, and this raises profound questions about their real reasons for hating the AfD, and why they can never explain these reasons.
Burgtard continues:
Not only does the AfD question the European Union… but also the relationship with our most important transatlantic partner in trade and security policy. “The geopolitical and economic interests of the United States are increasingly diverging from those of Germany and other European states,” the AfD’s election manifesto literally states.
But the numbers tell a different story. In 2023, almost 10% of German exports went to the U.S., the highest figure in more than 20 years. Isn’t it in Germany’s interest that the US remains the most important customer for German exports? On the other hand, the U.S. is one of Germany’s top three importers. Wouldn’t Elon Musk want many Teslas to continue rolling down Germany’s motorways in the future?
This is such a crayon argument, honestly it is insulting that Welt editors expect me to swallow it. Two things can be true at once: American and European interests can be diverging, which is something that even high-level advisers in Trump’s own circles acknowledge; and the United States can remain an important trade partner for Germany.
There follows the usual tiresome nonsense about alleged Russia and Chinese sympathies within the AfD, thinly supported and disingenuous as always. Then Burgtard finally gropes his way to the problem of mass migration:
In terms of migration policy, Musk sees the AfD as the solution. Germany is indeed struggling with out-of-control immigration. But the AfD is floundering with unrealistic plans for the remigration of millions of people.
That is yet another lie. In their draft programme, the AfD demand primarily the deportation of illegal and criminal migrants, along with incentives to encourage voluntary repatriation.
Then it gets more ridiculous:
The CDU under Friedrich Merz… has woken up to [the migration] problem and wants to abandon Merkel’s uncontrolled do-gooder policy.
Sometimes you read things that are so ridiculous you don’t know whether to laugh or hit yourself in the face. Is a leading centre-right German newspaper really and truly asking me to believe the CDU has suddenly “woken up” to the very problem that its leading lights created and that many of its members still enthusiastically deny even exists? Is that possible?
To this end, the CDU has significantly tightened its stance, calling for push-backs at the border and faster deportations of rejected asylum seekers. Such measures show that there are alternatives to the far-right positions of the AfD.
Aside from the fact that the CDU migration programme now hardly differs from the AfD migration programme, except insofar as it reads like it was written for children with very limited attention span and reading comprehension, the CDU again will have significant problems doing any of this in a coalition with left parties.
To the extent that Musk considers the classification of the AfD as far-right to be “clearly wrong”, he is making a serious mistake. The AfD is not just Alice Weidel, but also Björn Höcke. Courts have said that it is legal to call Höcke a right-wing extremist. Höcke has also been convicted several times for using a forbidden Nazi slogan. “Alles für Deutschland!” – sounds like Hitler!
Specifically, one is allowed to call Björn Höcke a “fascist”, since a court ruled that calling Höcke a “fascist” falls within the bounds of freedom of expression. You will note that that does not remotely support the case that Björn Höcke is a fascist. Otherwise, Höcke repeated that obscure SA slogan unknowingly, as major German media have also done. These cheap Nazi smears are another dishonest tactic via which establishment mouthpieces hope to reject the AfD as a party without ever having to explain what, precisely, is wrong with them. Untold hundreds of activists in party apron organisations and NGOs have spent years scouring the speeches and publications of AfD politicians in search of minimally plausible parallels to big Nazi villains.
The real problem with the AfD is not that they are “right-wing extremists” or that they advocate for crazy Nazi self-destructive economic policies. Not even their qualified Euroscepticism can explain this hysteria. No, the real problem with the AfD is that their growing parliamentary representation is extremely inconvenient for the traditional German party ecosystem. The larger they get, the harder it becomes for the establishment parties to form majority coalitions, and the more the CDU will be forced to govern with leftist parties, who will make it impossible for them to deliver to their voters.
Right now, nobody has a solution to this problem, beyond an unending programme of freaking out about “the extreme right” in the weak hope of driving AfD supporters back into the arms of the Christian Democrats.
“The criticism of US billionaire Musk’s editorial continues unabated,” screams tagesschau (via the Deutsche Presse-Agentur):
CDU chancellor candidate Friedrich Merz describes the commentary as “invasive and presumptuous” …
SPD co-chair Saskia Esken said that our democracy is well-fortified and cannot be bought. “Anyone who tries to influence our election from the outside, anyone who supports an anti-democratic, inhuman party like the AfD, be it state-organised influence from Russia or the concentrated power of money and media from Elon Musk and his billionaire friends… must expect our fierce resistance,” she added…
Andreas Audretsch, [Green Party] campaign director, said tech billionaires or Chinese state-owned companies have the opportunity “to undermine our democratic discourse with their platforms and a lot of money”. He said that Musk was trying to do this “hand in hand with the right-wing extremists in the AfD”. This, he said, was “a danger for our democracy and freedom of expression in our country”.
This article originally appeared on Eugyppius’s Substack newsletter. You can subscribe here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I can see home schooling becoming ever more popular, for those that can – pity the children of those that can’t.
Absolutely, which is why I suspect at some point in the near future they will ban home learning as they have in Germany.
Done by the Nazis, by the way, and never repealed. As we have seen under Mutti, Germany’s totalitarian instincts are never that far from the surface, which is profoundly sad given what they have also given to Western Civilisation
“To say I feel unwelcome on these group chats is an understatement.”
Don’t go on them, then?
He’s 25, everything is organised via text or group chat.
An interesting insight.
The fact is that the majority of public service workers view the public as an inconvenience. I believe most would actively avoid the public if they could. Unfortunately, teachers now actively avoid children. They are an inconvenience. They simply spread disease and waste teacher’s time. Time they should be spending with their mates. The only way through it is todo as little as possible and find any way possible to keep the kids busy on their own.
This is the same for every public service.
More generalised ignorant bollocks. It’s not a good look to advertise sublime ignorance.
It is not ALL public service workers…just MOSTLY. Consider frontline workers in hospital as dedicated and professional….then consider the majority behind the scenes, who would rather work from home.
Now consider frontline police officers, dedicated, risking their necks…then consider the majority of the “service”, who are working from home.
Then consider the council…the fire service…the many others.
This is not “ignorant bollocks”…you have no idea of my experiences.
It is not fair to say all teachers care more about their morning coffee than children….but some do!
Thank you for a more intelligent posting. I simply don’t like reactionary wokery any more than the trendy version.
No it’s not ‘ most’ any more than ‘most’ shopkeepers are out to short-change you.
I’ve been in the heart of the evil public empire – the NHS – for the past two weeks. Which gives plenty of time to observe. Contrary to some of the crap posted here, it is not a hotbed of idleness and ill intent. MOST staff are well- intentioned, hard-working and competent. A minority are superb, intelligent practitioners, whilst a few – a very few – need a bullet up the backside.
.. and I reckon that is normal in my experience of a large range of situations – contrary to the malcontents’ crap.
You’re likely to be talking about clinical staff. It’s all the jobsworth, irrelevant administrators who have no patient contact who are allowed to self isolate because they “have a touch of asthma”
It’s not a good look to advertise sublime ignorance.
Nor is it.
I don’t think that’s true for most teachers, although it does often seem to be the case that big institutions, both public and private, get caught up in their own internal processes and lose sight of the ‘customer’
The central lie is that ‘all points of view are welcome’ and being encouraged or taught.
I can stomach other views I disagree with, but only if my own is not being systematically undermined and belittled. It’s a question of mutual, reciprocal, respect.
‘Marginals’ have become the ‘mainstream’ by decrying discrimination, yet now violate Aristotle’s principle of non-contradiction, and ban the views of others (just as they claim theirs were).
It’s the classic ‘liberal’ double-standard.
Across America parents are fighting the corruption of their children head on, no holds barred.
Teachers are the vanguard of The communist movement, working overtime to indoctrinate the next generation whilst avoiding as much real teaching as possible.
In the same way Margaret Thatcher took on Scargill, a proper Conservative government would deal with these red propagandists.
But they won’t so it’s up to parents. Learn from America, fast.
The function of formal education has always been indoctrination & social engineering.
On its inception, it had a strong religious bent toward the right, which gradually moved to centrist scientism & now everything has drifted to the leftist ideology & technocracy, Education is politics.
The need for knowledge i.e. sciences, maths etc is more about politics & competition than standard of life, when the essentials of life are fulfilled, food, shelter, medical care, everything else becomes about keeping up with the Jones (societal pressure).
When you view images of “impoverished” children in developing countries, they look far happier & freer than western children. Competition to the top & social pressure to conform eventually results in a race to the bottom & mental illness, prejudice & class separation.
Education, politics, class, society are all about control, those that reach the top seek control to empower & enrich themselves, greed & ego is always the motive of psychopaths & only psychopaths are ruthless enough to reach the top a.k.a. elites, there is no such thing as an honest billionaire or politician, most of the lackeys that prop up this system are indoctrinated fools.
The planet really does go round in circles. I’d rather live as a caveman.
If the planet stopped going round in circles – or, to be accurate, ellipses – we’d be in big, big, big trouble.
I think you knew that’s not what I mean’t, however I bet you mock flat earthers?
No doubt you will assert the planet is round (a globe). But you only believe it is so because someone told you it is so, in an indoctrination centre or book. Prove the theory, yourself!
I don’t pretend to care, know or side one way or the other, but at least flat earthers have an inquiring mind & seek the truth instead of just accepting someone else’s word for it.
If you’ve ever flown to the “other side” of the world did you get a bit of a jolt as the aircraft flipped over edge to the “other side”?
No?
I expect you didn’t travel high enough to see the curvature of the earth either.
You believe all the images of the earth from space are fake too, right?
Or are particularly stupid.
‘I’d rather live as a caveman.’
If the Greens get their way, you will be!
i’ll be happy then
A trainee teacher who is capable of writing ‘who’s’ needs some more basic training, fast.
Arguably, you could say those of whom obsess about the conformity of proper grammar are the most indoctrinated.
Rules of grammar are essential for precise communication. Wafflers and marketeers obviously do not have such a requirement.
.oviously nOT
Quite – just as you would not employ a bricklayer unable to competently stick to bricks together, why in a non manual job, would you employ someone unable to construct a proper sentence? Nor would they know whether what they said was what they meant to say – language without grammar results often in gibberish
Ouch! (Points go to Annie, I think.)
Upticked. If you can’t express yourself properly, you can’t think properly. And who benefits from our not being able to think properly?
You would say that, wouldn’t you, you’ve been indoctrinated into believing it.
I don’t think doting i’s, crossings t’s or adding apostrophes in the right place really makes a lot of difference.
Well, that shows that you’re as thick as pigshit. Sir Humphrey loves people who are as thick as you, you’re easier to manipulate and to screw over- I alluded to this very point in the post to which you both responded and inadvertently provided evidence of the very point which I was making.
And I’ve resisted this further comment to the very last: I assume that you mean “dotting” rather than “doting”. “Doting” means something else entirely- perhaps you might look the word up in a hard-copy dictionary and find out what it means. Obviously you understand- I presume- what you mean, and you think the rest of us should as well. And it’s ts, not t’s; and is, not i’s.
There’s a serious point here. Sir Humphrey uses words very precisely indeed, as you would discover were you ever unfortunate enough to fall foul of a Court of Law. Sir Humphrey uses words very precisely indeed in the 2020 Coronavirus Act, which plainly lays our future out.
I can’t be arsed downticking you.
“He eats shoots and leaves.”
“He eats, shoots, and leaves.”
They mean exactly the same do they?
Obviously punctuation is pointless then…duh!
A quote from an earlier article in which Luke Perry linked-to http://www.bournbrookmag.com: “As a society, we have raised a generation in which a significant portion of those who attend university are babyish, sociopathic tyrants”.
Recently, as I visited a company with offices in a shared commercial building, a male receptionist in the building’s lobby blatantly flirted with me. This fellow was disgusting, campish, in his twenties, and the impression I got from him was that he thought it completely normal to flirt with a stranger at 10’o clock in the morning in his place of work.
A number of years ago I had reason to visit a major hospital in London. This hospital is just across the river from the Houses of Parliament. I walked into this hospital and approached a reception with a male and female seated at it. I spoke to the male, and immediately this disgusting little creature started to flirt with me. He gave me the clear impression he’d immediately go with me to a hotel room, if that was what I wanted.
The somewhat obese female receptionist beside him was even stunned by this little disgusting camp idiot’s open flirting. She sat there staring at him with her mouth open in amazement.
I was taken by surprise by the first camp flirter in the hospital. But not by the second male flirter in the commercial building, I made my disgust clear to this debauched fool. And he actually seemed to be a little bit sore about being rejected.
I found both incidences nauseating and a sad reflection of modern British society. I can say with a high amount of certainty that if I complained to their employers about the conduct of these two toe-rags, it would probably be me who would be found in the wrong, I’d be accused of not being diverse enough, or of being a systemic homophobe.
In case anyone thinks I’m subconsciously chuffed about these debauched campies making passes at me, I bring their attention to Stephen Port, the homosexual Grindr killer.
Stephen Port is probably the ugliest and most debauched looking creature that ever graced this planet. Take a look at Port’s picture here. If you met this vile POS coming towards you on a sidewalk, you’d cross the street so as not to be close to him.
Yet, a high number of young homosexual men found Port “beautiful” enough to willingly accompany him to his home, where they willingly “made love” with him. So, I don’t view it as a feather in my cap to have debauched young homosexuals make passes at me in a hospital or commercial building a 10 a.m. As per Port, some of these chaps would fornicate with a long dead and half decayed sheep.
The quote from Bournbookmag about “babyish, sociopathic tyrants” is only one small part of the story of the sickness in modern British society. It’s a story that is going to get massively interesting in about 25 years’ time when the Muslims have the upper hand in the UK.
The Muslims will adopt a different method in the way children will be taught in future Britain. And it will be hard to argue that their method is any worse than the crap that’s being taught to British children today.
Things have a surprising way of turning out, I suspect you’re right in that they won’t go as planned by neoliberal globalists.
Agreed. We are watching the debasement of masculinity in the young. Was interesting reading your article as it was not clear in first few paragraphs whether you were male or female. Then it was clarified, and sent the article in a certain direction, rather than another direction.
Rule #1 of politics. If you don’t set the doctrine, then somebody else will.
The problem with the concept of laissez faire, is that the other side doesn’t believe in it and they most certainly won’t leave things be.
All points of view are not valid. We don’t discuss the argument for child sex for example.
There needs to be a firm decision made on what teachers are taught and expect to teach if they want a wage from the public purse. All for the same reason you have nuclear weapons. Not to use them, but to make sure the other side doesn’t use theirs.
It’s a bit out there I know but why can’t teachers just teach a subject ,treat everyone the same and that’s it?
Then they wouldn’t be doing their job of engineering society the way their masters intended.
Well… that’s what I’ve done every day of my 15 year teaching career, so that sort of thing definitely does go on!
Isn’t that the sign of successful indoctrination, both teacher & pupil both think they’re doing the right thing, the right way, the only way!
You’re doing a fantastic job !
or, here’s a suggestion. shut the schools, release the children from the day prisons, and let the ‘teachers’ get real jobs instead of just herding the young ones around when the bell goes.
That’s what a lot of us try to do! However even in the sciences we are being asked to identify opportunities to bring Equality, Diversity and Inclusion into our schemes of work (to be fair mostly this involves writing documents that will never be consulted again unless OFSTED appear over the horizon)
This is moderately weird:
‘But it isn’t just CRT that has been required learning; there have also been sessions on ‘equality, diversity, and inclusion’ that have covered myriad elements of the woke ideology, including a morning on sexual inclusion that, as a gay man and in a position of relative authority, I found myself fundamentally disagreeing with almost the whole way through.’
He had to point out he was gay to justify the fundamentally disagreeing.
Meaning, that if he was a straight man, he wouldn’t really be in a sound position to be disagreeing, because, see, straight men wouldn’t get it. They would disagree because they’re backwards or bigots or something.
But ooooh a gay man disagrees, gosh it must really be awful.
Shoot me.
Is there much different between this and the ‘I’ve had my 2 jabs but I support those who don’t want to have any’ we get (if we’re lucky) from people in the public eye?
Ha! Well, I’m a secondary school teacher of 15 years and could write a book about the ridiculous and tragic things I’ve witnessed during the so-called pandemic. It’s no surprise to read about the wokey nonsense promoted on the course, I’m glad I did my training before this became ubiquitous.
The lazy, ignorant thinking described by the trainee foreshadows the kinds of nonsense he will be confronted with his entire career.
But I would say to the trainee teacher: You have a choice. Either get out now and pursue alternative provision which I think more and more people will be turning to as things get worse, or stay and become a dissident on the inside which what I try to be. Children need to hear alternative points of view, especially because I’m sorry to say it but teachers can be incredibly thick and will generally just parrot whatever they’re told to say. During the ‘pandemic’ I’ve seen it as my duty to counter the ridiculous assumptions from other teachers (and parents) and while this has been hard (and risky) the kids have generally really appreciated it and on many levels, they know my version of events makes much more sense.
Of course any fledgling totalitarian system will aim to indoctrinate the young as a necessary component of its subjugation. If the trainee teachers eyes are open, which they seem to be, the he has a duty to confound and frustrate this. Get to work!
Kudos crisisgarden.
Bravo Sir/Madam
This is not teaching, it is indoctrination.
I was in a humanities classroom recently invigilating an exam and discovered, alongside the climate change posters, a large one about the UN Sustainability Goals. Needless to say it was very quietly peeled off the wall and disposed of
This is what I did with those pestilential notices about the so-called pandemic. I took down one notice that said a children’s playground was closed, obviously placed there by some local authority jobsworth.
The next day I checked and children were playing. It was never replaced.
Seems to me this young man who is clearly child centred would make an excellent teacher, sadly I suspect he’s unlikely to pass muster as he is able to think for himself and question that with which he does not agree, unfortunately that’s not what they’re looking for these days.
We have been given required reading assignments of papers written within a Critical Race Theory
That isn’t the issue.
What is an issue is the context within which this stuff is presented. Is it presented within a genuinely critical framework of debate and alternative analysis? And if not, why not?
Many, many moons ago when I did a PGCE, such critical thinking was just the norm, with an energetic assault on any ‘taken for granted’ assumptions – as should be the case in any educational setting.
Of course, in those days, it was the ‘traditionalists’ that wanted to stifle debate with simplistic notions of ‘authority’.
When I did a PGCE 20 years ago critical thinking wasn’t encouraged (and this was for FE). The big thing back then was the idea that each child had their own ‘learning style’ and we had to encourage them to find out what it was and cater for it. I was openly dubious about the value of this (and sure enough we soon got kids saying ‘I can’t do this exercise, I’m a visual learner’) but was told very clearly that I had to go along with it, or else. In essays it was very much the case that you had to parrot the current educational fashion. Learning styles have now disappeared (for now – they’ll probably be back), our latest thing is helping students with their long term memory, which seems a bit more appropriate in a subject that involves terminal exams. I was disappointed with the PGCE overall because I thought it was a vocational course, and it’s true that a reasonable part was spent observing or doing teaching, but the rest of the time we were being taught by the university lecturers (do as I say, not as I do, in many cases) learning (mostly) psychology. I guess that’s where the CRT would come in these days.
20 years ago? That’s ‘now’ time, bludgeoned by years of neoliberalism crap.
I’m not sure that ‘learning’ psychology is possible, since it’s not a science but rather a bunch of ‘experts’ arguing their differing corners.
And I write that as someone who has taken a more than passing interest in the subject.
Surely its time to start exposing and humilitating the teaching profession and the education bodies in a massive, no holds barred campaign of truth highlighting exactly what is being done here with a focus on the role these brainwashed idiots are playing – that children are being experimented on with these genetic injections for no valid reason and that this is a recipe for premature death and a lifetime of illness from a “genetically reset immune system”, as Robert Malone put it, among many other things. Its time for the teavhers to face reality. They must be targeted and exposed in grand fashion for their role in destroying the health and lives of those they are supposed to be a guiding light for. No teachers need to be involved – they need to be publicly shamed with facts and advertising in a very public way.
Dr Robert Malone: Vaccines’ Toxic Spike Protein Can Damage Heart, Brain, Vessels, Reproductive & Immune System
https://www.bitchute.com/video/iEq4rYL4l0Gc/
The teaching profession have been subject to the same brainwashing as all other sectors of society – and vacuous pontificating hasn’t, and isn’t going to, change that
Im calling for them to be publicly humiliated and exposed for what they are doing. As we stand here and now that is not happening. They are facilitating the murder and maiming and psychological destruction of children, they are forcing them to wear masks and take tests, and as we all know here, there is zero rationale for doing this on any level. Its about time they felt some pain for their crimes. I would say publicly humiliating them and exposing them as being sadistic and cruel in their approach to children is a worthwhile exercise. But I guess youre changing the world from the comfort of your keyboard as usual, so no need for real world action, because RixkH says dont bother
I agree completely. Primary schools should be the next target as I’m sure they are about to try and give the go ahead for children as young as 5 to be maimed. I raised objections at my (secondary) school, and had success that was limited to ensuring that other staff were told to not promote the shots under any circumstances. My youngest is at primary school; if it becomes a ‘vaccination’ centre, they will have me to deal with.
I mentione it before, but something like playing the recent Robert Malone presentation through a loudspeaker, outside schools, then hand the transcript to the parents to get them on board. People need to understand that this is a ttruly abhorrent form of child abuse, murder and torture. Once that penny drops, all hell will break loose. Humiliate them with facts, try to win over the other parents. A more subtle approach as I appreciate people dont like making a scene, even though its important sometimes, would be to just hand printed copies of that speech to parents. With a note saying how the teachers are causing this and encouraging it, and how they refuse to listent ot even the inventor of the jab tech. People need to make waves, big waves
‘We have been given required reading assignments of papers written within a Critical Race Theory (CRT) framework that draw subjective and unscientific conclusions from a sample of three people which are taken at face value, and elevated to a position of ‘truth’ (an entire afternoon of ‘teacher training’ was dedicated to discussing the ‘findings’ of this paper).’
I’d encourage people to read the paper mentioned above/linked in the article. It is saturated with anti-white racism. Proper racism. In the meaningful sense of the term. The paper is question-begging from beginning to end. It is the classic pseudo intellectual neo-Marxist garbage we see throughout mainstream society today. The author presupposes the categories of Critical Race Theory and proceeds to diagnose all statements from respondents in terms of these categories. One example:
‘Of the participants who did indicate that they thought their own ethnicity was relevant, many also showed evidence of Colourblind racism and a belief in a meritocracy. Only a small number of the White participants showed any understanding of their own White privilege:
We should understand others’ ethnicities, however it shouldn’t affect our teaching practice as we should treat all children as equal.
‘There is an important distinction between discriminating between children and discriminating against them. Discriminating between children is something that teachers do all the time in order to meet the various needs of the children in their class (Gaine, 1995). In order to avoid appearing racist, teachers will attempt to treat all children as ‘equal’, but in doing do are enabling the continuation of structural racism within schools. Not noticing a child’s race or colour is also a denial of White privilege (Gaine, 1995).’ (My bold)
1. Do you see how utterly vacuous this is? ‘White privilege’ is taken for granted throughout this overtly racist paper. Read any of these anti-rational Critical Race theorists. They never offer an attempt to establish ‘White privilege’; they simply assume ‘White privilege’ based on nothing more than the predominance of ‘Whiteness’ in society and its institutions. That’s it. It’s is assumed in lieu of argumentation.
2. Note that the respondent’s belief in treating all children as equals is ‘marked’ as ‘Colourblind racism’, another of those presupposed categories just begging to be proven instead of assumed. And note how ‘a belief in a meritocracy’ is portrayed as bad.
Do you see how this works? No matter what answer a respondent gives, there’s a predetermined label ready to apply to that answer. These pseudo intellectual charlatans are utterly bereft of logical and rational argumentation.
‘In order to avoid appearing racist, teachers will attempt to treat all children as ‘equal’, but in doing do are enabling the continuation of structural racism within schools. Not noticing a child’s race or colour is also a denial of White privilege…’
So a teacher who treats children equally must be doing so to avoid appearing racist. It can’t be because the teacher actually has a moral conviction that it is good and important to treat all children equally. Of course not. They’re racists at heart and are in denial of their White privilege.
Moreover, note that real, actual equality appears to be a morally repugnant concept to the Critical Race theorist. Could it be that the Critical Race theorist doesn’t have room for such a concept in their toolkit?
So you see how intellectually vacuous this whole racket is. And to further highlight this, consider this. If the author of the paper were to see this post, rather than interact with the substance and substantiate her own position, she would default to the toolkit and say I’m being ‘defensive’ and therefore demonstrating my ‘White Fragility’. In other words, she would apply her ready-made categories and, once again, assume what she needs to prove.
This is how Critical Race Theory works. It is built on sand. It allows the Critical Race theorist to avoid inconveniences like logic, rationality and argumentation.
While it’s far from being the end of the world, it would be preferable if a 25-year-old trainee teacher knew the difference between ‘whose’ and ‘who’s’.
The ongoing COVID-19 nonsense here in the United States exists solely and exclusively because our governments have failed to use the correct treatment. They used so-called “vaccines” when Japan has just proven, in less than ONE MONTH, that Ivermectin can wipe out the disease. IVM was awarded the Nobel prize for medicine in 2015. One of the 3 most important drugs in human history: Aspirin, Penicillin, and Ivermectin. Get your Ivermectin today while you still can! https://ivmpharmacy.com