posted on May, 18 2010 @ 07:20 PM
I am sorry if anyone has already made these points, but I only read the article.
Are these changes really that outrageous?
"The new curriculum asserts that "the right to keep and bear arms" is an important element of a democratic society. Study of Sir Isaac Newton is
dropped in favour of examining scientific advances through military technology."
The cornerstone of a free society is an armed populace. As soon as a state has complete dominance over it's populace the citizens rights are always
Modern quantum physics cast a shadow over Newtonian physics, and as vague as this article is what is to say these changes are not for the better.
"There is also a suggestion that the anti-communist witch-hunt by Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s may have been justified."
Well considering the rot of internationalist CFR, bilderbergers, and the ilk maybe old McCarthy was'nt so crazy after all.
"The education board has dropped references to the slave trade in favour of calling it the more innocuous "Atlantic triangular trade", and recasts
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as driven by Islamic fundamentalism."
The slave trade stuff is outrageous, but is it any more outrageous than what is already taught?
Schools gloss over the largest extermination in human history. The native american genocide. What about the millions of Vietnamese civilians, or the
The Palestinians get f*** by every medium of information in our society. This is sad that it reappears here, but hardly the only place.
My point is that these changes are really reactions to the indoctrination systems that schools have become. I strongly recommend this book about the
history of our schools as propagandizing tools.