An Orwellian Nightmare – State Education in the 21st Century

Blake Symington-Stephens

Whenever someone decides to criticise the state of the education system, they are often quickly reprimanded, and their own ignorance is then explained to them at length. The person in charge of this telling off describes just how lucky we are to have universal compulsory education in this country, and how we should be forever grateful to the state for bestowing upon us this glorious opportunity to learn, and to enlighten ourselves without fear of violence or intimidation. Yet it is the fact that free speech is attacked so intensely, and with such hostility, that one is left feeling almost as if all of this is a lie. The message of ‘Free Learning’ is a fallacy, and the platform for ‘Open and honest intellectual debate’ that is so often lauded as a wonderful privilege by the mouthpieces of the state is little more than a nicely worded lie. The reality of attending a state comprehensive school as a student on the right is somewhat different from this utopian ideal. Behind the façade lies an orchestrated system of political subversion and indoctrination, aimed at rooting out and eradicating all forms of dissent, and by this I mean voices on the right who dare to question the status quo, or who aim to unearth this well concealed agenda that seems endemic to the modern education system.

The schooling system is undoubtedly effective in its intended purpose, that is churning out hundreds of loyal servants to the state, who cannot think outside the boundaries of their own misinformed minds, who cannot participate in reasoned discussion and who go on themselves to act as enforcers in society, seeking out, exposing and denouncing views which are seen as contrary to that which they were taught at such a formative period of their lives. This attitude of moral and intellectual superiority is carried with these people to University, and then to the workplace, where the doctrine of social justice and cultural Marxism is imparted further, spreading like a virus into the susceptible  minds of those who do not wish to create a stir or to risk ‘upsetting’ anybody. This all begins in secondary School, for it is here that the initial seeds are planted in the minds of the students, and the environment in which they learn thus serves to water and nourish these saplings of Marxist, pseudo-intellectual thought into blossoming and fully-formed worldviews, which cannot stand up to the slightest bit of intellectual scrutiny yet are designed to not ever have to, strength in numbers should ensure that it is the only acceptable way of thinking and expressing political views. Someone who has views verging on libertarianism or right-wing politics finds themselves swimming against the  so to speak, locked in a constant battle to have their voice heard whilst the entire apparatus of the system is busily engaged in identifying the root cause of this vocal objection to the status quo.

I have found myself almost continuously in awe of the lack of variation in the political orientation in my teachers; I cannot identify a single member of staff who has taught me over the past 5 years who has held even mildly right-wing or libertarian views. Not one. What I have found, however, is a set shocking similarities in the views of my teachers, and in the ways in which they impart them to their students. From my experience, this system of indoctrination occurs in two separate ways, both of which are highly potent, and when combined constitute a deadly knockout blow to voices which challenge the political agenda of the teacher in question. Firstly, we must take note of the organisation of the lesson and the layout of the classroom, both of which are key factors in the system of indoctrination. The students sit uniformly, often in rows or in structured squares, and this gives the teacher the ability to move anyone wherever they may choose. If someone behaves badly, they are moved to the front so that they can be observed more easily, or they are moved to the back, thus signifying exclusion. This is also an effective tool in shutting down voices which dissent against the liberal agenda. The teacher who is preaching the virtues of multiculturalism, disguised in a lesson about the Roman republic for example, may choose to single out someone who identifies and questions this blatant agenda and move them, thus serving to exclude them socially and to make an example of them to the rest of the class. I can say from my own experience that this is highly effective; people are sadly more concerned with keeping their social status intact than questioning the intricacies of the redistribution of wealth. So this is step one, to embarrass and shame those who argue for free speech, for a smaller state, for social conservatism, or for a return to tradition or to a Hoppean natural order. On the other hand, those who champion equality, social justice, and the welfare state are praised as ‘emotionally competent’ or ‘socially aware’, despite the fact they have likely never been exposed to a differing viewpoint. This system of positive reinforcement helps to create the subservient hordes of social justice warriors I described earlier in my piece, and also to banish those on the right to the icy tundra of social ostracism and exclusion. For many, it is preferable to just keep their mouths shut, and toe the line of cultural Marxism, for to be assigned the dreaded label of racist or fascist is the worst form of social death imaginable.

It is a hostile environment, one in which the History classrooms are adorned with Communist flags for no apparent reason, where the students are made to analyse the speeches of left-wing fanatics, and where anything right of militant Maoism is disgusting and poisonous, and worst of all where students who cannot handle civilised discussion break down into fits of tears or rage, and blame the intolerance of their opponent for the subsequent  outpouring of infantile emotion, just because someone might have disagreed with them.

The antidote to this intolerance and indoctrination is simply to resist. It is to speak up, be heard and to make an impact. It isn’t easy; you will find yourself downcast and dejected, disillusioned at the state of your fellow students who are all too happy to swallow the lies of the left and to embrace the culture of victimhood. But we must never give up in our attempt to spread the message of liberty, and to defend the right to free speech and to open discussion. The school should be voracious in its acceptance and defence of this message, yet as of now it is quite the opposite. The odds of success are stacked in favour of those who conform to the liberal doctrine, those who do not must fend for themselves, and that is why we come back stronger and more determined every time we see the injustices of the state and of those who seek to paint us as evil. Peter Hitchens sums it up quite nicely I think: “Is there any point in public debate in a society where hardly anyone has been taught how to think, while millions have been taught what to think?” This is a rallying cry to all young libertarians. Do not succumb to the intimidation; the revival of all that is just and righteous in society depends on it.


  • Reblogged this on rudolfblog and commented:

    Dis-education system exposed

  • Brilliant work Blake.
    Your going far in life mate.

  • A few disconnected comments by way of reply (my comments are disconnected, that is – not yours!); – when I left grammar school in 1968, a whole generation of teachers left (purely co-incidentally) at the same time as I did, having in many cases attended the same school as pupils, fought in the War, returned to teaching and all reached retirement age in 1968. I therefore got out just in time, before the indoctrination you describe began to bite, and I was fortunate to enjoy a rigorous, conservative education. Above all, we were taught to think for ourselves, and never to be afraid of finding ourself in a minority of one. I was aware, however, that this was the end of an era.
    One of the questions in my English ‘O’ level paper was “What do you think of the closed shop?”. I had never heard of the ‘closed shop’ in 1966 or whenever it was, but I have often since wondered if that question was politically planted – I suspect it was.
    I was recently discussing the outcome of the EU referendum with a teacher at a private preparatory school. The discussion, naturally enough, turned to the issue of democracy. I was surprised to hear her say that she was content to be ruled by unelected officials in Brussels. The trouble with democracy, she said, was that it also gave a vote to people who held opposing views to her own. I have heard this sentiment repeated by several young people who were dismayed at the referendum result, or Trump’s victory – how much better things would be if we all shared their views and thought the same way. I’m sure Hitler would concur.

  • I just can’t stand it when people think they know for a fact they are correct. Intelligence is the ability to learn and change your mind when faced with information that runs counter to your current understanding. Instead of having this ability people withdraw instead of facing the possibility of being wrong. People believe they are smarter than they actually are.

  • Pingback: Rational Review News Digest, 01/16/17 - Iraq: Mosul University fully taken by regime troops; The Jackson family versus Martin Luther King and the cast of Hamilton - Thomas L. Knapp -

  • Our younger boy, in “Year-9” in arguably the least-bad State secondary school in this region, spect the whole of last term in his history class studying “white racism against blacks in the USA in the 1960s”. A whole term. All of it. Then the teacher “reviewed” the last term at the begining of this one. The next “topic” is Malcolm X. They’re going to do Malcolm X until the next half-term, at the end of February, and then there will be a “controlled assessment” on him.

    The year-9s have not been taught one atom of British history since last September.

    Oh, and his English teacher said a little while ago that Trump wants to start World War 3. It set many of the 13-y-o girls crying in school. The Boy has offered bets of £1, to each of many others in his year, that this isn’t going to happen and that Trump will be great. But nobody will take him on. I hope the teachers don’t get wind of this or we’re in the shit/

    • I would withdraw him immediately. This is terrifying.

      • It’s been going on for some time. His primary school was if anything rather worse. But I’ve immunised him against it so I think we can cope. All the other schools round here are worse.

        • Homeschooling is seriously worth considering, but it is difficult and the boy will benefit from being able to endure state school. It will give him a valuable skill: detecting when people are bullshitting, which is what state school teachers often do throughout the lesson.

          • I dunno. Most teenagers think and do the opposite of what their parents tell them. The brainwashers are quite clever in that they have seized what looks like the moral high ground. They are the ones who want to save the planet; they are the ones who want to be nice to terrorists (sorry, ‘refugees’); they are the ones who want peace and love and motherhood and apple pie. We, of course just want to destroy the planet and start World War Three, and it is the job of the idealistic younger generation to educate us and put us right.
            When your teachers and, more importantly, all of your peers, are preaching this message, it can be difficult to resist. Healthy scepticism, cynicism even, comes with maturity.

  • It has long fascinated me why the term “Racist” is the worst label you can pin on anybody. I genuinely don’t know what it means. If I challenge anybody to define it, they invariably come back with “you know perfectly well what it means”, so we get nowhere. But why is it so terrible to dislike certain races? Anybody would think we are living in a racial tinderbox, where any reference to a person’s race will immediately spark riots on the streets. The problems America has had between the races (and is continuing to have since Obama’s presidency) stem from Lincoln’s hasty elevation of the Negroes to a position of superiority over their former masters in the 1860’s. This was bound to cause resentment on the part of the White population, which lingers to this day. But such issues are nowhere evident in England, nor have they ever been, despite the concerted efforts of certain people to try and stoke the flames of racial tension and division. If a person dislikes Negroes, that is their prerogative as far as I am concerned. I don’t see how such a thing can be considered ‘offensive’, or even illegal. For my part, I’m not crazy about Italians, but they’re not a race, are they?

    • I’m going to bar Italians from buying my ebay lots, because a high proportion – about 75% – of them invariably fail to pay and force me to relist. But I’m not going to dislike them as a people any more because of that.

      • The Global Shipping Programme has put an end to that. Mrs Gabb sends all over the world now in perfect assurance that some person of low morals won’t start whining to Paypal for a refund

    • Well, we see them conflating numerous different concepts: 1) race realism, i.e. the view that there are differences between the races (especially in IQ/intelligence), and perhaps resulting attitudes on race; 2) in-group preference 3) separatism 4) supremacism and 5) hatred of other groupings. IMO, 1, 2, and 3 are harmless and even healthy. 4) and 5) is where they try and perform an act of package dealing/poisoning the well.

      • I once had a theory that seems to have been disproved, but that seemed logical to me; that the oriental races were the most ‘evolved’ (i.e. furthest from the apes) of the races, the Negroes the least evolved, and Caucasians somewhere in the middle. But if one ventured this plausible if false notion in public, one would be called all sorts of names. Why is ‘race’ so important? Most people don’t give a fig about a person’s race, yet the government is obsessed by it. Describing someone as a ‘racist’ is regarded as the most grevious allegation that can be made against them, with I suppose ‘homophobia’ (another made-up word) running a close second. Why? I can think of many worse things. I suspect that the government is using peoples’ innate good manners against them. Most people are anxious to avoid giving offence, therefore they will bend over backwards to avoid what the government describes as offensive comments or behaviour. Thus the plebs learn to say, or to think, only that which the government allows them to say or think. Nobody ever seems to call into question the government’s judgement on these matters, however bizarre. So we just meekly accept that “we’re not allowed to say that now” as though such state censorship were perfectly normal. It’s all very sad.

  • Yea, a bit like this outfit, innit mate. Say what you like as long as you don’t say which geezers are behind it all.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s