Skip to main content

Early Morning Thoughts, March 16, 2019

I received an e-mail from Gary North this morning, and his comments/questions raised an interesting subject I hadn’t given much prior thought to, but also have realized, in the back of my mind, is an important topic for discussion.  Gary’s comments:

“Today, boys are being feminized by the public schools. This is a systematic program.

“If you [were] asked by a young father of a boy what you would recommend that he do for his son [to] toughen him up mentally, what would you tell him? Homeschool him? Have him join the Boy Scouts? Have him get an after-school job? Have him donate time alongside him at his service club or church? Give reasons for your recommendation.”

After reading Gary’s online post, I more or less avoided his initial premise “When the newly created public school system began hiring unmarried young women in the 1860’s to teach in small town schools and rural schools, the connection between fathers and sons was severed in a fundamental way.  These women worked cheap.  Married men could not compete.  Women became the teachers of America’s boys.”

My first reaction to Gary’s e-mail was focused on the ‘This is a systematic program’ part of his e-mail comments, and I am not convinced that having women teachers was the problem.  The teachers I remember from my own youth were a mixture of men and women.  I have no problem with women teachers.  If the object is to learn, and if a child is raised in a cohesive family structure, he/she would and will get training from both father and mother.  That’s a balance that is necessary.  In my opinion.

But, let’s remember that the United States started out as English colonies, and 8 of the first nine colonial colleges were religious universities, not secular.  And it was largely colonists from that English and largely Protestant college training that started the country’s governments.

“Due in part to a collegiate curriculum that drew from the advanced writings of Scottish and Enlightenment thinkers in political economy, the colonial college alumni designed a system of government destined to serve as a model for the world.”

The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was the agreement among the 13 original states of the United States of America that served as its first constitution.  It was approved, after much debate, by the Second Continental Congress on November 15, 1777, and came into force on March 1, 1781, after being ratified by all 13 states.  The Articles included one up-front section regarding state sovereignty:

“Article II. Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation, expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

During this process, John Adams noted that, “I expressly say that Congress is not a representative body but a diplomatic body, a collection of ambassadors from thirteen of sovereign States….”

After 8+ years of war for independence (April 19, 1775 – September 3, 1783), the 13 original English colonies finally became 13 independent sovereign states (i.e. countries) via the Treaty of Paris (signed on September 3, 1783).  England finally recognized the legality of our American state’s sovereignty.

“His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware,  Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.”

Inasmuch as the Articles of Confederation helped define the original central government system for the new 13 American states, that confederation was, according to some at the time, far too weak as a central government (it only provided for a congress of the state’s representatives).  Some 18th century thinkers thought we needed a much stronger central government, one that included an executive branch and a judicial branch.  Thus, on June 21, 1788 a new ‘Constitution for the united States’ was ratified, to become effective on March 4, 1789.  Was this a good evolution of government?  Maybe, maybe not.  This is what Bill Buppert thinks:

“The Constitution is an enabling document for big government. Much like the Wizard of Oz, the man behind the curtain is a fraud. In this case, for all the sanctimonious handwringing and the obsequious idolatry of the parchment, it sealed the fate of our liberties and freedoms and has operated for more than 200 years as a cover for massive expansion of the tools and infrastructure of statist expansion and oppression.”

And so, with the Constitution in place, the country’s central government started its journey into what is a massive government today.  In the country’s early days, the education system started to change and grow also.

“Educational opportunities for young women followed a comparable pattern.  Families often wondered how a young single woman could be self-supporting or contribute to the family welfare.  A growing national demand for trained teachers due to the “common-school movement” of the 1830s provided one answer.  Women could achieve financial independence and respectability within a rather rigid social structure by attending a normal school or female seminary that provided them with an education for employment as teachers in the ever-expanding nation.”

So, now we get to the nub of Gary’s problem – the ‘common-school movement.’  Although the United States had originally been ‘the shining city on the hill,’ we were viewed that way because we supported and defended the individual, not the group, not a religion, and not a government.  When the group started to overwhelm importance over that of the individual, we started our decline as a people.  One size does not fit all.  Individual strength and independence is still of greatest importance to all humans.  In my opinion.

My theory of what causes the American males to seem less masculine is directly related to government policies, not to whether teachers are male or female.  It is the central government, Comrade, that chooses to force the states into a single system of actions and controls.  Is the Constitution the problem as Bill Buppert suggests, or is it those who control the government who are at fault?  If our elections are not valid, and if there is a secret, shadow government that controls this country’s central government and thus our laws, our economy, our media, then shouldn’t we be looking at that problem?

It is my perception and opinion that our country, its system of laws, its economy, and its culture, have been, and are still being, systematically attacked and destroyed, by an evil set of shadow rulers – people who have no allegiance to America, and who have historically described themselves as ‘the great destroyers.’

Looking back, I liked the Articles of Confederation if for no other reason than under that voluntary agreement we had no strong central government and the sovereign states could act on their own.  So what if the states did not always agree on any given subject?  Isn’t that what separation of powers is all about?  Isn’t having differences in the states how we learn from each other?  When we have one central ruling authority, one that deals exclusively in fraud, force, and violence in order to assure compliance, aren’t we all living under one set of rules as slaves to a plantation master?

What, exactly, is wrong with letting cities and towns establish their own sets of voluntary rules for their own citizens?  This is one huge country, and we have many subcultures in our land – why not let the people rule themselves?  Who, besides the shadow rulers, needs a strong central government?

Like Buppert, I am no lover of government controls over me – I want no organized force and violence exerted on me and my family – we have enough troubles just surviving and thriving in America.  I want all human relationships to be voluntary, and I don’t need government to force its policies on me.  I’m an adult and wish to be treated as an adult.  I’ll take care of my own – just leave me alone.

Let there be differences in how we teach our children.  If a locality wants to feminize its males, let them do it.  If a locality wants strong masculine males, let them do it.  Then let the states compete for which education process is better.  That’s how we all learn.



Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.