Teaching 'Old' Math to Children - Where'd It Go?

Has anybody been confronted by the new, reformed math being pushed by schools these days? You know, the kid brings home his math homework, and it makes you shy away from it's... strangeness. Even if you are comfortable coaching your child on simple things, like arithmetic, you are lost. If so, you may have been perplexed on a couple of levels. One, why are the schools pushing this arcane kind of problem-solving on children, when the old algorithms serve admirably?

Not surprisingly, I have an opinion on this, shall we say, subterfuge. Right off the bat, the first noticeable thing it does, is it creates a void of comprehension between the the parents and the child, which takes parents, as coaches, out of the equation. They haven't a clue what the book is talking about. They simply can't help their children with math. Why do that? Consider this: It is a way of driving yet another wedge between parents and their children, which for those who have been paying attention, is a major goal of the NEA.

The second thing it does, is it replaces simple math and arithmetic methods with a clumsy, inefficient system. Again, why? If you strip away all the BS about the "flexibility" of the new, reformed math (In her video Madeline gives the lie to that argument), one makes the startling conclusion: it is to make them stupid. I believe it is no exaggeration to say that the goal of public schools today is not to educate your children, but to prepare their minds for the UN mandate of a One World Government.

That seems a shocking conclusion.

But if you look at the curricula and the textbooks being foisted on children today, with it's emphasis on "language arts", instead of grammar and spelling; politicized science, instead of hard science using the Scientific Method; and diversity-based social studies, instead of history and geography, the conclusion seems unavoidable: America's children are doing poorly by design. The globalists don't want, indeed don't need, a thoughtful, informed populace capable of distinguishing reasoned argument from political indoctrination. What they do need is a powerless, confused citizenry, who believe what they are told. Everything political is arguably smoke-and-mirrors these days.

In a 1993 pamphlet to teachers, the NEA had this to say:

“Allegiance to a nation is the biggest stumbling block to the creation of international government. National boundaries and the concept of sovereignty must be abolished. The quickest way to do this is to condition the young to another and broader alliance. Opinion favorable to international government will be developed in the social studies curriculum in the public schools.”

We've come a long way from the old red brick schoolhouse.

Watch the videos, when you have 20 minutes. They are very refreshing, and encouraging.

MJ McDermott's 15 min. video which contrasts teaching math to children using the "new, reformed methods", with that of the old tried-and-true algorithms some of us who are a little longer in tooth grew up learning. No doubt, you remember this:

Using the divergence theorem, what is if and S is the surface of the region bounded by the planes ?

Just kidding! I mean like long division, addition, subtraction, multiplication of simple digits (without the use of a calculator).

McDermott tries and, I think, succeeds in showing the weakness and danger of this new, reformed math curriculum, which seems designed to make you and your children stupid and confused. Have a look. See if you agree.



Finally, in another short video, Madeline - a 10-year old - gives us her charming perspective on the new, reformed math, and shows us several examples of how she solves simple math problems using the "Singapore method", which McDermott talks about in her video. Old school. And I'm sure you will notice how Madeline and her mother went about finding a way out of her dilemma.


Once the Corporate Elite and our Government completes its metamorphosis into the most powerful alliance ever witnessed on earth, there will be little we can do, but dance to their tune, and pay the piper. Because it will have happened on our watch.

And our children will not thank us.

Global Warming, or Global Goose-Stepping?

Why Politicized Science is Dangerous

An excerpt from his book, State of Fear by Michael Crichton

"Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out.

This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.

I don't mean global warming. I'm talking about another theory, which rose to prominence a century ago.

Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California.

These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort.

All in all, the research, legislation and molding of public opinion surrounding the theory went on for almost half a century. Those who opposed the theory were shouted down and called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain ignorant. But in hindsight, what is surprising is that so few people objected.

Today, we know that this famous theory that gained so much support was actually pseudoscience. The crisis it claimed was nonexistent. And the actions taken in the name of theory were morally and criminally wrong. Ultimately, they led to the deaths of millions of people.

The theory was eugenics, and its history is so dreadful --- and, to those who were caught up in it, so embarrassing --- that it is now rarely discussed. But it is a story that should be well known to every citizen, so that its horrors are not repeated.

The theory of eugenics postulated a crisis of the gene pool leading to the deterioration of the human race. The best human beings were not breeding as rapidly as the inferior ones --- the foreigners, immigrants, Jews, degenerates, the unfit, and the "feeble minded." Francis Galton, a respected British scientist, first speculated about this area, but his ideas were taken far beyond anything he intended. They were adopted by science-minded Americans, as well as those who had no interest in science but who were worried about the immigration of inferior races early in the twentieth century --- "dangerous human pests" who represented "the rising tide of imbeciles" and who were polluting the best of the human race.

The eugenicists and the immigrationists joined forces to put a stop to this. The plan was to identify individuals who were feeble-minded --- Jews were agreed to be largely feeble-minded, but so were many foreigners, as well as blacks --- and stop them from breeding by isolation in institutions or by sterilization.

As Margaret Sanger said, "Fostering the good-for-nothing at the expense of the good is an extreme cruelty … there is not greater curse to posterity than that of bequeathing them an increasing population of imbeciles." She spoke of the burden of caring for "this dead weight of human waste."

Such views were widely shared. H.G. Wells spoke against "ill-trained swarms of inferior citizens." Theodore Roosevelt said that "Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind." Luther Burbank" "Stop permitting criminals and weaklings to reproduce." George Bernard Shaw said that only eugenics could save mankind.

There was overt racism in this movement, exemplified by texts such as "The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy" by American author Lothrop Stoddard. But, at the time, racism was considered an unremarkable aspect of the effort to attain a marvelous goal --- the improvement of humankind in the future. It was this avant-garde notion that attracted the most liberal and progressive minds of a generation. California was one of twenty-nine American states to pass laws allowing sterilization, but it proved the most-forward-looking and enthusiastic --- more sterilizations were carried out in California than anywhere else in America.

Eugenics research was funded by the Carnegie Foundation, and later by the Rockefeller Foundation. The latter was so enthusiastic that even after the center of the eugenics effort moved to Germany, and involved the gassing of individuals from mental institutions, the Rockefeller Foundation continued to finance German researchers at a very high level. (The foundation was quiet about it, but they were still funding research in 1939, only months before the onset of World War II.)

Since the 1920s, American eugenicists had been jealous because the Germans had taken leadership of the movement away from them. The Germans were admirably progressive. They set up ordinary-looking houses where "mental defectives" were brought and interviewed one at a time, before being led into a back room, which was, in fact, a gas chamber. There, they were gassed with carbon monoxide, and their bodies disposed of in a crematorium located on the property.

Eventually, this program was expanded into a vast network of concentration camps located near railroad lines, enabling the efficient transport and of killing ten million undesirables.

Read the rest here.

This is scary. Let's see, we still have the Carnegie Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and there are obviously swarms of "consensus scientists" willing to whore themselves to get at the grants. All we really lack is an ignorant populace willing to believe whatever the MSM dishes out....woops.