The Ministry of Learning Offers Training on How to Be a Groomer

OUTER PARTY DISSIDENT

The NEA (National Education Association) is the collective union of public school teachers in the United States, with more 3 million members and, thus, represents almost 2.5% of the total US workforce in an age when unions are at their nadir. Its power and influence derive primarily from that fact, as it negotiates the salaries for the workers of an industry that costs US taxpayers around 764 billion dollars annually.  Depending on the state, around 75-85% of its education budget will go towards salaries for teachers and staff.

Fitting its role as the Ministry of Learning, it has published a news bulletin expressing its dismay that the proles are complaining about its predation on said proles’ children:

The seaside village of Stonington is tucked into the southeast corner of Connecticut and is best known for setting the scene of the 1988 film Mystic Pizza. The town’s tight-knit community usually sticks together. 

But that bond started to unravel in October, when the nation’s culture wars spilled into a middle school classroom. The epicenter of the debate? A classroom with rainbow pride flags on display.

In the minds of Ministry of Learning officials, what flags are displayed and what issues are discussed is not a matter that parents have a right to debate or question. Sure enough, they got one of their grooming victims to come out and speak for them:

 “Rachel Fretard, a senior at the school who uses the pronoun ‘they,’ said they felt ‘disappointed and exhausted because this is another thing we have to fight against.’”

No scientific evidence is presented that explains how Rachel, or any other student, is not either a boy or a girl. Nor is it explained how rainbow flags are so essential to childhood development that they can’t even be questioned by the community of parents that pays for the school.

(The groomed adolescent and her groomer)

What we do get is more gaslighting and emotional projection:

Fretard adds, “My identity is not political, and the fact that these things have been [blown out of proportion], involving our government, and threatening the rights of a community of people … is such a dystopian idea to me. “To have something removed from your classroom that represents your belonging there and the community you identify with … is disheartening.” 

If the Ministry of Learning puts up the flag of a movement that makes explicitly political demands like laws and resolutions in political bodies (which they themselves initiate later during this affair), it is not political. Parental objection to it, however, is political and thus unacceptable. Meanwhile, at the other end of the country, lawmakers who are loyal to the anti-family groomer movement are threatening to take away your kids if you won’t consent to their chemical castration and surgical mutilation. This is already the law in Canada. After an outcry by parents in Stonington, the Ministry of Learning stepped in:

When the flags were removed, educators turned to the local union, the Stonington Education Association (SEA).
The union immediately held a membership meeting, followed by an emergency meeting with district officials and a school board meeting in the following days.
SEA made its case­, citing various court rulings; district officials and attorneys agreed. The flags were reinstated just two weeks after they came down. 
But educators and their local union asked for more, including a school board resolution —which they crafted based on an NEA template—that explicitly says pride flags can be displayed in schools as symbols of diversity, equity, and inclusion; not as political statements. They also wanted anti-discrimination language specific to LGBTQ+ employees in their contracts for every bargaining unit. Both measures were approved by the board.

Notice how the ministers responded this rebellion by the parents. They not only put the groomer flags back up, they then used the levers of power and procedure to further trample parental rights and authority. The resolution that did this was even based off of one created by the NEA.

In related news, the NEA also offers what are called micro-credentials in political activism on behalf of anti-family political activism and child grooming:

 

In our current divisive and challenging climate, many lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBTQ+) students struggle to find their safe spaces, especially in schools.
To help members support our LGBTQ+ students, NEA is offering online blended learning courses to educate members about a variety of LGBTQ+ topics and to inspire action. These courses will help members create a more inclusive and equitable learning environment for all students.

Because the NEA is a union of public employees whose membership fee covers the cost of this program, this is essentially a taxpayer-funded program. Administrators who take this training will be legally allowed, at least under most state laws, to require that their employees take this training as well or a recreation of it. I will translate these course names for you:

·      “Taking a Stand: Creating Safer Schools for LGBTQ+ Students”: Translation: How to Resist and Circumvent Pro-Family and Anti-Groomer Initiatives and Laws at Your School.

·      “Walking the Talk: Classroom Strategies for Addressing LGBTQ+ Bias.” Translation: How to Indoctrinate Children and Adolescents with Anti-Family and Groomer Talking Points.

·      “Making the Case: Communication Strategies on LGBTQ issues.” Translation: How to Spread Anti-Family and Groomer Propaganda Generally.

·      “The intersection of Race, Gender, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation.” Translation: Combining Anti-family activism, Anti-Sex (as in biological sex) Ideas, and Bigotry Against White People.

·      “Safe and Supporting Working Environments: A Right for LGBTQ+ Educators.” Translation: How to Be a Groomer and Anti-family Activist Discreetly.

·      “Supporting Transgender, Non-Binary, and Gender Non-conforming Students.” Translation: How to Groom Children and Adolescents and Avoiding Parental Oversight.

Notice that there is very little discussion of trying to convince parents through open debate or scientifically validating any of this.  Instead, deceit, subversion, and bureaucratic power are the main tools. Hence, trying to stop this solely through votes in elections won’t work, as has been demonstrated by activist judges lifting protections against children being chemically castrated and school boards defying the popular will. What is required is a more direct kind of community politics of confrontation and organization to criminalize and stigmatize grooming and anti-family activism targeted toward children. Reform must also pull the Ministry of Learning up by the roots. In other words, a model of education that breaks the power of national organizations like the NEA completely in order to make the school a joint creation between a small community of parents who are directly involved and a handful of teacher-administrators. But that is a topic for another post.

Thank you for coming to my lesson today. Class is dismissed.

Source: Outer Party Dissident