Weaponizing Public Services

Anyone paying even a little bit of attention knows that America’s public schools have been weaponized against her so-called deplorables–American posterity in general and faithful Christians in particular. That’s perhaps why the forces arrayed against us are being so open about their hostility now.

I’ve written before that all government institutions proceed from the 4th Commandment–they’re all about assisting parents in the governance of their households in one way or another. Schools are no different; in fact, they’re the most obvious example. Parents have an obligation to educate their children, and schools–public and private alike–exist to assist parents in that obligation.

Naturally, America’s virulent gaggle of progressives, statists and perverts see things differently and work hard to cut parents out of the educational loop altogether. Last fall’s electoral upset in Virginia was perhaps the most prominent example of open debate about whether children belong primarily to parents or to the state. But the same debate is going on everywhere. My own state is considering legislation on parental rights at the moment, and there are plenty of detractors who believe parents have no rights on the matter at all.

In their view, schools are not there to serve parents. They’re not even there to serve children. Schools, we are increasingly told, exist to serve the public. So instead of serving the public by assisting parents in the education of their children, schools are serving the public directly by doing whatever “the public” wants to our children.

This divorce of purpose from function is precisely what transforms our public institutions into tools of political force. The fact that somehow American families and “the public” have such radically divergent ideas about education should be really gives the progressive game away. Whether it’s “the will of the people,” “the community,” “society” or some other phrase, it has always and only referred to the desires of our would-be political elites. It’s a nefarious abstraction; and historically, it’s often been used to justify all manner of violent and tyrannical action against the actual families and individuals who make up the public.

Consider if this dynamic were applied to a much less politicized public institution: the local Fire Department. Their primary function, of course, is to save people and property from destruction by fire–that’s how they serve the public. But what if we separate purpose from function the same way progressives do in our schools? In other words, what happens if the Fire Department serves “the public” instead of helping the actual people who call 911 because their house is on fire?

Well, in that event, they would only save the people and property which the “the public” wants to be saved. When the ruling party deems certain buildings an eyesore, the Fire Department need not respond if they catch fire, for saving them wouldn’t serve “the public.” Likewise, when people trapped in a burning building are deemed deplorable, the Fire Department need not come to their rescue. After all, saving such divisive malcontents would hardly be a service to our political elites. In short, the Fire Department would cease to be a true public service, and instead become a political weapon wielded by those in power against whoever they see as an enemy.

This transformation has already happened in education. The fact that parents now need to struggle to wrest control of their school boards away from their local tyrants is proof enough of that. But it is not limited to school. Any public institution could fall prey to this, and many already have.

Law enforcement is another example that comes to mind. the police, FBI, and so forth should be serving the public by enforcing our laws. Now, unfortunately, they’re being diverted from justice to social justice. That’s why rioters are not treated according to the law, but whether they serve our elites’ agenda. That’s why shoplifting and even train robbery are now tolerated by our legal system in areas where the local ‘diversity’ is a political lever. That’s why Kyle Rittenhouse was put on trial for murder instead of his accusers for attempted murder. As much as conservatives support the police because they correctly intuit that some form of law enforcement will always be necessary, they often fail to understand how many cops and DA’s are now weaponized against them.

But then there’s the elephant in the room: our entire federal government. Its been many generations since it has divorced itself from its relatively modest list of primary functions–basically common defense, foreign policy, facilitating commerce among the states, and the like.

Not only has serving the public by means of these specific functions passed away in favor of today’s massive Federal behemoth, even those functions are now turned against Americans in favor of elite interests. Defending our borders has been supplanted by a facilitation of anti-American demographic goals. Our foreign policy is deployed to enrich corporations and promote globalism. Our currency management and other economic regulation uses ordinary Americans as consumable resources for a plethora of banksters and other special interests.

America’s federal government has been weaponized against the nation it was instituted to serve. The current administration’s continual flouting of the rule law may be more open than any previous presidency, but it has not been a friend to America for a long time.

Anyone who realizes that the term “culture war” is far more exact than generally believed needs to recognize this pattern. This kind of divorce of purpose from function is a warning. If caught early, maybe you can prevent the institution from being weaponized against you. Maybe you can even co-opt your enemy’s weapon and use it against them.

But at a bare minimum, you must at least see through the illusion of abstract public welfare and treat these institutional weapons as weapons. You wouldn’t point a loaded gun at anything you weren’t willing to destroy. Well, then why would you point a public school at your children? You wouldn’t help maintain or load your enemy’s weapons, so why would you donate to your alma mater or uncritically support the police?

And if you know your enemy’s weapons were stronger than yours, why wouldn’t improve your own arsenal? Recover salvageable institutions or build replacements. Get involved in your local communities and governments so that the lesser magistrates can assist you against the greater ones which are out to get you. And most of all, guard everything you build against this kind of co-opting by your enemies. If God is merciful enough to give America a second chance, we’d best not squander it.

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Weaponizing Public Services

  1. Justin says:

    And to be clear, the military is part of the federal government. Like law enforcement, the military is another institution that conservatives, and particularly Lutherans, reflexively defend uncritically when the evidence suggests that it has not served Americans for a very long time. Whether it is “protecting your freedoms” through wars abroad, “making the world safe for democracy” through wars abroad, or “defending the right of self-determination” through wars abroad, etc., these abstract phrases are just as nefarious.

    • Matt says:

      Absolutely, Justin. Our military adventurism serves our ruling party, not the defense of the American nation. They spend a lot more time doing things like celebrating diversity than defending our borders–a clear sign that function has been abandoned.

Leave a Reply to Matt Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Are you human? Enter the 3 digits represented below. (They're like dice--just count the dots if it's not a numeral) *