You would think we would finally take a stand when it comes to our children. You would think we would be driven by a primal need to protect. But you might think again. There is a blue bubble over the elementary school in an otherwise pleasant semi-rural community. And the children there are under the most insidious attack.

One resident revealed what had happened to his child. Minding his own business, he was randomly, physically attacked in the playground by the school bully. His child was 6, the bully was 7 or 8 years old. The bully walked up to the younger child, kicked, punched and screamed at him. His child tried to protect himself and screamed back, “Get off of me!” When the bully showed no intention of getting off or of mitigating the attack, the younger child hauled off and kicked the bully in the leg, leaving a mark. The bully fell back and started crying and wailing, dramatically and pointedly (“Ready for my close up, Mr. Demille.”) victimized.

What, then, did the school do? They called the little one’s parent in order to warn the parent and blame the child for hurting the bully. (Sound politically familiar?)

They told the parent, “He should have called a teacher first,” even though the teacher was right there and witnessed the whole attack.

As I listened to this latest version of the Mad Hatter Tea Party, some questions came to my mind:

1. WHAT THE *&@%#?! (Forgive me. It was an autonomic stun response.)

Then with more normal cognitive function restored, I wondered…

2. Was he supposed to notify the teacher as he was getting pounded? How? By email? By text? By screaming as he took another hit?
3. What if he were black?
4. What if he were gay?
5. What if he were a girl?
6. What makes this physical attack different?

Then, the more significant issue came to mind: Whatever the political motivation, what does this process of instinctual castration teach our young people who are in the process of getting their self- and world-view formed by us? When we tell our children to stop defending themselves legitimately in the face of aggression, what are we actually telling them?

These are, in brief, the lessons children learn when they are told to play possum on a regular basis:

1. There is no good or evil, just our response to it, which then is interpreted by the authorities (blue bubble agents) as good or evil. In an elementary school, the agent of authority is the teacher of tenure. God help us.
2. There is no longer any personal responsibility nor are there reasonable consequences for idiotic or aggressive behavior. All you need to do if you’re a bully (or a rapist, looter, and murderer) and you’ve been caught in the act is have a well-orchestrated, media-driven tantrum, declaring yourself a victim of some amorphous corporate agenda.
3. In order to live a comfortable, low-profile life in this brave new world, we must extinguish the God-given instinct for survival and self-defense. The administration’s calculated response to this playground incident increases passivity in the face of obvious and odious aggression. Psychologically, it leaves the child alone to conduct a furious internal search for a cognitive context he can rely on. Meaning, how does he go on in life and still exclude the right of self-preservation? If he doesn’t have a right to protect himself, does he have a right to exist? What does he (or she) do with the question of self-worth and belonging when his or her right to exist is contingent on social approval and protocols? All that is left in many cases is “I’m nice, even in the face of obvious and odious aggression.” Thus, being nice or playing by Gulag-rules becomes the preeminent value. It fosters the new generation of comrades.
4. In the case of this real victim, he will be asked to “play along.” If he turns himself in, he will be “excused” this time, but the next time he defends himself he will receive a “Don’t Like” on his permanent record.

When I think about this brave little boy and his intrepid parent, I wonder what it will take for parents nation-wide to reach a tipping point. When will it be enough for them? For us? What does it take for ordinary people to say an extraordinary “NO”?  With all the masks in place, I have to ask: What is this generation’s Stamp Act?

For those who might not remember, the Stamp Act of 1765 was a direct tax imposed on the colonists by King George. A stamp would be required on all legal documents and printed materials.

Because this tax was imposed by an act of British parliament with King George’s sanction but no colonial involvement, it led to the now famous cry, “No taxation without representation!”

Of course this famous act came after the Five Intolerable Acts prior to 1764 (the Boston Port Act, the Administration of Justice Act, the Massachusetts Government Act, the Quartering Act, and the Quebec Act). And even though all the acts were intolerable, it was the Stamp Act that was the last straw.

What is it going to be for us? Which right is the one that finally becomes intolerable for us? What will we finally take a stand to protect? Is it the right to self-defense? Is it the right to raise our own children? To choose our own medical care? To own our own homes? What will our Stamp Act be?

There are only a few rights guaranteed to us by God in our Constitution.  The first of them is the right to exist. This is perverted by the left because in their system only the government can give you the right to exist. In turn, this perversion is twisted into the denial of the right to self-defense, which leads to the corruption of every civil liberty we have enjoyed in this City on a Hill for the last 244 years.

Image credit: Pixabay public domain