Vídeo: A Diversidade Esquerdista e o Projeto Escola sem Partido

No vídeo acima, o comediante genial Andrew Klavan explica o que a esquerda quer dizer quando fala em "diversidade". Em suma, quando a esquerda fala em diversidade na verdade ela defende homogeneidade, ditadura de pensamento. Qualquer um que pense contra os argumentos da esquerda não pode ser aceito dentro do arcabouço da diversidade. Todos devem aceitar o que a esquerda defende, e o que ela defende não é democracia, mas ditadura.

Isso ficou muito claro no debate do PL 7180/2014 ontem na câmara. O PL defende que as escolas respeitem a opinião das famílias e dos pais. A família tem precedência sobre as escolas. As escolas não podem ensinar ideologia de gênero ou serem baseadas em ideologias partidárias. Isto é, as escolas devem respeitar a democracia, as diversas vertentes de pensamento da sociedade. Isto é, em poucas palavras o que defende a Escola Sem Partido, fundada pelo brilhante Dr. Miguel Nagib. Se você ler o que diz os "Deveres do Professor" da Escola sem Partido, verá que o que se defende é a democracia, o respeito ao pensamento das famílias, defende-se o respeito à verdadeira diversidade dentro e fora das escolas.

Mas se você ouvisse o que diziam os deputados esquerdistas que falavam contra o PL 7180/14 ontem, eles diziam que o PL era fascista e contra a democracia. E eles sempre fugiam das palavars "famílias" e "direito dos pais". Chegava a ser engraçado se não fosse tão perverso.

Exatamente o que mostra Andrew Klavan, diversidade para a esquerda = ditadura de pensamento.

Que a Escola sem Partido siga em frente e seja aprovada no Brasil.

Hoje mesmo eu li um artigo do Life News mostrando que o problema de politização e ideologização esquerdista das escolas é universal. Católicos lutam sempre contra currículos escolares esquerdistas.

Vejam parte do texto da LifeSite News.

We’re feeding our kids to cannibals: the nightmarish state of education today

July 11, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) -- Across North America, the debate surrounding sex education continues to swirl through the schools. Parental protests are popping up in British Columbia to voice disagreement with the SOGI curriculum, Parents as First Educators are pushing the Doug Ford government to roll back the radical sex-ed of the previous Liberal government, and private religious schools are battling the provincial government of Alberta in court to keep them from forcing their LGBT agenda into the independent sphere, as well. Across the United States, small pockets of parents are also doing battle with the powerful LGBT lobby that is steamrolling its way through the school system, demanding that their ideology be taught to other people’s children—and usually succeeding.

It is disturbing to stop and realize what is now considered too controversial for children, and conversely what is considered appropriate for children. Laura Ingalls Wilder, for example, has just had her name stripped from a prestigious award for children’s literature because there are passages in her books that our politically correct elites consider to be racist, or at least culturally insensitive. Interestingly, Wilder was herself a teacher, obtaining her teaching certificate in 1882 and signing on to teach a one-room schoolhouse full of children in the Dakota Territory at the age of only fifteen years old. Her mother, Caroline Quiner, was also a schoolteacher when she met and married Charles Ingalls (known to generations of children simply as “Pa”) in 1860.

...

To illustrate the difference between then and now, Esolen asked his readers to imagine L.M. Montgomery’s Anne of Green Gables, who became a teacher in a one-room schoolhouse on Prince Edward Island, where “the rich red clay was good for growing potatoes and serious Presbyterians,” being asked by some Ottawa bureaucrat to begin teaching the theories of gender fluidity to her young charges. If she protested informing the little girls in the class that they could become little boys (if they decided to be) and vice versa, Anne Shirley could find herself called a bigot, abruptly dismissed, and replaced by a teacher Esolen dubs “Susie of the Sex Shop,” who is altogether too enthusiastic about teaching these sorts of things to children. Just imagine, Esolen writes, a decent and common-sensical people being faced with such teachers:

Try to imagine explaining to the old farmers of Prince Edward Island the need to teach small children how to insert, safely of course, antiseptically of course, their fingers or tongues or other protuberances into the orifice of another kid of ambiguous sex, including the anus. It is not that they would disagree with you. It is not that they would have an alternative opinion about behavior that makes old-fashioned sodomy look like a peck on the cheek. It is that they would think you had lost your mind. They would believe that you were suffering a terrifying moral and psychological illness, nigh unto demonic possession, perhaps well past it. Would they let you speak to their children? They would not want you to speak to their parents or friends or anybody, not because they would be afraid that you might persuade or entice one of them, but merely to spare their loved ones the experience of something so gross, so wicked, so repulsive, so sad. They themselves, in future years, would let the memory of it drop into the darkness and the silence. You do not make scrapbooks of slime. 

...

Progress is a wonderful thing, isn’t it? Laura Ingalls Wilder and her lovely family are racists, Anne Shirley an unforgivably heteronormative and backwards teacher (this is why the progressives are attempting to rehabilitate her by claiming that she’s a lesbian), and teachers who are enthused about teaching little boys that they can be little girls instead of equipping them to be men are winning all sorts of inclusivity awards and being hailed as heroes for successfully warping the minds of the upcoming generation. As Esolen put it: “There are only two things wrong with our schools: Everything that our children don’t learn there and everything they do. These public schools, with their vast political and bureaucratic machinery, are beyond reform. That does not mean that persons of good will should not offer themselves up as missionaries of truth and goodness and beauty, to teach there… But we would be quite mad to send our children there. We send missionaries to cannibals. We do not serve the cannibals our boys and girls.”

-- 

Aqui vão os direitos realmente democráticos defendidos pela Escola sem Partido. Defenda-os você também.