If you have been following this website, you have undoubtedly heard of the Smutty Book Task Force where citizens read books flagged as inappropriate that are available to children in the Grand Haven Area Public School libraries. Usually the books contain vulgar language, explicit sexual content, and/or teen drinking and drug use. But sometimes they don’t. Sometimes they contain just a little bit of inappropriateness and leave the reader confused. Regardless of whether or not these books contain blatantly inappropriate behavior, most of them have one common theme. They are anti-parent. The majority of the books flagged as inappropriate on the Smutty Book Task Force list work to turn children against their parents and ultimately work to break down the structure of the family.
Take for example the book Some Girls Bind by Rory James. This book was very clean, but very effective in breaking the parent-child relationship. Jamie, a teenager, has started binding her breasts to make her look more like a man. Jamie has other friends with “secrets”. One is gay, one has an alcoholic father and the other does not want to be on the swim team, but is being forced by his parent. All of the parents are antagonists.
In another book, One True Way by Shannon Hitchcock, Sam turns against her church and her mother. She turns towards Reverend Walker, a minister from a different church with a flexible interpretation of the bible. The author knows full well what a lot of parents believe and goes out of her way to instill a belief in children that their parents are wrong.
In yet another book, Red at the Bone by Jacqueline Woodson, the mother deserts her child to focus on her education. In My Mother the Cheerleader by Robert Sharenow the mother drinks a lot, forces her child to work at the hotel and commonly sleeps with the guests. I could go on and on, but hopefully you get the idea.
So why should this concern you?
Ask yourself what is the long-term goal of anti-parent books? If you understand history, there are many examples that answer this question. The short answer is that the goal is for the state to take over the role of the parent. When this happens, the state can teach the youth anything they want and then the youth will unknowingly do the dirty work of the state.
The goal of replacing the parent with the state does not happen overnight, but is rather a long slow process. It starts with undermining family values usually in an educational setting. As children become less confident in their parents due to the constant undermining of family values and family structure, they learn to turn to outside sources for guidance. As more and more youth learn the new way of thinking from the state and not their parents, the state ends up with complete control over the population. Isn’t this what is happening in our schools across America today? The teachers are being taught in professional development days and continuing education sessions and are passing on what they learn to the students.
Examples from History
Throughout history there are numerous examples where the role of the parent was replaced by the state. During Nazi Germany children were forced to join the Hitler Youth. Kids enjoyed crafts, campouts, and hiking trips where they were separated from their parents and received a hefty dose of indoctrination. Likewise, children were turned against their parents during the Cultural Revolution in China. In Pol Pot’s Cambodia, children were sent to work camps where they were trained in fighting techniques. In each of these examples, leaders retrained the youth because it was their job, or because they believed what they were doing was just. These techniques of dividing people are not new. This is just the first time they have been widely used in America.
Examples from Present
It’s no secret college students in America are being indoctrinated by radical professors all across the country. What is shocking is that this same indoctrination is now happening to younger and younger children. Indoctrination of college students has been in place long enough for the indoctrinated students to become teachers in our schools.
Another monumental step replacing the American parent with the state came with Common Core. Not only did the Common Core curriculum lower standards, it was confusing to parents and diminished their ability to assist their children with homework. When Common Core mandated what and how teachers were expected to teach, it transferred control from the local teacher, to the Federal Curriculum. It made simple concepts confusing, and forced good teachers who had fine-tuned methods for educating children to abandon their life’s-work and do what they were told. Teachers in turn expected their students to do what they were told. One of the major results was whenever children were confused by school material, they had to turn to teachers, not parents for assistance. The parent-child relationship took a hit by this anti-parent curriculum.
Today with Common Core fully accepted by schools across the country, the state education system is taking more steps toward undermining the role of the parents. Often times the anti-parent agenda is disguised, but when we learn to recognize it, it can be easily spotted. It is commonly disguised within lessons on global warming and the environment and lessons of diversity, equity and inclusion. The library books on the Smutty Book Task Force is another place the anti-parent agenda appears.
With today’s political climate we can clearly see some of the effects of the anti-parent agenda. When observing people in the older generation, those 65 and older, they are willing to tell their friends what they think, disagree, and move on with whatever activity they have planned. This same generation typically “keeps their mouth shut”, when visiting with their adult children especially when their relationship with their grandchildren is threatened.
Middle age people tend to be split on this issue, but the younger generation will quickly cut off all contact with people when they disagree. Almost every person I talk to can cite more than one personal example of a friend or family member who has “cut them off”. Almost all of these friends and family members are indoctrinated and believe the state should be in control.
Another recent example comes from the Black Lives Matter organization. One of the goals of the Black Lives Matter organization was to disrupt the nuclear family. In September 2020 BLM made headlines when they removed a page from their website that showed their opposition to the nuclear family.
“We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable,” the website formerly read.
These anti-parent books tie in directly with the Marxist BLM anti-nuclear family agenda.
So how are these books getting into the school libraries? – Sold as DEI
Some teacher’s clearly see the effects these detrimental policies have on children and work hard to minimize their impact. Unfortunately, these teachers are slowly being pushed out and retiring, and then are replaced with fully indoctrinated teachers who don’t even realize the destructive power of these books and policies.
Today teachers are being taught that books that feature minority characters are necessary to support diversity. They argue that children need to see representations of themselves in books. This is actually a solid argument that most people agree with, but along with this diversity comes the anti-parent agenda and lessons that connect these diverse characteristics to power and privilege. Connecting characteristics of groups of people with opinions is prejudice. Eventually these diverse characteristics are tied to outcomes. When characteristics of groups of people are tied with outcomes, that is discrimination.
In order to push this agenda further everything is fluid. Fluidity is actually a favorite tool of Marxists, because it takes away people’s frame of reference. History is becoming fluid and we can see this today with the 1619 project, the Zinn Project and library books like An Indigenous Peoples’ History of the United States by Jean Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz available to children in all of GHAPS elementary schools. Gender is also becoming fluid. Today pronouns are asked at the beginning of each new class in the high school and the Spanish teacher in Grand Haven has invented a new neutral gender category of words for the Spanish language. We now run into people on a daily basis who’s gender is not obvious.
The meaning of words is also becoming fluid. The definitions of racism and vaccine are just a few words that have been recently redefined. How many times have we heard the Constitution is an outdated document that was written for a different time? Although some people would like to make it fluid, it is not! There are even people who have introduced flexible interpretations of the Bible. All of this fluidity is working to destroy the people’s frame of reference. If we the people don’t understand history, the future is difficult to predict. The anti-parent books are a small part of this much bigger plan.
People upset with anti-parent books are not advocating censorship. They actually believe strongly in the Freedom of Speech. What they are suggesting is that as parents, citizens and a community we have choices. We have choices on what we spend our money on. We are suggesting that as a community we review books to be purchased by the school libraries and decide whether the book advocates for values we want to pass onto our children. In some cases an anti-parent book may even be justified, but when anti-parent themes begin to appear regularly in the available books to our children through the school libraries, that is an indication that there is a problem which could lead to more widespread problems such as a breakdown of the nuclear family. Is that really what we want for our youth and our community?
Sometimes anti-parent books contain sexually explicit material, teen drinking, and/or foul language. When an anti-parent book is sexually explicit and the characters happen to be gay instead of straight, citizens who object are accused of being “homophobic”, even when they state the issue is with giving sexually explicit material to minors irrespective of the characters sexual orientation. When the anti-parent books contain racial minority characters, citizens who object are accused of being racist despite their issue having nothing to do with the authors skin color. The reality couldn’t be further from the truth. These citizens recognize the destructive effect these books have on our children, cities, and country as a whole for all families with all sexual orientations and all skin colors. They want to encourage healthy family relationships and support the bond between parents and children.