Today, we will undertake an explanatory study into the methods, purpose, and origins of Social Emotional Learning. This was instigated by the proclamation by the Governor of New Hampshire celebrating SEL organization ChooSELove, otherwise known as the “Choose Love Movement,” which is deeply embedded in not just New Hampshire public schools, but also in the bureaucracy, the Department of Corrections, and police training.
The whole program is downright insidious. The manner in which the most sickly-sweet, public-relations, human-resources language is weaponized to conceal the deadly and damnable content of the message — the linguistic warfare equivalent of handing a child a grenade and instructing him to run over to the soldiers. It’s little wonder why so many teachers have adopted the mannerisms of bad children’s television presenters while waving the flag of Hamas and cackling about the demise of their enemies.
Though it really shouldn’t be a terrible surprise. At the risk of losing my audience by invoking Harry Potter, and since people seem to relate to the story as a totalizing social paradigm for their lives, the brainwashers and tyrannical indoctrinators of history have seldom looked and talked like Voldemort — reality has always mirrored Dolores Umbridge. From Orwell: “It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.”
The first thing we must understand is that all language, and indeed all ideas, stand on a basis of presuppositions. The language used, whether explicitly or implicitly, assumes certain things to be true about the world we live in, the manner in which humans relate to one another, and so on — more academically language always assumes and stands upon certain types of epistemology, anthropology, ethics, and more. It is therefore very much possible to extract these presuppositions by analyzing the language used, and that information can then be compared to known historical systems of thought and related systems of government.
For this study, I have captured a significant number of lesson plans from SEL provider Chooselove to analyze, from which we will identify all these things, and expose how they are diametrically opposed to all that America was founded to be — it is a wholly foreign creedal system.
From this first lesson plan image, we can identify many things. Firstly, we identify a moral prescription, or archetype of goodness, being named the “illuminator.” Now, the term itself is low-hanging fruit for discussion of esoteric spiritualism, but we’ll save conversation for later. The traits associated with the morally prescribed target of “illuminator” are identified as “kind words,” “kind hands,” and “kind choices.”
Any student of either history or ethics should identify the most pressing question here as “who defines what is and is not ‘kind’.” That is, for now, unstated, but you would be correct to keep your neck-hairs elevated as we dive deeper into answering this question.
In this next portion of the lesson plan, we can identify that there is a contrast of opposites being established between the previously identified “illuminator” and the new, Orwellian term “diminisher.” This approach takes advantage of the inherent binary (perhaps, dialectical) nature of the human mind, always seeking to increase understanding by comparing a thing to its opposite. As this term “illuminator” is established as an ethical identity, the addition of “diminisher” in the position of the opposing pole establishes it as an unethical identity — a classic good guy/bad guy binary is hereby established for the children.
Further in this plan, you can see the bad guy being given the attributes of “complaining,” seeking fairness, and questioning authority. The beginnings of social engineering, the perfect Statist drone-citizen, are present here — never questioning authority, never complaining that somebody is receiving preferential treatment, always obedient.
Now, we begin to move firmly into the territory of danger, as the plan calls for the social-engineering of children away from necessary discrimination — giving angry or volatile people space, choosing not to associate with antisocial people, ignoring instincts about danger — and towards seeing only good, in-common attributes in people who trigger such alarms. Notice, also, that the good guy versus bad guy paradigm is being reinforced further to define the bad guy not as the person irritating you, demonstrating a lack of effort, or transgresses boundaries and traditional ethics, but as the person who notices these things and avoids or rebukes them. This is the beginning of the inculcation of Marcusian Repressive Tolerance and smuggles blank-slate radical Socialism presuppositions.
Here, we begin to import the ideals of pluralism and multiculturalism, as if those aren’t hotly debated and controversial political topics, into the totalizing moral formation of children via public schools. As an aside, noting the final paragraph identifies “safer… school environments,” I must tell you that I observed this organization present at an event perhaps a year or two ago, along with some branch of the Department of Homeland Security. They did a whole lecture on how it’s a terrible idea to place guards, especially armed guards, at schools to protect children. They insisted, instead, that violence itself must simply be programmed out of society… can you imagine the hubris of this statement? Of course, it’s utterly impossible, but even if it were possible, the moment it was achieved, we would be violently conquered by the first nation to take up arms. It entirely fails the test of the Paradox of Tolerance.
Here, we continue the lesson plans to indoctrinate the older school-aged groups, and we introduce the necessity of staying quiet when you see or hear something you strongly disagree with — “silence, you!” Of course, this is not universal. We’ve already begun to identify, and will continue to really drive the point home with upcoming further lesson plans, that you are decidedly not supposed to keep quiet when somebody transgresses and becomes a “diminisher.” No, not even a little bit. We will continue to see explicit calls to vehemently socially oppose those people. So, who is supposed to just shut up? Us, of course. Do not criticize Leftist language — but you must stand strong and attack any Rightist (here, labeled “diminisher”).
We must digress for a moment to identify the sheer evil of teaching a 4-year-old child to, effectively, just accept abuse and stay quiet. Telling a child their abuser, be that abuser 4 or 40, is “still learning” and requiring submissiveness is absolutely intolerable cruelty.
Now, with the middle-school lesson on “compassion,” we see the blank-slate, Socialist presuppositions come into full view. Here, we are explicitly telling children that the “bad guy” is not really the bad guy, and, in fact, it’s the people who call the bad guy the “bad guy” who are the real bad guys: DIMINISHERS! This is the recipe for the anarcho-tyranny we are seeing all around us. This is how societies commit civilizational suicide, and it’s how young women learn to override their natural instincts and put themselves in harm’s way to advance the revolutionary cause. This was well highlighted in a recent survey circulated on X that identified that, when viewing people receiving punishment, the reaction of men is entirely different depending on whether the punishment is viewed as just, but women’s reactions to viewing the same punishments levied mattered none whether the punishment was just or not — they viewed the punishment as abhorrent regardless of the rationale for it.
Criminals, victims and society deserve justice. Justice is oriented towards, foremost, retribution. This is in accordance with God’s Law, and to teach what is found above is to directly oppose the Gospel. How can any Christian send their children to learn this?
Now, again, the final destination of this social engineering comes into full view, as the lesson explicitly demands we “let go of labels and judgements.” Take a moment to absorb and consider the absurdity of abandoning the use of judgment socially — then look around at the culture and tell me that this isn’t exactly what the Left has pushed, and achieved, in so many spheres of American life.
You cannot function in life without making discriminating judgments. Will you get onto the public transport with these people? Do I go to a bar late at night in this part of town? Who should I marry? Does this strange pitbull need a kiss on the face? Will I send my child to government-run schools?
Of course, again, these lessons don’t serve to entirely eliminate judgment. Rather, they seek to completely reorient that system of making judgments to bypass much of the higher faculties of mind (Logos), and implicate as many of the socially-mediated functions of mind as possible (Pathos) in order to advance the ethics of the Frankfurt School Marxists, and orient all hatred only against the traditional, the Christian, the “olds.”
More engineering towards creating compliant, yet politically-actionable Left-wing citizens in the name of “Light” versus Dark (“Shadow”). How can we miss the totalizing moral paradigm being presented here with this language? Our Constitutions, SCOTUS precedents, and various legislation all serve to guarantee that most of education, and certainly the realm of ethical development, remains the sole domain of the parent and, if they so choose (and they should), the Church. These people are actively, and with the most up-to-date scientific methods, inculcating a totalizing ethical framework in your children that is, quite likely, oppositional to your own.
And, for the last piece, we identify that they are coercing your children to sign pledges to abandon any ethics you have tried to pass on to them in favor of these socially-engineered, Leftist-Socialist, blank-slatist, highly esoterically spiritual ideals. This is no different than having a child pledge to Allah and Mohammed, and it’s in our public schools every single day. SEL is evil. These people are our enemy.
Authors’ and Speakers’ opinions are their own and may not represent those of Grok Media, LLC, GraniteGrok.com, its sponsors, readers, authors, or advertisers.
Disagree, agree, Got Something to Say, We Want to Hear It. Comment or submit Op-Eds to steve@granitegrok.com
