The Hierophant

Primary Education & Teacher Training

“The ultimate problem of all education is to coordinate the psychological and the social factors ... The coordination demands that the child be capable of expressing himself, but in such a way as to realize social ends.

John Dewey


In The Last Chuckle I had asked the rhetorical question, “Who teaches the teachers?” I never really answered that question in my first book, so I am telling you now. The answer is: “the Teacher Colleges.”

Silly me. So obvious -- “the Teacher Colleges” -- that I hadn't even bothered (in those pre-Internet days) to look and see if such existed! So I set out to find one of these mysterious institutions, to learn how they have been training our young adults (primarily our sisters and daughters) who have chosen to pursue teaching as a career. I stumbled across Converse College in Spartanburg, South Carolina, and acquired some of their literature. On pages 53-54 of their 1993-1995 Graduate Catalog, I found the following eleven “Common Objectives for Teacher Education”:

  1. The teacher will develop an understanding of the history of education in the United States and the leaders, ideas, and movements in the development and organization of education in the United States.

  2. The teacher will develop an understanding not only of the process of human growth, development, and learning but also of the application of these processes to teaching.

  3. The teacher will promote constructive interaction among different ethnic, social, religious, economic, and racial groups.

  4. The teacher will develop a knowledge of the theoretical and methodological aspects of instruction: a) appropriate to the chosen area of teaching and b) in keeping with current research on teaching, effective schools and learning theory.

  5. The teacher will have participated in actual behavioral situations that require integration of theory and practice.

  6. The teacher will develop specific techniques of teaching in order to work effectively and professionally with pupils, teachers, administrators, and parents.

  7. Through study and practicums the teacher will develop self-confidence, positive and constructive attitudes to promote self-esteem and to encourage confidence and healthy self-concepts in students.

  8. The teacher will develop a professional approach to instruction which recognizes the individuality [sic] of students of various ethnic, social, economic, religious and racial backgrounds, the relationship of theory and practice, and the need for a wide diversity of educational methods and materials in the classroom.

  9. The teacher will develop a knowledge of measurement and evaluation, effective teacher characteristics, teaching styles and models, communication processes, diagnostic-prescriptive teaching, techniques of teaching reading, classroom management skills, and methods and techniques applicable to her/his [sic] particular area(s) of specialization.

  10. The teacher will develop the process skills of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.

  11. The teacher will develop an understanding of educational research and the manner by which educational research is conducted.

    On reading this document, the first thing that strikes me is its language, the jargon:

    “... the process of human growth and current behavioral situations, methodological research, practicums, and techniques: educational research into the synthesis of diagnostic-prescriptive modifications and context-specific diversity models.”

    These words, in themselves, reek of manipulation, pseudo-science and duplicity. People who think and speak in such terms are the last characters that I would want to have hanging around my children. Please observe that there is not one word about initiative, critical thinking, pursuit of knowledge, wisdom or the love of learning, nor is there any mention of virtue, courage, self-discipline, strength of character, scholarship or integrity.

    The only mention of development refers to “the process” (a term of experimental psychology) and “applying the process” to the profession of teaching. In fact, the entire list of objectives is an example of Orwellian circular logic; it keeps turning back into itself, as if to say, “You don't need to ask; you don't need to know.”

    Maybe we should be asking questions. The first that comes to mind is this: “Exactly what are these people trying to do with our children?”

    The only direct reference to students, and what the teacher is supposed to do with them, can be found in Objective Seven (7): “Through study and practicums the teacher will develop self-confidence, positive and constructive attitudes to promote self-esteem [Hint: I thought this was the job of parents] and to encourage confidence and healthy self-concepts in students.”

    Clearly, that has nothing to do with Math, Science or English. What used to be History is now called Social Sciences, which means that they will construct whatever kind of History they need in order to induce the desired “healthy self-concepts”. That means if your son or daughter doesn't want to rap & jive & wear baggy pants falling down with the crotch around their knees, this requires intervention. It means if a negro or Mexican can't keep up with the whites, the curriculum is Eurocentric. It means if your daughter wants to be a nurse -- or still worse, a mother -- she is a victim of stereotyping and needs counselling. They will brainwash her into becoming a teacher. It means if your children resist their “diagnostic-prescriptive teaching”, then they are being hyperactive and need to be drugged with Ritalin, which teachers are allowed to prescribe!

    It means everything they say it does. What are these “positive and constructive attitudes”, as if we didn't know? Isn't this the same “kiddie trash” that we see on Barney and Sesame Street? Are these not key words that mean the same thing as “Political Correctness”? No wonder SAT scores keep falling! The professional educators are not interested in academic achievement; their singular concern is in shaping attitudes, and conditioning behavior.

    It matters not what your child knows, it's all about how your child feels. And what is this “self-esteem” that we keep hearing so much about? In the old days, we had a concept called “self-respect”, meaning that one measured himself against some kind of standard. The fact that a person holds himself to a particular standard of conduct, performance or character implies that he has some sense of purpose and destiny in his life, a reason not to be content with mediocrity. “Self-esteem” knows no standard. It simply means that one “feels good” about himself and whatever it is that he happens to be doing. It is the fifteen-year old boy who “feels good” because he just had sex with a cheerleader. It means a fourteen-year old girl who feels good about herself because she has breasts and happens to be the teacher's pet. Its about a twelve-year old black boy who feels good because he is wearing sneakers with lights on them.

    Which brings us to Objective Eight (8): “The teacher will develop a professional approach to instruction which recognizes the individuality [sic] of students of various ethnic, social, economic, religious and racial backgrounds, the relationship of theory and practice, and the need for a wide diversity of educational methods and materials in the classroom.” I especially like the part about recognizing “individuality” according to group-classification. Why should there be any need for “diversity of educational methods and materials” in any particular classroom? Could this mean there is some kind of a dual standard? Are they trying to tell us that there is Black Math and White Math? Chinee English and White English? Jewish Physics and Latino Physics? Are they suggesting that various groups of students need to be graded by different sets of standards? Or are they perhaps suggesting that students should not be graded at all, lest we discover that racial and ethnic discrepancies persist? Are they insisting that white children must be inculcated with Hindu, Vietnamese, Spanish and “African-American” culture before they can be considered “educated”?

    The answer to these questions are provided in Objective Three (3): “The teacher will promote constructive interaction among different ethnic, social, religious, economic, and racial groups.” All of the questions raised in the previous paragraph are correct in their implications. The multicultural agenda that I have been referring to throughout this paper is here confirmed, and we can see that the Educational Complex is synchronized with the Media, the global mass culture and the Zionist multicultural agenda. It is reasonable to presume that this concurrence is neither accidental nor circumstantial, but that it has been carefully orchestrated to accomplish a specific objective. Until proven otherwise, it is reasonable to presume that this objective entails the destruction of the white race and “Eurocentric” culture in America.

    More frightening still is what they have in mind to replace “Eurocentrism” with, by means of “diagnostic-prescriptive” methodology via mass media. It is already here, right under our noses on MTV, which is so full of their multicultural trash we should be up and at arms. We needn't look any further. Does anyone still wonder why schools are not handing out homework assignments any more? The answer is simple: the kids are doing their homework every night -- by watching MTV! That is the purpose of our public school system. That is why PBS touts itself as “your lifetime learning center” and asks, “If we don't do it, who will?”

    So why do we need to hire certified professional teachers to instruct our kids? What does it take to teach 6th-grade math? I should think a 7th-grade level of math proficiency. Why must we hire “certified” professional educators, and no one else, and without regard to their own mathematical aptitude? The answer is clear: it is not their purpose to teach, but to coordinate classroom activities with ongoing psychological research. It is by means of social conditioning that they are creating the New World Order. These people are not so much teachers as they are social engineers, or social-technicians.

    In The Last Chuckle Revealed I did a segment on the Wundtian experimental psychologists who, in America, were financed by the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Institute for Progressive Education and other philanthropic foundations; and how these have ties, through Columbia University, directly to He-Khabbalot Yahudim. The Wundtians had been hand-chosen, at the turn of the century, and financed for the specific purpose of constructing a public education system that would begin the process of psycho-conditioning of the masses. This was the first step toward creating the world-proletariat.

    Earlier, in the mid-nineteenth century, the term psychology had simply meant the study of the soul (psyche). More than anyone else, it was Wilhelm Maximilian Wundt who transformed this academic pursuit into a modern science. In 1856, at the age of 24, he graduated from Heidelberg University as a medical doctor and stayed on as a professor of psychology. In 1874 he moved to Zurich, and a year later accepted a chair of philosophy at the University of Leipzig. It was here that he built his reputation as the “Father of Experimental Psychology”.

    His thread of logic ran something like this: Study of the “soul” is pointless speculation, because the soul cannot be measured. Science is about what we can measure. In scientific terms therefore, the soul becomes the mind, and the mind is really only the brain, and the brain is just an extension of the central nervous system, which is something that can be measured and quantized, by scientific procedures, and so that is what we are.


    The following narrative is condensed from “The Leipzig Connection”, by Paolo Lionni (interestingly, a Jew -- and notice how the title “The Columbia Connection” would have been far more appropriate for his work), published by the Delphian Press:

    Wundt asserted that man is devoid of spirit and self-determinism. He set out to prove that man is the summation of his experiences, of the stimuli which intrude upon his consciousness and unconsciousness ... To the experimental psychologist, education became the process of exposing the student to “meaningful” experiences so as to ensure desired reactions:

    (quoting Wundt) “... learning is a result of modifiability in the paths of neural conduction. Explanations of even such forms of learning as abstraction and generalization demand of the neurones only growth, excitability, conductivity, and modifiability. The mind is the connection-system of man; and learning is the process of connecting. The situation response formula is adequate to cover learning of any sort, and the really influential factors in learning are readiness of the neurones, sequence in time, belongingness, and satisfying consequences”

    Pintner, Rudolph, et al.,
    An Outline of Educational Psychology, rev. ed.
    New York: Barnes & Noble, 1934

    If one assumes (as did Wundt) that there is nothing to begin with but a body, a brain, and a nervous system, then one must try to educate by inducing sensations in that nervous system. Through these experiences, the individual will learn to respond to any given stimulus, with the “correct” response. The child is not, for example, thought capable of volitional control over his actions, or of deciding whether he will act or not act in a certain way; his actions are thought to be preconditioned and beyond his control, because he is a stimulus-response mechanism.

    G. Stanley Hall, the first of Wundt's students to return to America, joined the faculty of Baltimore's Johns Hopkins University, where he founded the psychology laboratory and, in 1887, he established the American Journal of Psychology. In 1889 Hall was chosen to be the first president of Clark University in Worcester, Massacheussets and, in 1892, he played a leading role in founding the American Psychological Association. He became known for his intensive studies of child development and, in 1904, he published his masterwork, Adolescence: Its Psychology and Its Relations to Physiology, Anthropology, Sociology, Sex, Crime, Religion, and Education.

    John Dewey received his doctorate from Johns Hopkins in 1884, where he had studied under Hall, and in 1886 (the same year the National Education Association was formed), while a professor at Michigan, published Psychology, the first American textbook on the subject. In late 1895 he was invited to join the faculty of he Rockefeller-endowed University of Chicago, as head of the departments of philosophy, psychology and pedagogy (teaching the young).

    [Ed. note: These people are considered to be “great philosophers”.]

    “The ultimate problem of all education is to coordinate the psychological and the social factors ... The coordination demands that the child be capable of expressing himself, but in such a way as to realize social ends.

    John Dewey
    Plan of Organization
    of the University Primary School
    University of Chicago

    James McKeen Cattell had the distinction of being Wundt's first assistant and, later, the most effective publicist and promoter of the revised psychology. In 1891 Cattell joined the faculty of Columbia University as professor of psychology and head of Columbia's new psychology department, a critical position for the union of psychology and education. To promote the new “science” of experimental psychology, Cattell created publications which would carry the subject to educators and scientists across the country. During his twenty-five years at Columbia, Cattell supervised 344 successful doctorial candidates in psychology, (and) they directly influenced the fusion of experimental psychology and American education.

    James Earl Russell, a student of Wundt's who received his doctorate from Leipzig in 1894, came to Columbia University in October, 1897, five years after the New York College for the Training of Teachers had received its permanent charter as Columbia's Teacher's College. Russell had already occupied positions of administrative responsibility having been, while at Leipzig, an official European Agent for the Federal Bureau of Education (then located in the Department of the Interior). Appointed head of the department of psychology and general method, Russell directed the central department at Teachers College. That same year, Russell became dean of the College. He would run it for the next thirty years.

    Working closely with Cattell, Russell began to hire a faculty. It was the hiring by Russell of another practitioner of this new fad, however, that was to result in Columbia's becoming the connection for a fatal dose of Wundtian psychology into the mainline of American education. Edward Lee Thorndike, whose primary assumption, like Wundt's, was that man is an animal, and that his actions are always reactions. In The Principles of Teaching Based on Psychology (1906), Thorndike proposed making the study of teaching scientific and practical. This is his definition of the art of teaching:

    “... the art of giving and withholding stimuli with the result of producing or preventing certain responses ...The aim of the teacher is to produce desirable and prevent undesirable changes in human beings by producing and preventing certain responses. The means at the disposal of the teacher are the stimuli which can be brought to bear upon the pupil, - the teacher's words, gestures, and appearance, the condition and appliances of the school room, the books to be used and objects to be seen, and so on through a long list of the things and events which the teacher can control.”

    Thorndike, Edward L.,
    The Principles of teaching Based on Psychology

    “Subjects such as arithmetic, language and history include content that is intrinsically of little value.”

    Thorndike, Edward L., and Arthur I. Gates
    Elementary Principles of Education
    New York: Macmillan, 1929

    It took hundreds of millions of dollars to turn American education around in that short a period of time. Where did the money that inflamed this epidemic come from?

    The answer, it must be admitted, is enough to make one feel distinctly uneasy. The new psychology tapped the richest existing vein of American philanthropy and, in short order, won for itself the backing of almost unlimited funds. John D. Rockefeller, at the time the richest man in the world and himself a Baptist had, over the years, given sums of money to Baptist causes. By the late 1880s, the church elders felt bold enough to ask Rockefeller to contribute to the rebuilding of the University of Chicago, a Baptist school founded in 1856 as the Morgan Park Theological Seminary. It was during this involvement with the university that he met Frederick Taylor Gates, a Baptist minister who had previously worked for George A. Pillsbury, founder of the flour empire, in distributing Pillsbury's last philanthropies before his death.

    Rockefeller was impressed by Gates' directness and by the manner in which he handled financial affairs. Consequently besieged by requests for money, Rockefeller asked Gates to work for him and take the burden of philanthropic decisions off his hands.

    Working with Gates, John D. Rockefeller Jr. was captivated by the possibilities of a Negro Education Board. After preliminary discussions, however, he decided not to limit the educational “philanthropy” program to one race. Thus, at a dinner party on January 15, 1902, Junior laid out his plans to charter a new organization called the general Education Board for “the promotion of education within the United states without distinction of race, sex, or creed.”

    “In our dreams, we have limitless resources and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present education conventions fade from their minds, and unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive rural folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning, or men of science. We have not to raise up from among them authors, editors, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we have an ample supply. The task we set before ourselves is very simple as well as a very beautiful one, to train these people as we find them to a perfectly ideal life just where they are. So we will organize our children and teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way, in the homes, in the shops and on the farm.”

    Frederick Taylor Gates
    Occasional Letter No. 1
    General Education Board

    [You must forgive us, should we express the greatest contempt for those bleeding hearts who demand we spend millions on the sorriest crack-babies they can find, telling us, “One of these might might be another Beethoven!” --G.S.]

    To Dewey and Thorndike, the schoolroom was a “great laboratory” in which to do their research and refine “the modification of instincts and capabilities into habits and powers.” Yet there was no large laboratory school at Columbia's Teachers College - not until 1917, when an offer to establish such a laboratory school came from Abraham Flexner of the General Education Board.

    Educated at Johns Hopkins University, Flexner later became a researcher for the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. In 1913, Flexner left the Carnegie Foundation and went to work for the General Education Board, first as assistant secretary for four years, then as secretary (principal executive officer) running the operations of the Board for eight years in partnership with its president, Wallace Buttrick. (Later, in 1928, Flexner resigned from his position as a trustee of the General Education Board in order to devote all of his time to the establishment and operation of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Study, which was later home to both the Manhattan Project and the alleged Philadelphia Experiment.)

    Flexner saw more clearly than any other how the money of the Board could be used to further Progressive Education. In 1916 he presented his plan to create a laboratory school at the Columbia Teachers College that would be a showplace for the Progressive Education practices of Dewey and Thorndike. Flexner had wanted to call it “The Modern School”, but the phrase was so disliked that he decided to name it the Lincoln School. [An ironic twist: Lincoln had been self-taught. --G.S.] Wundtian psychology and Rockefeller money were now combined in an institution whose goal “was the construction of new curricula and the development of new methods.” His experimental school would eliminate the study of Latin and Greek. Literature and history would not be completely abolished, but new methods would be instituted for teaching these subjects. Classical literature would be ignored, and formal English grammar would be dropped. [I be, you be, we be. --G.S.]

    In the words of Harold Rugg, a disciple of Dewey:

    “... through the schools of the world we shall disseminate a new conception of government - one that will embrace all of the collective activities of men; one that will postulate need for scientific control and operation of economic activities in the interests of all people. [Rugg proceeds to enumerate how this will be accomplished]. First and foremost, the development of a new philosophy of life and education which will be fully appropriate to the new social order; Second, the building of an adequate plan for the production of a new race of educational workers; Third, the making of new activities and materials for the curriculum.”

    Stormer, John A.
    None Dare Call It Treason
    Liberty Bell Press, 1964

    [As noted above, the narratives were abridged by this editor from The Leipzig Connection, by Paolo Lionni, available from the Delphi House]


    Our worst fears are confirmed. There is a conspiracy, it is infinitely malevolent, and it has been active for well over a hundred years. In fact, it reaches back across nearly two millennia. The destruction that these people have wrought upon our world is inestimable. When we look around us today, at the uncertainty of our future, the circumstances of our employment, the conditions under which we live and struggle to survive, we must understand that there is a reason why things are as they are. So much has been done to bring this about conscientiously, with malicious intent, that there has never been, nor is there ever likely to be, a more just or deserving cause for us to declare a state of war.

    Could it really be any worse than this?

    In The Last Chuckle I wrote that these schools should be burnt to the ground, that not one stone be left standing upon the other, and that the ground where they once stood should be salted so that the scar would remain, as a reminder to posterity that we must never again allow such institutions to rise from our midst. “Et universitae deletri sunt. (And the universities must be annihilated.) That is the dragon's lair,” I wrote, “First remove the Pearl of Great Price (the ancient scrolls and manuscripts locked in their vaults), and then burn the dragon in its lair.”

    Some people thought that was a bit radical.

    My point was this: There is a dragon in our land, laying waste to our crops. I say, “Kill it.” You answer me that it would be better to reform the creature, to harness it and make it repair the damage it has wrought. I say to you, “Kill it. If you have not the strength or the courage to do this, what makes you think that you can harness the beast?”

    Maybe I was wrong. The metaphor is perhaps inappropriate. An alternative might possibly exist. We hope.

    There is a new movement on the rise, home schooling, where the parents are beginning to take over the role of teachers. It requires organization and commitment to bring about this kind of challenge to the Governing System. Thus far, it has been the Christians who have undertaken the task, it being my impression that the home schooling movement is fundamentally Christian.

    In fact, the Christians have been working in this direction for a long time. It is something of a tradition, considering that most universities began as denominational institutions. Even as the older colleges had become secularized, newer Christian institutions, like Oral Roberts University, have continued the fundamentalist tradition.

    Therein lies the problem: fundamentalism. Just recently, for example, the Tennessee legislature passed a “monkey law” requiring the immediate dismissal of any teacher who presented evolution as fact, notwithstanding that the modern technologies of gene splicing and genetic engineering have become commonplace applications of that “unproven theory”. Nor does creationism explain the anomaly of dinosaurs in a world that was created in 4004 BC. Are the dragon-slayers themselves turning into dragons?

    It would seem so. The root of the conundrum is this: it takes a great deal of organization and effort to build a contra-education system, which is the proper solution to the problem. It seems that the only organizations we have that can accomplish such a task are our churches, and it is understandable why it would be the more radical, or fundamentalist, of the churches that actually take up the challenge and begin to establish these new schools. Right solution, wrong people:

    “A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; knowing that he is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself”

    Paul of Tarsus
    Epistle to Titus, 3:10-11

    Christians, especially those of the fundamentalist ilk, have a nasty way of deprecating and ostracizing anyone who, in their opinion, does not “believe”. Their sole purpose in life is “saving souls”, a divinely-ordained mission to be accomplished by whatever means necessary. Self-assured of their moral superiority by reason of having been “saved”, their only concern towards another human being is whether that person has also been “saved”. Their religion represents the triumph of belief over knowledge, of faith over learning and of passion over reason. As we have already described, Pauline Christianity is fundamentally a Bible-cult, and within this society, ignorance has been made into a virtue. It has been said, regarding fundamentalism, that “If a book says something that is already stated in the Bible, it is redundant, and if a book says something that is not in the Bible, it is irrelevant.”

    It is a tragic situation. On the one hand we have the mind-control of experimental psychologists endeavoring to construct the perfect socialized state; on the other, we have the mind-control of Christian fundamentalists endeavoring to construct the perfect theocratic state.

    So maybe I was right about the dragons after all.

    This is not to say that all Christians are fundamentalist, though I do recollect a recent study indicating that 26% of Americans identify themselves as Evangelical Christians (Baptist, Adventist, Pentecostals, Charismatics and other sects very close to fundamentalism), 24% as Roman Catholics and 17% as mainstream Protestant (Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian and Episcopalian). My point is that fundamentalism is growing within the Christian community, that fundamentalists tend to be the most active among Christians, and therefore any Christian movement, including home-education and alternative schools, is subject to fundamentalist influence.

    But we're getting ahead of ourselves once again. We have viewed a part of the problem, and have glimpsed a solution that is on the brink of going awry. Let us proceed back to the problem. We must understand the nature of this beast before we talk any more about solutions.


    parable

    Back to Grugyn Silverbristle

    Back to Beyond Conspiracy.

    “Non silba, sed anthar.”


    “”