Topic: is attending public school like being sent to prison?
Almost all of the sob stories about public schooling are true. At least one of them is a serious error.
Public schools are not prisons. Not only are they not literal prisons, they are not even figurative prisons. A figurative prison is something that someone claims to be “pretty much the same” as a prison. Here’s the thing, though: how many prisons allow inmates to go home at the end of each day?
Indeed, do convicts get weekends off and a vacation every summer? “I’d rather not be here” does not a prison make. Not even “government tries to force me to be here” makes public school a prison — such an observation merely provides more evidence that governments are able to sustain their existence only through fraud.
Governments also try to force people in the military to never be AWOL. Soldiers are not in prison either, of course, although they have as little freedom as a typical public school student (or teacher for that matter). It is public school students and soldiers who have the most in common. Parents could choose to take their kid out of a public school, or the kid might simply skip class, while soldiers can always choose to go after Cacciato. Heading off to public school is like being inducted into the military, and that’s no coincidence.
Dialecticians certainly have done a number on civilization over the past thousand years. Are you wondering what a dialectician is? It’s someone who interprets the physical and metaphysical universe in a logic-based comparative way that ends up being less concrete but also more flexible than a grammarian’s interpretation. What’s a grammarian? It’s someone who interprets the physical and metaphysical universe in a logic-based eloquent way that makes careful use of both existing and invented words as well as their meanings and their perceived context — including not only the appropriate usage of parts-of-speech, but also metaphors and analogies and etymologies and other mechanisms for language-based analysis.
So, then, how is a dialectician associated with modern public schooling or the military? It all has to do with the regimentation of dumbed-down serfs. Any legitimate education requires a study of equal parts dialectics and grammar, plus rhetoric to learn how to “put it all together” in a way that will persuade others about the dialectical and grammarian interpretations. The NWO, obviously, wants no serf to earn a legitimate education of the type that Vincent of Beauvais described as offering the only possible remedies for the spiritual and material effects of each person’s ignorance, concupiscence (horniness) and knowledge of inescapable death:
For the obtaining of these three remedies [Wisdom as remedy for ignorance, Virtue as remedy for concupiscence and Economy as remedy for the scarcity of resources necessary to remain alive] every art and every disciplina was invented. In order to gain Wisdom, Theorica was devised; and Practica for the sake of Virtue; and for Need’s sake, Mechanica…. For the end and aim of all human actions and studies, which reason regulates, ought to look either to the reparation of the integrity of our nature or to alleviating the needs to which life is subjected…. Last found of all is Logic, source of eloquence, through which the wise who understand the aforesaid principal sciences and disciplines, may discourse upon them more correctly, truly, and elegantly; more correctly, through Grammar; more truly, through Dialectic; more elegantly, through Rhetoric.
No, life for an average man or woman in this New Age is to be as unchallenging as a diaper poop. Dangerous, perhaps, but unchallenging to the point of being preprogrammed, and therefore unfulfilling. One noted critic of NWO schoolmasters, Charlotte Iserbyt, summed up things well in her book The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America:
To repeat the theme of this book: We are human beings, not animals. We have free will. We can choose and build our futures, something animals are not capable of doing. Animals are justified in blaming their environment for their behavior! We, as human beings, with intellect, soul and conscience, do not have such justification.
Dialecticians and grammarians have been history’s ultimate attention-seekers. Each waxes or wanes as the other gains or loses influence. Neither dialectics nor grammar, though, could ever eliminate the other — it is impossible to be grammarian without making an effort at least to form coherent statements that bob on waves of interchanging praise and blame (otherwise everything is just stream-of-consciousness gibberish), and it is impossible to even describe dialectics without becoming grammarian about it all.
That hasn’t stopped the NWO from trying. All hail the “Enlightenment,” a luciferian term if ever there was one. What’s their point, their agenda? They want, simply, to turn everyone except themselves into worker drones who are incapable of independent analysis or any kind of thinking that might lead toward questioning NWO dominance. To be sure, their own children will continue to receive private tutoring that covers the entire Trivium (grammar, dialectics and rhetoric), but everyone else’s children are ripe for processing through a standardized factory system of churning out subservient instruction-followers.
Marshall McLuhan knew what was going on, even while he himself was still a student. His dissertation covered the Trivium and its key players from Antiquity through the Middle Ages. Yes, even centuries ago they were debating the merits of grammar vs. dialectics. The NWO was around all along, too, under various guises, forever preaching the so-called virtues of a school to work education that emphasizes dialectics over grammar.
The Grand Renaissance which traditionally is associated with Petrarch is, in the first place, the reassertion of the claims of grammar against the goths and huns of learning at Paris. From the point of view of the medieval grammarian, the dialectician was a barbarian. Thus it was Petrarch the grammarian glaring at the dialectical triumphs of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries who provided the modern journalist with his cliche, “the barbarism of the Middle Ages.”
Yes, McLuhan knew. That’s probably why most other academics disliked him, hated him even, and why the University of Toronto professor spent so much time traveling to extracurricular events and appearing on television and making cameos in films and generally trying to stay away from the Ivory Tower. Here is more from his dissertation:
Whereas, in the case of grammar and dialectics there is a poverty of scholarly studies, quite the reverse is true of ancient rhetoric. The field has been adequately explored but there has been no effort to perceive the central facts of the tradition as they were transmitted to the Middle Ages, and as they were handed on to the men of the Renaissance. This is partly owing to the lack of study of medieval rhetoric, but even more the result of failing to see that the matter becomes intelligible mainly in terms of the strife between grammarians and rhetoricians, dialecticians and grammarians, and rhetoricians and dialecticians.
Later, McLuhan added:
It is worth pausing to inquire who were the enemies of poetry and learning in the fourteenth century, if only because there are the same enemies bringing the same charges in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. First there are the ignorant “so garrulous and detestably arrogant that they presume to shout abroad their condemnation of everything that even the best men can do” (page 18) [from Boccacio on Poetry as edited by Charles Grosvenor Osgood]. The second group consists of “those who, without learning or taste, pretend to do both” (page 19). “They call the Muses fools and babblers, while Helicon, the Castalian spring, the grove of Phoebus and the like are the raving of lunatics, or mere elementary exercises in grammar” (page 21). Third comes a powerful and important class known to the Italian humanists alone: the civil lawyers. “Clients swarm at their heels, and they are conspicuous and influential men…by their help innocence is exalted, each man gets just rights, and the State is not only maintained in its natural strength, but, through an increasing tradition of justice, grows stronger and better. These men therefore deserve special reverence and honor” (pages 21-22). However, these men despise the muses because “poetry does not get wealth, thus hoping, as one may easily see, to separate it from all things worthy of imitation” (page 23). Medical men in Italy likewise despised grammarians and poets for their poverty, but Boccaccio passes them over. The fourth and very formidable class consists of the philosophers, the dialecticians, who scoff at the frivolity and mendacity of poets: “Thee enemies of poetry further utter the taunt that poets are liars” (page 62). This class of men, the Schoolmen, so powerful at Paris, was but little known in Italy, for Italy had never cultivated dialectics during the Middle Ages.
So there you have it, dialecticians, grammarians, and even rhetoricians (who claim that the interpretation is less important than creating a perception of wisdom through speechifying and who can often be found practising as attorneys-at-law and politicians) have always tried to one-up one another.
Thus, law, which shuns logic, but needs grammar and fosters rhetoric, paradoxically helped to produce the renaissance of dialectics [in the Middle Ages]. This emphasizes once more the complex bonds which join together the rival sisters of the Trivium.
The NWO, that nebulous syndicate of crime syndicates which once was called the Mystery School Tradition, has always provided a full-Trivium education for those within its own concentric circles while bankrolling the “Schoolmen” dialecticians to guide everyone else — even to the extent of creating “modern” universities at places like Paris and Oxford where “special” instructions would allow masses of “profane” students to matriculate and graduate with almost magical timeliness. Again, McLuhan provides insight:
A third reason for the decline [in medieval times] of ancient grammatica was the renewed interest in science, brought about by contact with the east during the Crusades. With extension of the subjects of interest the time available for the teaching of the big subject of the classics was steadily diminished. As in our own day, the substitution of handbooks for the classical texts was an inevitable resource. There thus arose a series of versified “new grammars” which supplanted Priscian and Donatus. Mnemonics became an important branch of learning in an age which produced rhymed charters, chronicles, sermons, and even Bibles. [As Paetow explains on page 35 of The Arts Course At Medieval Universities With Special Reference To Grammar And Rhetoric] “The following gloss, found in one of the new grammars, clearly states the demands of those times: ‘The metrical form which this author follows is better than prose which Priscian uses, and for these reasons: the metrical form can be more easily comprehended, it is more elegant, it is briefer, and can be remembered more easily.'”
What were the consequences of such dumbed-down handbooks? The NWO of the day loved them, that much is certain, because those simplified sets of instructions offered less concrete interpretations of the universe, which helped malignant secret societies hide well their secrets of malignancy. Even Plato admitted that by the time he was born the grammar vs. dialectics debate had been going on for more centuries than anyone could guess, and through the centuries between Plato and Paetow the NWO managed to trick enough people into ignoring the classics that entire generations became scholarly half-wits. Things got bad enough that Thomas Carlyle, writing in the early nineteenth century, considered it necessary to satirize the entire European university system and its insistence that aspiring professionals learn to wear the prescribed uniform of the dialectician.
Had you, any where in Crim Tartary, walled in a square enclosure; furnished it with a small, ill-chosen Library; and then turned loose into it eleven hundred Christian striplings, to tumble about as they listed, from three to seven years; certain persons, under the title of Professors, being stationed at the gates, to declare aloud that it was a University, and exact considerable admission fees, — you had, not indeed in mechanical structure, yet in spirit and result, some imperfect resemblance of our High Seminary. I say, imperfect; for if our mechanical structure was quite other, so neither was our result altogether the same: unhappily, we were not in Crim Tartary, but in a corrupt European city, full of smoke and sin; moreover, in the middle of a Public, which, without far costlier apparatus, than that of the Square Enclosure, and Declaration aloud, you could not be sure of gulling.
And gullible they were, and gullible they remain. That means kids are learning how to be dumbed-down instruction-followers by making sure to follow the instructions of adults who once themselves were kids learning how to be dumbed-down instruction-followers by making sure to follow the instructions of the previous generation’s dummies.
The dumbed-down instructors of dumber-by-the-year student bodies don’t particularly enjoy being told that they are dumb. That’s why they become political activists. No one is dumb, apparently, if everyone has the same amount of carefully-regulated sh*t floating between their ears. Dialectical analysis is, after all, about the regulations, about the rules, about the logic, dammit — but it still cannot exist, in reality, as a lone wolf discipline that excuses any person from knowing how to put words into reasonable analogical order for extended language-based analysis.
Here is what the Underground Grammarian himself, Richard Mitchell, recounted in his book Less Than Words Can Say regarding the logic of dumbed-down dialectical dummies trying to sound important:
There you sit, minding your own business and hurting no man. All at once, quite insensibly, the thing creeps into your brain. It might end up in the storage shelves of the subjunctive or the switchboard of the nonrestrictive clauses, of course, but in your case it heads for the cozy nook where the active and passive voices are balanced and adjusted. There it settles in and nibbles a bit here and a bit there. In our present state of knowledge, still dim, we have to guess that the active voice is tastier than the passive, since the destruction of the latter is very rare but of the former all too common.
So there you are with your active verbs being gnawed away. Little by little and only occasionally at first, you start saying things like: “I am told that . . .” and “This letter is being written because . . .” This habit has subtle effects. For one thing, since passives always require more words than actives, anything you may happen to write is longer than it would have been before the attack of the worm. You begin to suspect that you have a lot to say after all and that it’s probably rather important. The suspicion is all the stronger because what you write has begun to sound — well, sort of “official.” “Hmm,” you say to yourself, “Fate may have cast my lot a bit below my proper station,” or, more likely, “Hmm. My lot may have been cast by Fate a bit below my proper station.”
That worm is the handbook. That worm is the bureaucracy. That worm is the guild. Worse, that worm is the insecurity within each of us, tricking us into studying the handbooks and joining the guilds and kneeling before the bureaucracies. The NWO is trying to trick everyone into volunteering for serfdom by calling grammar “mere parts of speech” and dialectical handbooks “everyone’s reliable guide to obtaining a diploma, otherwise known as a permission slip for a job.”
Peer pressure helps with all the trickster dishonesty, the fabrication of existential insecurity by way of external browbeating that leaves each of us desperate to fit in with some artificial extension of ourselves called The Group. Such compartmentalization of the individual man or woman, the stuffing of each person into a “group” that is to become their very sense of identity, is an ongoing agenda of the dialecticians and their NWO taskmasters, an agenda that in recent centuries has become known as Cultural Marxism. Marx was a fraudster and a scumbag, of course, but detailed analysis of Marx the bourgeois parasite and his legacy of Cultural Marxism is beyond the scope of this particular emendator — for additional information about the subject, try starting here.
Recall that this emendator’s subject is public schools, and prisons, and the military, and their common — if imaginary — denominator: the State. Just where does the NWO intend to steer mankind as it attempts to enslave everyone? It’s not toward any prison. It is, instead, toward a cradle-to-grave system of military regimentation, preparing kids by way of public schools and their schoolmaster handbooks for a lifetime spent serving the one-world government as soldiers in domestic and cross-cultural affairs.
Oh, the State. Thousands of years of calling thousands of criminal enterprises either this or that kind of State in order to put a two-faced facade to the bald-faced falsehood that something called Divine Right or Social Contract could ever exist. Worse, those make-believe States always manage to bribe gullible people, using the gullible people’s own money [note: the doctor has since self-corrected historical misinformation regarding the nature of so-called money], all the while skimming more than a bit off the top, into accepting an all-too real government into their midst, a monster that “groupthink” Frankensteins stitched together from the metaphysical corpses of their former free will.
Forgive that youtube uploader for mistaking an instrumental bridge for a “cool long solo.” That is just another indication of how much people are being dumbed down with dialectics and commanded to ignore other elements of the Seven Liberal Arts — which include both the Trivium and Quadrivium (music, astronomy, arithmetic and geometry). Modern education is about learing how to follow the instructions of those who, as Thomas Carlyle put it, know which types of clothes to wear among the masses, who know how to follow instructions and fit in.
Around two hundred years ago, the NWO started granting this thing called a Ph.D to men who demonstrated that they understood how to “play the game,” so to speak. As Thomas Carlyle lamented, such career-path bureaucrats chose to wear the red and black of dialectics, to become those brazen Professors who shouted “University!” and looted entire populations of despairing parents. Ph.Ds created new Ph.Ds, conjuring a self-professed authority for granting titles of Professor, and like a mold they spread.
North American members of the NWO, with their spiffy new States, sent to Prussia shipfuls of sons of sons-of-bitches, who returned with ample training to train others in the craft of manipulating all aspiring students either toward the guild of that preprogrammed craft or toward the four winds. Entrepreneurs and other artists resisted the siege of these black-robed usurpers, but the NWO had its monstrous governments ready to intervene on behalf of its connected brethren. The rest has been a slippery slope toward today’s reality show gazers.
While I marvelled at these things in turn, now recognizing some earthly object, now lifting my soul upwards as my body had been, I thought of looking at the book of Augustine’s Confessions, the gift of your love … I opened the little volulme, of handy size but of infinite charm, in order to read whatever met my eye, for nothing could meet it but what was pious and devout. I opened it by chance at the tenth book, while my brother stood intent to hear Augustine speak by mouth. I call God to witness, and my listener too, that these were the words on which my eyes fell: “Men go abroad to admire the heights of mountains … and themselves they neglect.” I confess I was amazed: and begging my brother, who was eager to hear more, not to trouble me, I closed the book, indignant with myself that at that very moment I was admiring earthly things.
Petrarch, being a poet and grammarian, had many more important things to say about the differences between reality and the matrix, but it’s economist and historian Murray Rothbard who tipped off recent generations with his book Education: Free and Compulsory, so he gets to provide a final breeze of refreshing erudition (if not eloquence — note his common reliance on passive-voice sentence structure):
We need not linger long over the status of education in ancient Greece and Rome. In Athens, the original practice of compulsory state education later gave way to a voluntary system. In Sparta, on the other hand, an ancient model for modern totalitarianism, the State was organized as one vast military camp, and the children were seized by the State and educated in barracks to the ideal of State obedience. Sparta realized the full logical conclusion of the compulsory system; absolute State control over the “whole child”; uniformity and education in passive obedience to State orders. The most important consequence of this system was that it provided the ideal for Plato, who made this educational system the basis of his ideal State, as set forth in the Republic and the Laws. Plato’s “Utopia” was the first model for later despotisms — compulsory education and obedience were stressed, there was “communism” of children among the elite “guardians” who also had no private property, and lying was considered a proper instrument for the State to use in its indoctrination of the people.
It is hardly coincidence that the most notoriously despotic State in Europe — Prussia — was the first to have a national system of compulsory education, nor that the original inspiration, as we have seen, was Luther and his doctrine of obedience to State absolutism. As Mr. Twentyman put it: “State interference in education was almost coincident with the rise of the Prussian state.”
Hand in hand with the compulsory school system [in Prussia] went a revival and great extension of the army, and in particular the institution of universal compulsory military service.
Calvin E. Stowe, one of the prominent American educators of the day, wrote a report on the Prussian system and praised it as worthy of imitation here. Stowe lauded Prussia; although under the absolute monarchy of Frederick William III, it was the “best-educated” country in the world. Not only were there public schools in the elementary and higher grades, for pre-university and pre-business students, but also 1,700 teachers’ seminaries for the training of future state teachers. Furthermore, there were stringent laws obliging parents to send their children to the schools. Children had to attend the schools between the ages of seven and fourteen, and no excuses were permitted except physical inability or absolute idiocy. Parents of truants were warned, and finally punished by fines, or by civil disabilities, and as a last resort, the child was taken from its parents and educated and reared by the local authorities.
By the 1820s, [professional educator] goals of compulsion and statism were already germinating over [these United States], and particularly flourishing in New England, although the individualist tradition was still strong. One factor that increased the power of New England in diffusing the collectivist idea in education was the enormous migration from that area. New Englanders swarmed south and west out of New England, and carried their zeal for public schooling and for State compulsion with them.
Into this atmosphere was injected the closest that the country had seen to Plato’s idea, of full State communistic control over the children. This was the plan of two of the first socialists in America — Frances Wright and Robert Dale Owen. Owen was the son of one of the first British “Utopian” Socialists, and with Robert Owen, his father, had attempted an experiment in a voluntary-communist community in New Harmony, Indiana. Frances Wright was a Scotswoman who had also been at New Harmony, and with Owen, opened a newspaper called the Free Enquirer. Their main objective was to campaign for their compulsory education system. Wright and Owen outlined their scheme as follows: “It is national, rational, republican education; free for all at the expense of all; conducted under the guardianship of the State, and for the honor, the happiness, the virtue, the salvation of the state.”
The major aim of the plan was that equality be implanted in the minds, the habits, the manners, and the feelings, so that eventually fortunes and conditions would be equalized. Instead of the intricate apparatus of common schools, high schools, seminaries, etc., Wright and Owen advocated that the states simply organize a series of institutions for the “general reception” of all children living within that district. These establishments would be devoted to the complete rearing of the various age groups of children. The children would be forced to live at these places twenty-four hours a day. The parents would be allowed to visit their children from time to time. From the age of two every child would be under the care and guidance of the State.
The idea that the school should not simply teach subjects, but should educate the “whole child” in all phases of life, is obviously an attempt [by American bureaucrat-gangsters] to arrogate to the State all the functions of the home. It is an attempt to accomplish the molding of the child without actually seizing him as in the plans of Plato or Owen.
Seriously, if someone within earshot cries that courses in language and arts must be sacrificed for the greater good of teaching math and science to all kids (note the presumption that such a crier would cry with a passive voice — implying that others need to take care of all the proverbial dirty work), tell them to double-time it back to grammar school.