Friday, January 28, 2005
New Recommended Readings
(1) Beverly Eakman, "It's About Legitimacy, Stupid"
This article surveys reasons for the breakdown in confidence parents have had in the kinds of theories and methodologies touted by educationologists all these years. These theories have their roots in a combination of bad psychology and Marxian leftism, and its aim has been transformative: to prepare children for life under the New World Order (as I argued in "The Real Matrix"). This means that certain stances are unacceptable (Christianity, for instance), while others are quietly promoted (Marxism, to promote "legitimacy" for ideas and practices that don't merit real legitimacy). Yes, Virginia, Marxism is very much alive and doing very well in the circles where it has taken root and can thrive, such as educationology.
I should note my gratitude to Bev Eakman for citing me twice in her article, one of the citations to my long lost book Civil Wrongs which almost cost me my academic career.
(2) This is a good time to go back and read Bev Eakman's debut article for NewsWithViews.com, "So You Want To Be An 'Education Candidate'." She "fling[s] down the gauntlet" and poses the questions that ought to be asked of anyone running for public office regarding government-sponsored schools. Such as: "What do education experts consider the primary purpose of education?" (Answer, from educationologist Dr. Benjamin Bloom: "To change the students' fixed beliefs.")
(3) Joan Veon discusses the Davos Culture (or if one prefers, the Radical Capitalist Class or the Globalist Class) in "The World Economic Forum: Facilitating a New World Order." The rich and powerful--interested only in more money and more power, with no loyalty to nation or school of thought--meet in Davos, Switzerland annually to continue their efforts to take over the world by controlling more and more of its finances. Veon writes: "This year CEOs are being given a crash course in 'world government.' French President Jacques Chirac delivered the opening address and called for a global tax to pay for helping poor countries out of poverty." The United Nations continues to be the instrument of choice the global elites are using to further their agenda, via the Global Compact originally formed in Davos (1999).
The U.S. really needs to get out of the United Nations and order it off our soil!
(4) The New American has interviewed top educationology watchdog Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt here. This interview has been around for a while, but is always worth revisiting. Iserbyt discusses how she got started, how as she learned more and more of the transformative nature of government-sponsored education and of the guiding philosophy of educationology--to prepare children for life under the New World Order--she determined to do something about it. The result was her masterpiece, the deliberate dumbing down of america.
(5) Silvia Ribeiro's "The costs of 'Walmartization'" is likely to be controversial. Some economic purists would describe Wal-Mart as the pinnacle of capitalist success, providing what people want at prices they can afford. The loss of locally owned 'Mom-and-Pop' stores all across America is the price paid for economic progress: the Schumpeterian term creative destruction applies. But there is always a choice to be made. Do we wish to remain economic purists--intellectuals living in a realm of pure economic theory--or do we wish to realize that the masses' choices, based indeed on their values--have larger causes and motivations we can understand (including in terms of the national dumb-down)? The latter invariably involves the realization that culture is important, too, including the progressive loss of anything resembling a distinctively American culture, including American-made products. Moreover, things I have occasionally bought in Wal-Mart have almost invariably fallen apart in a matter of months. Some think of many people's predilections for "shoddy products" as a sign of rising prosperity (Lew Rockwell illustrates this argument here, in a piece worth reading as a well-argued counterpoint to my thoughts here). I know that I, not inclined to be a purist in all things, considered the rapid deterioration of my glider rocker to be a colossal pain in the arse--as well as the need to locate a replacement (something I have not yet done). Perhaps I'm old fashioned in my predilection for products that last, as opposed to things that fall apart. Perhaps I'm not "prosperous" in the material since (philosophers seldom are, I've discovered). But perhaps this material "prosperity" will be discovered upon closer attention to be a chimera, as we realize that the masses' economic values can be evaluated and sometimes evaluated negatively. While I remain mostly within the fold of Austrian school economics, I am not altogether sure that the subjective theory of economic value is altogether correct. If some economic values are indeed superior to others for specifiable noneconomic reasons, that means that pure theory must be supplemented by incorporating cultural factors--including factoring the national dumb-down into the overall equation.
This article surveys reasons for the breakdown in confidence parents have had in the kinds of theories and methodologies touted by educationologists all these years. These theories have their roots in a combination of bad psychology and Marxian leftism, and its aim has been transformative: to prepare children for life under the New World Order (as I argued in "The Real Matrix"). This means that certain stances are unacceptable (Christianity, for instance), while others are quietly promoted (Marxism, to promote "legitimacy" for ideas and practices that don't merit real legitimacy). Yes, Virginia, Marxism is very much alive and doing very well in the circles where it has taken root and can thrive, such as educationology.
I should note my gratitude to Bev Eakman for citing me twice in her article, one of the citations to my long lost book Civil Wrongs which almost cost me my academic career.
(2) This is a good time to go back and read Bev Eakman's debut article for NewsWithViews.com, "So You Want To Be An 'Education Candidate'." She "fling[s] down the gauntlet" and poses the questions that ought to be asked of anyone running for public office regarding government-sponsored schools. Such as: "What do education experts consider the primary purpose of education?" (Answer, from educationologist Dr. Benjamin Bloom: "To change the students' fixed beliefs.")
(3) Joan Veon discusses the Davos Culture (or if one prefers, the Radical Capitalist Class or the Globalist Class) in "The World Economic Forum: Facilitating a New World Order." The rich and powerful--interested only in more money and more power, with no loyalty to nation or school of thought--meet in Davos, Switzerland annually to continue their efforts to take over the world by controlling more and more of its finances. Veon writes: "This year CEOs are being given a crash course in 'world government.' French President Jacques Chirac delivered the opening address and called for a global tax to pay for helping poor countries out of poverty." The United Nations continues to be the instrument of choice the global elites are using to further their agenda, via the Global Compact originally formed in Davos (1999).
The U.S. really needs to get out of the United Nations and order it off our soil!
(4) The New American has interviewed top educationology watchdog Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt here. This interview has been around for a while, but is always worth revisiting. Iserbyt discusses how she got started, how as she learned more and more of the transformative nature of government-sponsored education and of the guiding philosophy of educationology--to prepare children for life under the New World Order--she determined to do something about it. The result was her masterpiece, the deliberate dumbing down of america.
(5) Silvia Ribeiro's "The costs of 'Walmartization'" is likely to be controversial. Some economic purists would describe Wal-Mart as the pinnacle of capitalist success, providing what people want at prices they can afford. The loss of locally owned 'Mom-and-Pop' stores all across America is the price paid for economic progress: the Schumpeterian term creative destruction applies. But there is always a choice to be made. Do we wish to remain economic purists--intellectuals living in a realm of pure economic theory--or do we wish to realize that the masses' choices, based indeed on their values--have larger causes and motivations we can understand (including in terms of the national dumb-down)? The latter invariably involves the realization that culture is important, too, including the progressive loss of anything resembling a distinctively American culture, including American-made products. Moreover, things I have occasionally bought in Wal-Mart have almost invariably fallen apart in a matter of months. Some think of many people's predilections for "shoddy products" as a sign of rising prosperity (Lew Rockwell illustrates this argument here, in a piece worth reading as a well-argued counterpoint to my thoughts here). I know that I, not inclined to be a purist in all things, considered the rapid deterioration of my glider rocker to be a colossal pain in the arse--as well as the need to locate a replacement (something I have not yet done). Perhaps I'm old fashioned in my predilection for products that last, as opposed to things that fall apart. Perhaps I'm not "prosperous" in the material since (philosophers seldom are, I've discovered). But perhaps this material "prosperity" will be discovered upon closer attention to be a chimera, as we realize that the masses' economic values can be evaluated and sometimes evaluated negatively. While I remain mostly within the fold of Austrian school economics, I am not altogether sure that the subjective theory of economic value is altogether correct. If some economic values are indeed superior to others for specifiable noneconomic reasons, that means that pure theory must be supplemented by incorporating cultural factors--including factoring the national dumb-down into the overall equation.
