As we saw in “Programs” the left includes quasi-educational elements in its social conditioning programs. But what about the educational system itself?
“Education” throughout history has not meant learning science, math, or vetted historical facts, or analyzing and debating literature, but religious education. The student studied scriptures, or scriptural languages, or philosophy that related to religion. The most likely employment after this education would be as a cleric. Some rich families might send their sons to school simply for edification, or graduates might also be teachers. In Anglo-Saxon countries a graduate might read law afterwards.
The university as we know it today- a place where scientists work and teach as well- is a German invention of the 19th century. Until the late 19th century, or even early 2oth century, I don’t think most scientists had university postings. Even today a great many colleges are bible colleges. Other colleges and universities teach a large amount of material that may be described as “non-falsifiable”- literature and cultural studies. These aren’t necessarily value-laden, but unlike science- which is neither Christian or Marxist, but just science- they can be and in today’s environment usually are.
On top of this we have the “social sciences”- psychology, sociology, and economics- which are largely used to promote blatantly false left-wing ideas.
Now let me talk about another aspect of education, starting with an ancient custom of the Anglo-Saxons, and maybe other northern Europeans, “fostering”. Among the aristocracy, a family might be offered the opportunity to send a son to be raised in the household of a higher-ranking family, or even the king. Why would they do this? The boy would have the opportunity to make social connections with more powerful people. His family would benefit from this connection as well, and the fostering family would strengthen its support with an ally.
The English public school can be seen as an extension of this. Boys were sent away- since serious education couldn’t be conducted very well on an individual basis in widely scattered estates, although a family might have been able to hire a tutor- but also the boys grew up with others of their social class, being indoctrinated in its values and making strong bonds with others that would benefit them throughout life. These were often nasty places, but surviving the bullying and abuse was an expected part of a young upper-class Englishman’s passage to manhood.
When one goes away for school, one is not just getting an education but a significant, perhaps life-altering social experience- which is often presumed to be part of the education.
Combining these two things- an intense socializing experience and mental training in values- we have a powerful force for shaping and controlling the human mind and spirit that is not necessarily designed to make the individual smarter or more productive. John Dewey was fairly explicit about this. As he states-
“The teacher is not in the school to impose certain ideas or to form certain habits in the child, but is there as a member of the community to select the influences which shall affect the child and to assist him in properly responding to these influences.”
Sounds an awful like imposing and forming habits to me!
I would like to think of an educational institution as a kind of intellectual gymnasium a word for a school in some places- where you go to work your mind and become stronger, gaining muscle, improving flexibility, and losing fat. And some places may be like that; but we can see that now and in most times and places education has served the social system rather than the individual.