THE POLITICAL CORRUPTION OF AMERICAN EDUCATION
by Kirk Brothers
CLICK HERE to return to Index
INTRODUCTION
Goethe wrote: "All intelligent thoughts have already been
thought; what is necessary is only to try to think them again."
Naturally Goethe was not the first man to think that intelligent
thought: Ecclesiastes I.9 reads that "there is no new thing under
the sun."
Thus I can make no claim of originality in what I say in
this series of articles--except for any choice of old words with
which I restate classical ideas. It has been wittily said that
stealing from one author is plagiarism, but stealing from many is
research. In that sense these articles will be well researched!
WHY A LIBERTARIAN PRIMER?
Some readers might find the idea of a Libertarian primer a
bit ridiculous at first glance. Why bother with a primer, they
might ask--why should Libertarians need such a book? After all,
don't we know very well what Libertarianism is about? So let me
state my reasons--and the purpose of this first of three short
chapters.
Originally, of course, a primer (rhymes with "dimmer") was a
small book used in elementary schools for the purpose of teaching
children to read by the phonics method--memorizing the basic
sounds of letters, and "sounding out" words as they were spelled
from left to right. A child learned phonics after having first
acquired a surprisingly large oral vocabulary in pre-school years
--and after mastering phonics he/she went on to read classic
short stories, or even full-length novels like TOM SAWYER or
LITTLE WOMEN.
By extension a primer is any small book intended as an
introduction to a complex subject, so there were primers in the
numbers and basic arithmetic functions as well. Children were
drilled repeatedly in addition, subtraction, multiplication and
division until they could solve many numerical problems in their
heads.
Primers were the mainstay of "elementary education", which
means teaching and learning ELEMENTALS--or FUNDAMENTALS--the
primary tool skills which must be MASTERED before one can learn
anything else. Teaching was largely a matter of rote--perhaps
boring repetition to bright students, but a necessary discipline
to instill proper habits and correct usage of language (which in
America was standard English), numbers and logic.
Who taught these skills in "the old days" when my parents,
and their ancestors for generations before them, went to school?
For the most part, any adult who had taken a two-year course in a
"Normal School". The old "gay 90's" song called "School Days"
recalled those times in a sentimental lyric:
School days, school days,
Dear old Golden Rule days,
Readin' and 'ritin', and 'rithmetic,
Taught to the tune of a hick'ry stick...
The stick was part of the educational process if a student
failed to respond to the "carrot" of a teacher's praise--for a
teacher was EXPECTED to discipline trouble-makers with a swat or
two on the bottom as instant motivation to do better. In all
honesty, it usually worked very well. The result was that our
parents and grandparents learned "the three R's"--starting with
STANDARD ENGLISH--as the means to learn EVERYTHING ELSE, and
primers were the principal books.
So it is accurate to describe a primer as the first book on
any intellectual subject, upon which a serious reader may then
spend much time in advanced study, based upon a solid foundation
of first principles--those postulates which Lincoln remarked may
and must be inflexible. If this brief review alone does not
seem to justify this little book, let me now set forth a number
of claims which are controversial, politically explosive, and
will require the rest of this chapter to prove to critical or
skeptical readers.
I hope to show that a Libertarian primer is necessary
because our government-controlled schools no longer teach basic
tool skills and traditional Libertarian values, but instead
indocrinate students in socialist propaganda which penalizes
students who think for themselves.
I claim that, just as our lives at the political level have
been corrupted for more than 60 years by the covert socialism of
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, our lives as students at almost any
level have been corrupted by the well-meaning but irresponsible
airhead theories of a gifted educator named John Dewey.
Dewey was a man who truly wanted to improve schooling in
America but, because he was a somewhat sentimental philosopher,
his concepts might be seen to be solidly grounded on Cloud Nine.
To fully grasp the implications of Dewey's perversions of true
education, let's remind ourselves of what education must achieve
to lay claim to success.
THE SABOTAGE OF EDUCATION IN AMERICA
In THE REVOLUTIONARY RIGHT I made several references to the
functional illiterates who are routinely graduated from American
government-controlled schools, and enter the adult world woefully
unprepared to perform many of the most basic tasks which schools
are presumed to teach. How well do average American children
learn the "three R's" so essential to any further learning? How
well can most of our high-school graduates read a serious news-
paper or magazine article, or perform basic arithmetic functions
in their heads? Here are some anecdotal examples which may be
similar to those you have experienced yourself.
I have seen store clerks just out of high school or perhaps
even college who cannot do simple addition or subtraction in
their heads--and such advanced ideas as multiplication and long
division, percentages, fractions and decimals, appear to be a
great mystery to most of them. Here is a specific example told
me by a retired teamster who spent his working years driving a
big rig for an interstate trucking company. Bob never finished
high school because he had to earn his living from an early age.
Bob's company hired college students as summertime terminal
workers, and he was one of the truckers the terminal workers were
supposed to help. One day he called in that he would be arriving
in about an hour, and needed three thousand square feet of
storage space for his cargo.
When he arrived he asked the college students if they had
the space ready for him to unload. They exchanged embarrassed
glances, and hemmed and hawed that they hadn't quite figured it
out yet, because they needed a calculator.
Bob asked them how big a space would contain three thousand
square feet. They didn't have any idea. He said that fifty by
sixty would equal three thousand square feet--and they looked at
him as though he were some kind of wizard. That's the way most
American students were taught arithmetic.
Ask an average American college student to write a critique
of a current news story. Most of them lack the English skills to
do any independent thinking or writing. As a college professor I
struggled with students who wrote about "gorilla warfare" in
politically-troubled nations. A colleague of mine in history was
amused to read on an exam that "Martin Luther died a horrible
death--he was excommunicated by a Papal bull." And a fellow
professor in English Literature was informed by a sophomore on a
test that "Sophocles was a sadist--he wrote tragedies".
Ask the average college student to give you a summary of
Hobbes' classic definition of a state of nature: "No arts, no
letters; no society; and what is worst of all, continued fear and
danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor,
nasty, brutish, and short". You are likely to encounter such
profound observations as, "Yeah, man, well, like, it was tough,
you know?"
Ask them for their opinions of any of the classic writers--
most American "students" have never read any of them. This may
be because as a general rule they were "taught" to "read"--not
by a primer, to be followed by TOM SAWYER or LITTLE WOMEN--but by
memorizing the inexorably-repeated commonplace words contained,
according to educationist theory, in boring, unspeakably stupid
"stories" about Dick and Jane running after Spot.
Back in the fifties a true educator, Rudolf Flesch, exposed
the mess in English education in a book called "Why Johnny Can't
Read and What You Can Do About It", which was a best seller for
years. It was, in Flesch's "plain talk", a phonics primer, and
helped many parents teach their children phonics at home--before
being committed to the idiocies of our schools--so that their own
kids wouldn't be dummies. But unless the establishment has
changed its ways, our schools still ignore phonics in favor of
the Dewey concept of whole-word recognition (one memorizes lists
of words according to an arbitrary schedule, and, if one hasn't
seen the word before, one guesses at it).
These examples illustrate my observation that most of our
children are, at best, abysmally educated in our so-called free
public schools--a misnomer which should be abolished from our
thinking. Obviously, nothing is free--so if A gets an education
without paying anything, B (or a great many B's) have been taxed
to foot the bill (whether the B's in the equation have children
to educate or not).
Taxes for schools mean simply that government holds the
purse-strings and by virtue of political power controls, through
the U.S. Department of Education, the content of all subjects
taught. The Department of Education hires only "qualified" men
and women to set official policy (translation: those who were
indoctrinated in, and are committed to maintaining, the system).
So it should be obvious to an impartial observer that the Depart-
ment of Education deliberately advocates the socialist ideals of
the so-called liberal wing of the Democratic party (which is
indistinguishable from the so-called liberal wing of the
Republican party).
With the possible exception of the political bureaucracy
itself, there is perhaps no more bloated and self-serving ratpack
of social activists in America than what I call the educationist
establishment. I'll give my reasons in detail in due time, but
first the term "educationist" should be defined.
I hold that "educationist" is quite different from either
"educational" or simply "education", and here's the gist. An
educationist is a person with a plausible but purely fanciful
theory of what, when and how to teach, who pretends to be an
educator. To build empires of their own, educationists "sell"
their "liberal" theory to other uncritical educationists, and
invent a sequence of courses--to be required of all students
majoring in education, of course. Much money is to be made on
royalties from books which are required reading, regardless of
their intrinsic intellectual worth.
When I was in college I was astounded to learn that it was
possible to earn the degree of PhD in Driver Education.
Not Education.
Driver Education.
Teaching high-school students how to drive a car.
A PhD?! Such a mind-boggling phenomenon inevitably arouses
curiosity as to what profound dissertations might be written, or
what erudite academic courses would justify the degree of PhD.
Would a scholarly history on the use of a clutch be appropriate?
Would a curriculum for the exalted PhD go something like this?:
Introduction to Driver Education
Advanced Introduction to Driver Education
Special Problems in Driver Education
History and Philosophy of Driver Education
Advanced History and Philosophy of Driver Education
Special Problems in Advanced History and Philosophy of
Driver Education
Seminar in History, Philosophy, and Special Problems in
Driver Education
...and so on--a bit of persiflage with a serious point to
make.
When I was a college junior it was an old joke that, while
liberal arts majors took thirty courses to graduate, education
majors took one course thirty times. Education majors themselves
were prone to refer to their academic program as a "Mickey Mouse"
degree, and we were all familiar with the old saying that goes:
Those who can--do.
Those who can't--teach.
Those who can't teach--teach teachers.
So why the endless repetition of trivia in courses labeled
"Education"? Very simple--the degree is a "union ticket" of
sorts--taking the courses pays one's dues to job security after
graduation. Why? Because once a PhD degree in Driver Education
is established as some kind of formal "standard" by the U.S.
Department of Education, a Master's degree is worthless. It's a
classic example of empire-building for self-serving power and
economic gain.
Consider these sobering facts: Tchaikowsky would not be
"qualified" to teach music in our public schools because he had
no degree in music education. In fact, he had no degree in music
--his formal education was in law. Michelangelo would not be
qualified to teach art, and Leonardo da Vinci could teach neither
art nor science (though he was a master of both) because he had
no degrees. Clearly none of those geniuses would stoop to taking
a teaching job, but the bizarre reality which would exclude great
minds from teaching young minds because of an artificial mandate
for an artificial degree in an artificial field is clearly not
acceptable to any rational person.
But there is more to the educationist racket than padded and
meaningless courses leading to meaningless degrees based on some
formal, arbitrary standard rather than intrinsic worth. It is
political in nature.
Educationists, especially those in elementary education,
seem to believe that schools should be social environments to
inculcate "model" role-playing, rather than disciplined WORK
environments--that each and every precious little child (most
educationists are notoriously sentimental) should be allowed to
"do his/her own thing" (at which, of course, the little darlings
are totally incompetent by virtue of their youth and ignorance)
--and that dumb or simply lazy students are merely "challenged"
and must be promoted to protect their self-esteem.
Instead of each elementary student being required to read
certain books, it is not uncommon to find that classes "elect" a
"committee" to "do research" (i.e., read one book) and give an
oral report on it--so the dummies can pretend to listen, but
think about anything else they choose. The result, in short, is
that truly superior students are penalized by being forced to
crawl down the information alleyway at the same snail's pace as
the poorest student.
Just as TV advertising is aimed at the mentality of the
lowest common denominator, our Dewey-oriented schools have
adulterated academic work so as to lower standards to the
undemanding level of the gutter. To quote an old saw, pebbles
are polished and diamonds are dimmed. Not only are superior
students bored and frustrated, but lazy ones are encouraged to be
lazy, rather than being forced to develop their innate talents by
competitive hard work.
True education demands effort by the student--but most
Americans are simply passive listeners in class, and the amount
of factual material actually absorbed by an average student is
humiliatingly low compared to that learned in disciplined
European schools. For example, one of my readers in Michigan has
written me about a recent study which showed that American adults
know less about science than 13-year-old Irish children, and
Bulgarian students learn mathematics to a degree that puts
American adults to shame. To fully appreciate the fallacies in
what passes for education in America, we must get our heads
straight on the purpose and nature of the educational process, to
see how our "educationists" measure up to the requirements which
are implicit in teaching and learning.
Thanks to Dewey's misconception of true education, students
are rarely, if ever, failed in grade school, or required to take
remedial work or repeat a course. It is felt to be demeaning if
a cretin is not kept up with his classmates. Better that he
should be a well-adjusted mediocrity than even competent--much
less superior.
This is part and parcel of a systematic program of blatant
indoctrination in "social values" in our government-controlled
schools--leading a student to accept without question erroneous
ideas about society, government, and political rights and
responsibilities. In fairness it is noted that these academic
meddlers all have noble intentions--but to them their end (which
is debatable, to put it mildly) justifies the means. The result
is that our schools have become "democratized" to the degree that
authority and discipline are virtually abandoned, and more and
more students learn less and less about more and more.
But it is obvious that a growing number of adult Americans
want to know the truth which our politicians have denied for
nearly sixty years in order to appease their greed for more and
more power over our lives. Many Libertarians have formed study
groups--and many have children of their own whom they wish to
spare the ravages of the present system. But to do so, they need
something to read that gives them the truth in simple terms and
without skirting unpleasant facts.
Thus the goals of this primer, within the scope of three
brief, easy-to-read chapters, are to present Libertarian views
on society, government, and our alleged political rights and/or
responsibilities, in the hope that, by exposing the propaganda
which is unofficially endorsed by the educationist profession, we
may demand change for the better when our present government
inevitably collapses of internal rot.
WHEN SHOULD EDUCATION BEGIN?
For many centuries past the problem of educating children
was a parental responsibility, and millions of quite intelligent
persons received their first (and sometimes only) education at
home. Such education could, and still can, begin as soon as a
child is old enough to start speaking coherent sentences--most of
which begin with "Why?".
Why so young? Because, as psychologists explain it, the
human brain at birth is a "tabula rasa"--a blank slate--upon
which verbal lessons and practical demonstrations may be easily
impressed. The child learns without effort, in a process as
natural as breathing. Hence a growing infant may easily learn
Chinese from one parent and English from another--with no
difficulty in switching his/her THINKING from one language to
another.
There are two catches: the child, to begin with, must have a
natural intelligence--which is genetic--and his mother must have
a gift for teaching her children the truth as soon as they begin
to ask meaningful questions. She must understand her role in
this vital pre-school education, which should have the highest
priority of all parents--especially mothers, who have the closest
contact and strongest rapport with infants.
Let me illustrate this point with an anecdote related in a
lecture in New York City, some twenty years ago as I recall, by a
fellow Libertarian. The speaker, being a Mensan, was a genius (a
term now in disfavor among educationists, who prefer academic
jargon like "extraordinarily intellectually gifted"). His mother
had taught him at home with primers, and encouraged him to use
the library and study on his own--she was a true teacher.
All went well until he was of high-school age--having never
been enrolled in any school. He told his mother he'd like to go
to high school and get a diploma. She said, "Do it if you want
to, but I think it's a mistake." The boy, then early teens, went
to the nearest school and enrolled as though on a transfer from
out of state.
After two weeks he had had enough, and wanted to get out.
His mother said, "Well, you gave yourself the problem, so
now you need to figure out how to solve it."
Being a Mensan by nature, he did just that. On the first
day of enrollment for the next semester, he arose early, made the
rounds of all sixteen high schools in his city (I believe it was
Washington, D.C.), and enrolled in every one of them.
The next day was the final day of enrollment, and he went
back to each of the sixteen schools and filed a form to transfer
out--to various ones of the other fifteen.
Then he played hooky again to learn something.
I claim that if parents want their children to study the
Bible every day, they have a right to send them to schools which
read the Bible daily. Of course, children who study the Bible
daily are usually stupid in anything else, making them quite non-
competitive in a job market which places high priority upon
practical wisdom. But the bottom line is that it's up to SOCIETY
--NOT GOVERNMENT--to educate our children. Society can and must
provide the type of schools parents DEMAND--and PAY FOR by direct
financial transactions with schools which parents choose--NOT BY
TAXATION (even when one has no children). The tax racket is a
money-grabbing scheme that provides the graft that supports the
whole corrupt system.
As a final note, it might be of interest that the Mensan who
never earned a high-school diploma had such natural talent that
(according to the MC who introduced him) he became a speech
writer for Barry Goldwater in 1964, creating Goldwater's slogan--
"In your heart you know he's right". This genius with no formal
education has worked for years as a welder--just as Eric Hoffer,
whose book THE TRUE BELIEVER is a classic study of fanaticism,
earned his living as a taxi driver, or longshoreman at various
times. Honest work is honorable work--far more so than that of
our politicians and educationists..
The fact is that superior intelligence, like cream, will
always rise to the top. So the educationist establishment likes
to homogenize the milk, trapping the cream in the uniformity
produced by homogenizing--thus superior minds cannot realize
their natural potential in our present system. Conformity is the
desired goal--superior achievement is not--and true intelligence
is disregarded.
Which brings up the question of intelligence and how it is
determined.
INTELLIGENCE AND THE "BELL-SHAPED CURVE"
For the sake of completeness I must begin with a review of
a basic statistical concept with which most readers are already
familiar. But because this primer is intended for victims of an
American public school education, some of my readers might be
hazy on this topic--so please bear with me if you have a head
start. And because I am limited to a DOS text file, with no
graphic talent or capability of any kind, I must describe the
concepts involved in words alone.
I would suggest, however, that readers to whom this is new
should get pencil and paper, a ruler and a protractor, to draw
the figure and label the parts as I describe it. Look at it from
time to time to refresh your recollection of the various parts
and terms to be used. Please note that this is a hypothetical
and somewhat simplified example for easy description!
The bell curve is a mathematical construction--an outline
drawing which resembles the symbol on Taco Bell ads. Its more
formal title is THE CURVE OF NORMAL DISTRIBUTION, and it repre-
sents in a simple picture the results to be expected on any
given test which can be scored in numerical data. It is well
established that if a test is a true measure of a human trait
that can be scored, those scores, when shown as a graph, will
form such a bell shape. If the shape of the bell is badly
distorted, the validity of the test may be open to serious
question.
To be meaningful the curve must represent many hundreds of
scores, or even thousands. A "bell curve" on a class of thirty
students, for example, is absolutely meaningless.
The shape is symmetrical. It is taller than it is wide, the
top end is closed and curves only slightly downward from the mid-
point. The midsection of the bell is quite high and the slope of
the sides is quite steep. The bottom flare of the bell, in a
reverse of the previous direction of the slope, is the smallest
of all three sections.
Draw such a figure if this is new to you, and write in these
labels.
First, draw a vertical line that divides the bell into two
equal halves, as a center line from top to bottom. This is the
"average" score, and is labeled 100 IQ when one is measuring
intelligence. The area to the right of the line is the "plus"
side, representing the number of subjects who achieve scores
higher than average, and to the left is the "minus" side, showing
how many subjects achieve each score below average.
The base line of the bell is labeled ZERO, and the height of
the bell at any point on the curve shows the number of people who
attained the score represented by that point. The midpoint is
highest, showing that the greatest number of subjects scored near
the mathematical average. This satisfies one requirement of a
validity test, when many thousands of scores are represented.
But the top of the bell isn't flat--it slopes downward very
slightly and extends to the score at thich the curve suddently
turns sharply downward. The point at which the curve suddenly
changes is given the name of ONE STANDARD DEVIATION (abbreviated
1 SD) either plus or minus, which will be explained shortly.
Down near the bottom of the bell, the curve turns outward--quite
flat again, and the point at which that change occurs is TWO
STANDARD DEVIATIONS (2 SD's), plus or minus.
The numerical value of the SD may vary from test to test--
statistical analysis may be extended to three SD's, and the bell
curve is only approximately the same--not identical, from one
test to another. For the sake of our discussion, let's call this
example the curve of scores on the Kirk Brothers IQ test.
Let's assume it has been given to at least 100,000 subjects.
The scores themselves are used to determine the value of the SD,
which we'll assume is 15 points. Draw in a vertical line on each
side of the bell at the two points where the curve changes, and
label each line as 15 points differential. In our example curve
it will be obvious that if the center line is 100 IQ there will
be two vertical lines on each side of the center line, labeled
left to right as 70, 85, 115 and 130 IQ.
Again for the sake of simple numbers, let's assume that the
area under the curve of the "top" or middle section (a problem in
calculus), has been determined, and that there are 32% of the
test population on EACH SIDE of the center line in the first SD,
plus or minus. This means that about two thirds of the subjects
(64% to be precise) scored within one SD of 100 (the average).
We'll label each of the two steep slopes of the second SD to
include another 16% (remember that the steeper the curve, the
fewer the number). So about 16% of the population are in the
higher or lower range of scores on each side of the bell. And
finally, about two percent of the population will fall in the
range of 70 IQ or less on the left, or 130 IQ or higher on the
right side.
In fact, such numbers would be an ideal curve, and justify a
claim that the test is totally valid. With the picture as now
labeled clearly in your mind and the meanings clear, let's look
at what this curve of NORMAL IQ DISTRIBUTION means in words.
First, the curve meets all mathematical tests for validity,
and the test may not be proved to be biased (the bell would be
lopsided if it were). Second, nearly two-thirds of the subjects
scored within 1 SD of average, because it is an easy task for
most people to score near average.
As the questions become more difficult, more subjects fail
them, so fewer people attain higher scores--and those less bright
tend to miss easy questions, and fall below average. And with
two-thirds of the subjects scoring near average, that leaves
relatively few to attain either higher OR lower scores.
Now let's label the areas to show the types of mental skills
each group is likely to possess.
First, those to the right of the midpoint, but within +1 SD,
may be considered "bright". They have verbal skills that qualify
them for life-long learning if they so choose. Such learning is
perhaps in the form of junior college or adult education courses,
or paraprofessional studies. They should be encouraged to get as
much schooling as they want and can afford. They are perhaps not
qualified for a college degree--at least from a prestigious
university with very high standards--but an Associate degree, or
such training as practical nursing, paralegal work, dental
assistants, and the like, are all possible goals for those with
such scores.
The right-hand midsection (+2 SD) represents the 16% of the
subjects who may be described as "gifted". They have the brains
to do creditable college-level work, and to make their careers in
professions such as medicine or any natural sciences which appeal
to them.
The smallest right-hand section (higher than +2 SD) is the
"genius" category, a score of 130 IQ or higher, which is the
requisite for membership in Mensa. About two percent of the
entire population meet this standard.
Now let's look at the scores on the left-hand side.
Within -1 SD of average, a subject is "slow" as far as book
learning is concerned. Part of this MIGHT be due to the lack of
early (pre-school) verbal education, and SOME such persons MIGHT
improve their scores through dedicated remedial study of the
elementals--with primers, not in our idiotic schools. For the
most part, however, these men and women lack the verbal ability
to benefit from higher education, and might be encouraged to stay
in school as long they can, but plan on vocational (trade) school
training for their livelihood. They can read newspapers and
magazines, and understand most of what they read--but abstract
intellectual pursuits such as philosophy and history fail to
capture their interest. They succeed more as blue-collar workers
than in white collar jobs.
The remaining two areas of the bell represent persons who
comprise a major social problem, which society--not government--
should solve. The area of -2 SD is that of mental retardation,
and such persons are generally incapable of making responsible or
wise decisions because they fail to understand that which is
obvious to those more gifted. They are easily victimized by more
intelligent but unscrupulous hucksters, who are predatory by
nature. Retarded persons cannot be educated to be non-retarded.
It is genetic.
And the final, unfortunate two percent with 70 IQ or below
are the mentally defective persons who belong in institutions.
So much for our overview of the CURVE OF NORMAL DISTRIBUTION as
applied to a hypothetical intelligence test. Now let's apply it
to REAL intelligence tests, and see what happens.
THE BINET TEST(S)
The first modern intelligence test was the work of a French
physiologist named Binet, whose central concept was mental age as
correlated to calendar age. He first measured, over years of
exhaustive research, abilities of children and young teenagers
to perform certain mental tasks, in order to determine what a
"normal" or "average" child by calendar age could be expected to
achieve. If a child of four could perform at the six-year-old
"normal" level, that child had a mental age of six, and was thus
gifted. But if the child of four failed to perform tasks normal
for a four-year-old, he/she was retarded to some degree.
Binet's pioneering work was seized upon and developed by
psychologists worldwide. In this country, Stanford University
developed the Stanford-Binet test, which is applicable to adults
as well as children, and has been given to millions of persons
over the years. It has also been given to captive gorillas at
Stanford who have been taught the American Sign Language, and are
able to comunicate with researchers in respectable English (one
female who has been featured in the National Geographic Magazine
and on their TV programs, has an IQ in the upper 80's). By the
way, sign language is necessary because gorillas lack the vocal
mechanism to speak, and the Stanford-Binet is still one of the
two tests used to determine qualified candidates for Mensa.
While it is difficult to define "intelligence" to everyone's
satisfaction--especially to those educationists who proclaim that
"we don't know what intelligence is" [that figures!]--it is well
established that there are at least two components, which depend
upon the differing functions of the two hemispheres of the brain.
The left hemisphere tends to think in linear, time-oriented
fashion--it is concerned with words, numbers, analysis, and
deductive logic. It makes a person right-handed when it is the
dominant half of the brain, and tends to favor the development of
a scientific mind.
The right hemisphere, in contrast, tends to think in spatial
or visual images, in holistic and non-temporal fashion--it is
concerned with non-verbal concepts and its logic is inductive.
If the right hemisphere is dominant, the subject is left-handed,
and is predisposed to an artistic mind.
All modern intelligence tests measure both visual and verbal
abilities, and all have been correlated to a high degree of
reliability (predictions correspond to outcomes). Candidates for
Mensa are given two tests--one of which favors left-brain and the
other right-brain intelligence--and a score of 130 or higher on
either one of the two tests qualifies the candidate for admission
to the society.
Now, in general, all would probably agree that intelligence
is the ability to learn by the process of communication--which
implies language--which means that all intelligence to a degree
implies and involves prior learning of language skills. But it
is a fallacy, I believe, to argue (as some "liberals" do) that
the tests should be thrown out because they are biased against
those who are deficient in English language skills.
To the best of my knowledge, such tests are available in the
standard language of any nation in which they are used. In the
United States all Mensa tests are given in standard English--and
understanding the test and the questions is part of the process.
But such tests are easily passed by many orientals and some
blacks--so a complaint by a low-scorer that the test is not fair
appears to be a matter of rationalizing for one's failure.
Libraries are open to all, and primers are usually on the
shelves. Any mother of normal intelligence who is concerned for
her children's mental development has the obligation of all
mothers to give them her guidance during their pre-school years,
when all learning is by oral communication. Reading and writing
come later--with primers.
While on this subject, let us note the current foolishness
of advocating the teaching of "Ebonics" in our schools. The word
obviously refers to black languages, and it is routinely held
that blacks are discriminated against by the fact that most were
not given a good foundation in standard English.
But just what is meant by "Ebonics"? Does the word mean the
native language of black tribes, for example? The most important
such language that I know of is Swahili, which is widely used in
commerce in Africa. But please name ONE book which is published
in Swahili. Does Ebonics mean the language of the Gullahs? Then
please name ONE book published in Gullah.
One cannot justify a formal academic study of a language
without considering the matter of the literature written in that
language--and to my knowledge no such literature exists. Or does
Ebonics refer to the gutter language of so-called rap musicians?
What is there in that alleged art form to justify any study of
any kind, except that of abnormal psychology?
This is a sensitive but relevant controversy, so it must not
be shirked. The reality is that if a black person has been
disadvantaged in terms of early education in standard English,
it is his responsibility to work harder to overcome his deficient
language skills. It is not up to colleges or society in general
to lower standards and expectations, although our government-
controlled schools do just that.
IQ AND RACE
Let it be agreed that IQ tests are not infallible, and
cannot be correlated to the nth degree. But as a measure of
intelligence they are the best thing we have--and a number of
them have proved their reliability over many years and have high
repute. Are these tests prejudiced against non-whites?
When I was active in Mensa I was not surprised to find that
blacks were well represented among the membership--not simply
"tokens". It is inevitable that superior blacks would qualify
along with whites and orientals, because a significant number of
blacks are well established in the arts, sciences, and the major
professions. There are many black doctors, dentists, lawyers,
clergymen, teachers, writers, poets, composers, etc., and they
must be just as gifted as whites to succeed in those challenging
intellectual fields.
A quotation from Thomas Jefferson (one of my favorites) is
appropriate to this point. In a letter to John Adams, Jefferson
wrote: "I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy
among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talent." To which
I can add only that virtue must be learned, but talent in purely
genetic.
When the noted physicist William Shockley suggested that
scientists should investigate the problem of low intelligence
among black Americans, he was vilified as a racist. But Shockley
was not speaking of the George Washington Carvers, the Ralph
Bunches, the Martin Luther Kings, the Colin Powells, and others
who are greatly respected by most whites. As I recall the event,
he was alluding to black college students who failed to meet
normal college entrance requirements, but were admitted, in
compliance with a "quota" law, despite their poor records. When
they failed to do acceptable college work because they lacked
language skills and other training, Shockley spoke out as one
concerned with the reasons for the students' problems, and how
science might help them be discovering a method to overcome their
disadvantage.
[Note: A recent controversy from the University of Texas in
Austin, involving a professor of Constitutional Law who spoke in
frank (honest) terms about poor academic performancy by black and
Mexican American students, underscores the hypocrisy shown by so-
called "liberals" when unpleasant truths about racial differences
are objectively discussed. KB]
Let's briefly look at the facts. There are three races,
according to generally-accepted principles of anthropology.
They are the mongoloid or oriental, caucasoid or white, and
negroid or black. Racial differences in appearance are obvious
to anyone with normal vision--though it is stipulated that a
one-eyed man is king when all the rest are blind.
It is generally said that one of the differences between the
races is intelligence--the ability to learn. And it is generally
accepted that, of the three races, the most highly intelligent is
the oriental--the white race is second--and the black race third.
Is this bigotry? I think not. Let's look at facts.
First, when there are measurable differences between two or
more subjects, someone must finish last. And to understand more
than just the scores in this matter, we may turn to world history
with which everyone is at least somewhat familiar.
It is well known that the oriental race developed written
language (using a crude system of symbolic pictographs), which
sufficed as foundation for a high degree of scientific knowledge
and artistic expression. They had explosives long before Marco
Polo's historic first visit. Polo brought many oriental arti-
facts back to Italy and thence to the rest of Europe. It's said
that the Chinese gave the bagpipe to the Italians as a joke--the
Italians gave the bagpipe to the Irish as a joke--the Irish gave
the bagpipe to the Scotch as a joke--and the Scotch haven't
"gotten" the joke yet.
The oriental race developed agriculture, architecture and
engineering to the degree of building large cities with multi-
story buildings. They engineered roads and shipping facilities.
They had an extensive literature in many forms on many subjects,
and highly esoteric spiritual philsophies.
In their own context, the European racial groups also had a
highly developed body of scientific and artistic literature based
on a written language (using an alphabet--one of the greatest of
human inventions). They also developed agriculture, engineered
and built major cities, and their cultures included painting,
sculpture, music, poetry, and so on.
The black races had no written languages, no major cities,
no arts, no sciences, no agriculture, no architecture, no
engineering--the list goes on and on--in short, they lived in
Hobbes' state of nature, where life was poor, nasty, brutish and
short. Only the black races practiced cannibalism (except as an
act of desperation for survival under extreme duress). And in
their wars against each other, they took prisoners who were sold
as slaves to white slave traders. The despicable tradition of
slavery in America could not have occurred without the active
participation of black tribes in Africa, and in the present day
we see wars of genocide between tribes of different religions in
Rwanda and other benighted countries.
American blacks are naturally sensitive to the indignity of
their history and status in our nation, but self-esteem MUST NOT
depend upon the PAST, but the PRESENT--which is what one makes
it! To relive the past is self-defeating, but to try to change
it by fiction which ignores history is absurd. Some blacks have
asserted that the Egyptian queen Cleopatra was black. In fact,
she was the daughter of Ptolemy of Greece.
What can blacks do for themselves to build self-esteem based
on their own achievements IN THE PRESENT TENSE? There are many
hurdles, to be sure. As I have noted in THE REVOLUTIONARY RIGHT,
the greatest problem in the world today is overpopulation. If we
combine that fact with man's innate territorial instinct with its
aggression and competition, the atrocity of cannibalism, the
outrage of slavery and the tragedy of modern-day genocide among
African peoples, it is clear that the world cannot improve for
blacks (or anyone else) until all people of the world wake up to
the consequences of overpopulation, and take drastic steps to
curb their birth rates.
These unhappy facts are exaggerated out of proportion by
racists who advocate segregation and worse. The facts are
ignored or distorted by apologists with good intentions who try
to see in "Ebonics" a valid form of language. Let's face facts,
even unpleasant ones, and base our actions on an understanding of
the realities of life!
SUMMARY
This primer is believed necessary as a tool for adults who
wish to learn the truth about the political corruption of our
schools, and to teach their children the truths which will be
suppressed in their classrooms.
American education is among the worst in the world. It is a
deadly mixture of wishy-washy permissiveness and socialist
idealism, combined with the power of government to tax and meddle
in matters which are none of its constitutionally authorized
business.
We have shown what true education is, and why the so-called
educationist establishment is the greatest detriment to attaining
it. The goal of education should be independent thinking by each
and every American pupil in each and every school.
It is my opinion that every American child should be tested
for his/her IQ before entering school, and that schools should be
SEGREGATED BY INTELLIGENCE--with bright students working at an
accelerated pace to stimulate their full development, and slow
students in more vocationally-oriented training programs, to make
them as competitive as possible in a world in which they are
otherwise seriously disadvantaged.
If the fallacies of American education have been exposed and
the reader feels we need a clear statement of Libertarian ideals
for new readers--young and old--we are ready to move on to the
next chapter, which will deal with the four basic concepts of
ANARCHY, SOCIETY, GOVERNMENT, AND TYRANNY.
I hope you will find it a stimulating one!