In certain minority circles, everybody's talking about the majority
who's so dumbed-down that they no longer care about perjury, obstruction
of justice, or gross misuse of power. It's almost as if barbarism was a
new political trend. Of course some are pointing to the media as a cause.
And you probably have heard the collective media described as the
propaganda wing, or "Fourth Estate" of American government. But
while most of us realize that the media has effectively become the Fourth
Estate, it's only beginning to dawn on us that there has also long been a
Fifth. We're talking about the American system of education, both public
and private. We're talking about grades K through Twelve. We're talking
about those A's, B's, M's, and P's attached to the names of individuals
who have ran the gauntlet of upper academia. We're talking about the PC
facilitators. We're talking about the Fifth Estate.
in the narrow detention of their own denial—like virtually everyone else
incarcerated in even the most comfortable American prisons—limousine
liberals and plush corporate contract members of the media hold themselves
innocent. Innocent at least, of political bias. Although to anyone capable
of tying his own shoes, the charade of the majority of talking heads and
syndicated quill pushers has become as clear as Waterford Crystal. Nearly
ninety percent of the Washington press-corps admits being Liberal, and
Hollywood doesn't even pretend. And if the bias of the Fourth Estate is
evident to the point of popular cynicism, the same is true of the Fifth
Estate. After all, that's where most of the Manhattan media anchors and
Hollywood visionaries got their education.
From a certain point of
view then, the American system of education appears to be the training
ground for those tending a pure propaganda engine for progressive
political ideologies. So much so that it has become a political force in
its own right. There are presently 760 federal programs that deal with
education. And even as we speak the central government is trotting out
long-legged new plans for huge increases in spending. Voracious
instructors and academic administrators pant obsequiously with tin cups
ready. But there's nothing new about this trend in America. Long before
political correctness became politically correct, foundation facilitators
were busy planning.
"The term 'planning' is mostly used as a
synonym for socialism, communism, and authoritarian and totalitarian
economic management. Sometimes only the German pattern of
socialism—Zwangswirtshaft—is called planning, while the term socialism
proper is reserved for the Russian pattern of outright socialization and
bureaucratic operation of all plants, shops and farms. At any rate,
planning in this sense means all-around planning by the government and
enforcement of these plans by the police power."
—Ludwig von Mises,
Planning For Freedom
Look Out for the Truant
Frederick Gates, Chairman of the General Education
Board, a private institution funded by the Rockefeller Foundation,
remarked about their hopes for public education as far back as 1902. In
the Board's Occasional Letter he wrote, "In our dreams, we
have limitless resources, and the people yield themselves with perfect
docility to our molding hand."
This must be the molding hand that
lent itself to the systematic destruction of the American ideal of
individual liberty and personal accountability in favor of our current
"kleptocracy." And it must be the progressive hand that's now
dangerously flirting with that wretched seductress popularly described as
One thing's for sure. It is a trend. And it's a
trend that also appears to include a smug effort to use education as a
vehicle for cultural destruction. The primary target has long been the
stabilizing force of traditional Western values that works through
individual conscience. Specifically, these are the values of the ancient
Jews and their gentile Christian progeny. At the Center for the Study
of Popular Culture, David Horowitz described it as a blend of Judaic
law and Hellenistic philosophy. It's the historic alloy of law and value,
of personal liberty and individual accountability, of faith and reason.
While Jesse Jackson chants, "Hey hey, ho ho, Western Culture's gotta' go,"
his multicultural followers reject the very values that gave the world the
Magna Carta, the Mayflower Compact, and the Declaration of Independence.
And the destruction of that value system clearly appears an orchestrated
means to reduce the public to a new barbarism, with the primary purpose of
rebuilding the collapsed culture under authoritarian socialism. That
notion was considered in greater depth in The Meaning of Original
"It's not because men's desires are strong that they
act ill; it's because their consciences are weak."
Mill, On Liberty, III:178
In A Common Faith, John Dewey wrote that
he didn't know, "...how any realization of the democratic ideal as a vital
moral and spiritual ideal in human affairs is possible without surrender
of the conception of the basic division to which supernatural Christianity
is committed." Dewey was a socialist ideologue who is sometimes known the
Father of Progressive Education. But more than merely rejecting the
supernatural or personally intrusive aspects of Christian culture, Dewey
was rejecting the "basic division" to which the culture was
committed. A division that was ideologically opposed to nihilistic moral
relativism on the basis of a logical pragmatism. The cannons of Western
Culture are every bit as much documents on sociology, anthropology, and
history, as they are liturgical tracts.
Accordingly, in 1932, the
Fabian Socialist George S. Counts wrote in Dare the Schools Build a
New Social Order, that, "Teachers should deliberately reach for
power and then make the most of their conquest...[toward the end
of]...careful planning, and private Capitalism by some form of socialized
economy." He taught at Columbia University's Teachers College. The
progression of this trend, and all the related social fallout, has
continued almost unabated for the entire twentieth century.
the 1960's—almost as if there was a systematic decision that since the
Fabian method wasn't getting them there fast enough—they went with
Gramsci. It's almost as if they envisioned a day like today, where the
public virtue would be so thoroughly degraded that a breaking point would
be reached and Gramscian "normalization" would finally be at hand.
In the January/February 1983 issue of The Humanist Magazine, John
J. Dunphy, summa cum laude graduate of the University of
Illinois-at Edwardsville, echoed that trend. He declared that, "The battle
for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school
classroom... Classrooms must and will become an arena of conflict between
the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity... and the new
faith of Humanism."
If Ronald Reagan's moral majority is in fact
dead, as Free Congress Foundation's Paul Weyrich said in the
aftermath of President Clinton's "acquittal," then the particular
educators described above are the kind of liberals who set up the kill. If
we accept President Washington's admonition that liberty is most easily
destroyed through licentiousness, then the death of American morality
signifies the mortal aging of our liberty. And if we believe de
Tocqueville when he told us that America was great because America was
good, then we're probably witnessing the end of American greatness. And it
will probably be seen as a great achievement by her spiteful, envious
ideological enemies, both without and within. At least in the short
"We have no government armed with power capable of
contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.
Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords
of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was
made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the
government of any other."
—President John Adams, second President
of the United States addressing the U.S. military, October 11, 1798
The failure to remove an impeached president from office is spun
by the Left as a rejection of the "repressive" value system of
Western Culture. They obsess on the sensible axiom that insists the state
has no business in the bedroom. And while most of us are in agreement, the
question is whether thoroughly separating the traditional flag-bearers on
the Right from the political process is any wiser than allowing the smug
brats in the spoiled counter-culture a completely free hand on the Left.
What's really personal life anyway? Did anybody catch reports of
the recent stunt of rolling a motor home full of copulating gay men
through States retaining anti-sodomy laws? Do you remember Maplethorpe's
splash on the cultural scene by tapping the National Endowment for the
Arts to give us such thrilling little gems as a photograph of a man with a
bullwhip stuck up his anus? Does anybody really think that throwing it up
in our faces like that is really a socially productive or politically
sensible? Roman Emperors committed oral copulation with suckling infants.
Should we embrace that too? Should we challenge the proscription against
"snuff films" on the basis of the First Amendment? Should we keep
our hands off the purveyors and the morbid clients who find stimulation
watching men have sex with women while actually choking them to death or
slicing their throats? I mean, come on.
that once a culture goes off the deep end, unless a miraculous force acts
against it, it rarely stops until it pounds its way into the earth at the
bottom. Rejection of the foundations of traditional value is much more
than merely dumping the prohibition against getting naked with some exotic
dancer named Baby Oil and wallowing in worship at the putrid feet
of Larry Flynt. It's actually a rejection of the very value system that
protected us from the tyranny of totalitarianism.
Dancing With the
Sweetheart on my Left
Just how prevalent is this Politically
Correct trend in American academia? Judge Bork recently reminded us that
way back in 1964 there were 40 law professors at the Harvard Law School
when he was being considered for a position. Thirty-nine described
themselves as liberal, and one as conservative. Administrators were
hesitant to hire Bork, because they felt that two conservatives on a staff
of 41 would upset the balance between political views.
recent Rocky Mountain News survey of the political affiliations of
liberal arts professors at the University of Colorado reflected 184
Democrats and only six Republicans. The History Department contained 27
Democrats and zero Republicans. In Philosophy there were 12 Democrats and
zero Republicans. The English department polled unanimous as well. Every
one of the 29 professors were registered Democrat.
Listen to the
authors of The Shadow University: The Betrayal of Liberty on America's
Campuses: "What remain of the '60s on our campuses are its worst
sides: intolerance of dissent from regnant political orthodoxy, the
self-appointed power of self-designated 'progressives' to set everyone
else's moral agenda, and, saddest of all, the belief that universities not
only may but should suspend the rights of some in order to transform
students, the culture, and the nation according to their ideological
vision and desire." They went on to state that, "The result has been an
emerging tyranny over all aspects of student life—a tyranny that is far
more dangerous than the relatively innocuous parietal rules of ages past.
It is a tyranny that seeks to assert absolute control over the souls, the
consciences, and the individuality of our students––in short, a tyranny
over the essence of liberty itself."
"The brand of Fascist
political correctness we see on American campuses today is representative
of some of the most intolerant closed-mindedness this side of Beijing."
Theater instructor Jared Sakren was recently
denied tenure at Arizona State University because he loved Shakespeare.
Faculty members insisted that Shakespeare was "sexist." He would have to
change such insensitive works as The Taming of the Shrew if he wanted to
present them to students. After Sakren's dismissal, the department chair
claimed that she planned to "kill off the classics." While Shakespeare may
be too controversial for us these days, students are able to enroll in
courses as bizarre as Colorado’s "The Social Construction of Reality,"
Harvard’s "Fetishism," and Oberlin’s "Queer Acts." The course description
of the latter read: "Drag will be encouraged, but not required." How
comforting for those heterosexuals wrangled into taking that class as a
prerequisite to obtaining their Social Science degree.
homogenized radical student leaders on the University of Massachusetts
campus demanded that the university drop the "Minuteman" as the school
mascot on the grounds that these revolutionary heroes were "racist,
sexist, white, gun-toting males." Never mind that their socialist,
student-counterparts in Vietnam and China embraced Mao Tse Tung who said,
"Political power emerges from the barrel of a gun." Or that their
very own Marx wrote in 1848 that the "Slavic riffraff...as well as the
Czechs, and Croats, are retrograde races whose only function in the world
history of the future is to be cannon fodder." Or that their icon Engels
wrote in the same year that, "World war will make whole reactionary
peoples disappear from the face of the earth. This, too, is progress.
Obviously, this cannot be fulfilled without crushing some delicate
national flower." Should we nudge these self-indulgent academic mavens of
the progressive elite and admonish them that it might be their very own
delicate national flower that could next be violated? And that the
"reactionary peoples" that may disappear could include their friends,
loved ones, even themselves? Should we bother?
And it gets worse.
Our Clintonesque culture is advancing with the Goals 2000 program
well underway. The new history standards issued in October of 1994
featured sheer political correctness and historical revisionism. New
textbooks virtually ignore individuals such as Betsy Ross, Thomas Edison,
Paul Revere, Alexander Graham Bell, Albert Einstein, the Founding Fathers,
and even crucial historic American events like the signing of the
Declaration of Independence.
Commenting on the Goals 2000 policy in
USA Today on October 28, 1994, Joel Urschel said, "This is
surely the most absurd extension of the victim culture mind-set afflicting
the nation...Better, I guess, that we study the lives of those who didn't
fight for their beliefs, avoided political debate and muddled through life
without a creative accomplishment or an original idea. This is
egalitarianism reduced to a philosophy of simplistic nonsense that even
the socialists in the old Soviet Union couldn't swallow."
book Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory
Schooling, John Taylor Gatto tells us that, "No sane human being
hasn't judged the value of instruction based on outcomes...[OBE is] a
pedagogical manifestation of 'managing by objectives.' It's too difficult
to control all the behavior of the herd, so you set these goals and get
the herd to behave the way you want by leading them to these goals." Among
the things OBE is said to apply significantly reduced emphasis are
spelling, multiplication, history, and geography. And this must be good
news for high school graduates who already can't read a map to find out
where they live, or don't know the difference between being chaste and
being chattel. But it's not such good news for those who have to compete
with the hardened-by-fire children of modern Laogai China.
darkest side of OBE is manifest by tracing its promoters. James Guines
helped design Chicago's proto-OBE program, and was a disciple of the
infamous B. F. Skinner. Guines noted in the Washington Post, "If
you can train a pigeon to fly up there and press a button and set off a
bomb [as Skinner had done during W.W.II], why can't you teach human beings
to behave in an effective and rational way?" Guines agrees with Skinner
that teaching a pigeon to commit suicide is a rational act for the pigeon
if it's unaware that the action will lead to its mortality. It's good news
for the goals of the totalitarian teacher, but bad news for the hapless
We have to recall Skinner's book Beyond Freedom and
Dignity to really appreciate his philosophy. He describes the obstacle
to behavior modification by noting that, "Freedom and dignity illustrate
the difficulty. They are the possessions of the autonomous man of
traditional theory and they are essential to practices in which a person
is held responsible for his conduct and given credit for his achievements.
A scientific analysis shifts both the responsibility and the achievement
to the environment...A technology of behavior is available...but defenders
of freedom oppose its use." His point appears to be that he feels it's
necessary to deprive humanity of traditional notions of "freedom and
dignity" in order to bring about the triumph of what thinkers of his era
called "scientific world Humanism."
In criticism of the
traditional, non-Humanist view of freedom and dignity, Marxists Theodore
Adorno published a study called The Authoritarian Personality. The
social commentator Christopher Lasch notes the Adorno report would solve
America's social problems by, "Subjecting the American people to what
amounted to collective psychotherapy—by treating them as inmates of an
insane asylum." In other words, if someone values his dignity and freedom
more than the excesses of post-modern socialism, then he's insane and the
benevolent state will have to step in and heal him.
Only those who
managed to induce the American people to surrender their Constitutional
heritage without even being aware it happened, exceeded the cleverness of
the pop-culture rant. But we've got news for the myopic American Left:
It's all been done before. From the Soviet manual on
PSYCHOPOLITICS: The art and science of
asserting and maintaining dominion over the thoughts and loyalties of
individuals, officers, bureaus, and masses, and the effecting of the
conquest of enemy nations thorough "mental healing."
anyone remember the venerable Alexander Solzhenitsyn's commencement
address at Harvard University in 1978? The one where the soft, snobbish
brie-and-baguette crowd berated him for challenging their humanist Tower
of Babel? He said the incident hurt him more than the eight years he spent
laboring over the Gulag Archipelago in the camps, writing
snippets on toilet paper and matchbook covers. This was from Harvard, the
school that gave the world the likes of the venomous neo-Pharisee Alan
Dershowitz. Here's a sequence of excerpts from Solzhenitsyn's address
warning us about the conquest of enemy nations through mental
"The center of your democracy and of your culture is
left without electric power for a few hours only, and all of a sudden
crowds of American citizens start looting and creating havoc. The smooth
surface film must be very thin, then, the social system quite unstable and
unhealthy. But the fight for our planet, physical and spiritual, a fight
of cosmic proportions, is not a vague matter of the future; it has already
started. The forces of Evil have begun their decisive offensive, you can
feel their pressure, and yet your [TV] screens and publications are full
of prescribed smiles and raised glasses.
"Two hundred, or even
fifty years ago, it would have seemed quite impossible, in America, that
an individual could be granted boundless freedom simply for the
satisfaction of his instincts or whims. Subsequently, however, all such
limitations were discarded everywhere in the West; a total liberation
occurred from the moral heritage of Christian centuries with their great
reserves of mercy and sacrifice. State systems were becoming increasingly
and totally materialistic.
"There is a disaster, however, which has
already been under way for quite some time. I am referring to the calamity
of a despiritualized and irreligious humanistic consciousness.
is not possible that assessment of the President's performance be reduced
to the question of how much money one makes or of unlimited availability
of gasoline. Only voluntary inspired self-restraint can raise man above
the world stream of materialism.
"Even if we are spared
destruction by war, our lives will have to change if we want to save life
Still having trouble making the
distinction between license and liberty? The economy's fine, so why should
we worry about personal life, about an absurd anachronism like virtue? A
recent study claimed it revealed that 40 percent of the students at
Harvard Business school admitted that after they graduate they would not
hesitate to cheat their prospective employers if they believed they could
"get away with it." This implies that four out of ten of those
polled who end up working for you either in the private or public sector,
are willing to cheat you whenever they think they can. And of course, many
of them already are. They're cheating you out of not only your labor and
your money, but your ideological and literal heritage in liberty as
And Then There's Leno
So give it to me straight, Doc.
Just how bad is it? Well a 1990 survey of 200 major corporations found
that 22 percent of companies had to teach their employees to read, and 41
percent had to teach employees to write. Ninety million American adults
could not write a letter complaining about a consumer billing error. The
Hearst Corporation conducted a poll revealing that 45 percent of those
asked believed that the Marxist slogan, "from each according to his
ability, to each according to his need," is part of the U.S. Constitution.
And while every recent graduate may know how to use a condom or recognize
Patricia Ireland, only four out of ten polled adults could correctly
identify the Bill of Rights.
A recent Associated Press poll placed
Monica Lewinsky eighth on the top-ten list of most-admired American women,
barely below Mother Teresa. Hillary Clinton was number-one. The same poll
placed Bill Clinton above the Pope, and a Washington Post poll in
late January gave Larry Flynt higher numbers for trustworthiness than
Henry Hyde. And the State of the Union address claims that the federal
government can ameliorate this tragedy by throwing more of your money at
the problem and producing more drag queens with Ph.D's.
an opponent declares, 'I will not come over to your side,' I calmly say,
'Your child belongs to us already.'"
ever popular icon of American culture, The Tonight Show, host Jay
Leno occasionally walks the streets outside the NBC studio in Burbank
California polling people with a live camera crew. On August 8, 1995, he
displayed pictures to teen-agers he stopped at random. Shoving his
wireless microphone up in their faces, he showed the likeness of Joe
Stalin next to the fictional cigarette advertisement cartoon character Joe
Camel. None of the young adults could identify the man who Solzhenitsyn
says was responsible for the deaths of 60 million who resisted "mental
healing," but everyone recognized Joe Camel.
Leno then displayed
Caesar Augustus and the Little Caesar's pizza chain cartoon character. The
results were the same. He went on with Napoleon Bonaparte and Captain
Crunch, then Colonel Qadaffi and Colonel Sanders, and finally former
president Jimmy Carter and Mr. Peanut. No one could identify even
one of the real historic characters, including a recent president
of the United States. Virtually everyone knew the advertising characters.
The audience was hysterical. Young adults all know peanuts, pizza, and the
mechanics of sodomy, but only 41 percent can identify their own Bill of
What's the matter, man? Can't you take a joke? We're the
new barbarians, and damn proud of it! We love them dumb. That way they
yield themselves with perfect docility. You understand what
I'm talkin' about, dude?
I'm talking about a culture war
over a sovereign political prize that may already be lost. And if it is,
I'm talking about kissing the traditional American concept of liberty
goodbye. I'm talking about the possibility that the Fascists may have won
without firing a shot, aided and abetted by the arrogant, vapid cretins on
the intellectual American Left. And I'm talking about our morally bankrupt
system of education at the very heart of this tragedy. I'm talking about
the Fifth Estate.
article reposted from The Laissez Faire City Times, Vol 3, No 9, March 1, 1999
Click here to visit the
Special Reports Archives.