I'll come back to Mr. Rockefeller's charitable contributions in a bit, but you have the man now? This is the Rockefeller who gave away many billions of dollars, in today's monetary values. Return To TopSome religions teach that Jesus is God, or part of God. Others call Him a "path" TO God. If Jesus was an "Agent" of God, there is also a "god" for whom John D. Rockefeller was the agent! This next man is the POWER behind the scenes, just as God is the POWER behind Christ. This is the man you haven't heard much about! His name was
The drama about to unfold
never played in public. John D. was the most secretive of men.
Very few photos of him were ever published. His plans to
destroy American education and to destroy the American health
system were never seen until many years after he did his deed.
It is remarkable feat to be able to see a hundred or more years
into the future -- to plan for events that far away, with
confidence that he would be changing the world. Return To TopDr. Wundt was extremely famous, but only within some very small circles. He knew that his works COULD change the world, but he would never have succeeded without his agent, John D. Like many apparently brilliant men, Dr. Wundt produced only "ideas." His ideas were very appealing to some very important people, but without the MONEY controlled by John D., Wundt's ideas would be nothing more than a dusty tome on a shelf in a library in Germany. (Click here for one of his major books -- more than 300 pages of his book on this web site!) It took Jesus to make God real to man. It took John D to make the Wundt Psychology be applied in American education. Remember, I am contrasting the great good from Jesus and the soon-to-be-described great evil from Wundt and Rockefeller. We start with Professor Wundt:
Return To TopThis has the appearance of a pretty dry debate
of the technicalities of the isness of "id!" Doesn't sound very
practical, like a new way to fix the furnace! Turns out that these
dry theories have tremendous impact on our lives today --
specifically the life of the school child.
Most study of the nature of the human soul, "psychology" has been done with animals. Dr. Skinner is one of the most famous for teaching chickens, pigeons and rats to "behave" based on conditioning them. Return To TopBefore I go on to say more about Pavlov, did you get that paragraph above? Education based on conditioning, based on modern psychology, simply requires that you offer various rewards or punishments -- to achieve learning. So, we have now had several generations of our population whose only goal is to earn enough money to buy food, sex and drugs. This is the "me too" era of our times. Gratification comes first because the absence of any moral rules, and the belief that man is an animal -- these give one little reason to adopt any spiritual values. "Life for the day!"
You notice this use of the word "condition." In fact the Wundt approach to education was, simply to condition the child to react properly to certain stimuli! The picture on the left is one of Dr. Pavlov performing surgery on the brain of a dog! The others in the photo are psychiatrists, hoping to learn from the Master Pavlov! Return To TopHere's Wundt's pupil, Pavlov:
The photo on the left is a living cat with electrodes inserted through the scull, into the brain. When this is done delicately, it appears that the cat is not affected -- until the electricity is turned on! Can children be far behind? Is it being done, already, perhaps outside the US? Can we "teach" this way without the electrode? Let's see!
Return To TopThe image on the right, above, is presented as humorous, but the truth of brain electrodes can be hidden by making a joke of the truth. In today's society these activities seems far away, and unbelievable. But if you click on the link in the above paragraph, and then chase down all the other related links, you'll find a very believable story. The beginning of the theory behind such behavior was Dr. Wundt. The continuation of his theories, having passed through the violent experiments of the past 40 years, have entered a time of greater secrecy, and possibly less violence. The influence is now more covert and thus more insidious. But, if these violent invasions into humanity don't get publicity any longer, their more subtle cousins continue. Our modern education system, in virtually all public schools, is based on theories of the mind achieved by assuming that man is an animal and needs "conditioning." Since those words are not very politically correct, they are now suppressed, but that is still the philosophical basis for American education -- and most other countries around the world. Dr Wundt, as you see, influenced Pavlov to start his own experiments. But many others went to sit at the feet of Wundt.
Some only "heard" about these new theories of man's development and developed their own ideas. It seems that when a man has an evil, ungodly streak in him he will look for ways to prove that man is an animal and can be controlled like an animal is controlled -- with rewards and punishments.
His image is to the left. He wrote:
Kant's godless concepts help shape the immoral moral code of today. Here is a comment about Kant by John Stewart Mill, another famous philosopher:
Return To TopYou may still wonder where this is leading? As we come closer to America's shores, and closer to present time, we find some famous American names and theories. The teaching of reading is THE most basic of any educational process. It has been corrupted for decades without many people realizing it.
Return To TopDr. Cattell, one of Wundt's first students, had a massive influence on American education -- all of it bad.
By this time another influential man, Thorndike, fell under the sway to this "new psychology" and since he was in charge of dictionary definitions, we find that "psychology" began to mean something different than it had -- in his dictionaries. Thorndike's photo is on the right.
Return To TopThorndike went on to write literally hundreds of books and papers, including some of the most influential in all of American education.
Return To TopAs brilliant as Thorndike was, and as influential as he may have seemed to be, his influence would have never caused the havoc it did without a powerful thrust of money to cram it down the throats of American schools.
Return To TopRockefeller devised a plan to give away his money in such a way that he could "have" it in even greater amounts -- and at the same time, for good measure, destroy American education and also destroy the American health system --- then based almost exclusively on "homeopathy." The most prevalent health treatment in the world today is "homeopathy," but the most common method in the US and "modern" countries is "allopathy." After Rockefeller destroyed homeopathy, then "chemical medicine" found its way, is is leading the current path to health demise. "Chemical medicine" is not far different from "chemically enhanced education" -- as per Ritalin!
Return To TopHere is, finally, where money flowed toward Wundt's protégés, and Wundt psychology began to overtake American education and culture.
Return To TopWhile Wundt laid down the principals, some American talent had to put their own names on it, and give it an "American flavor." These are the people usually recognized as the fathers of modern American educational systems.
I, Karl Loren, regard Professor Wundt as a clever man whose writing logic is almost impossible to refute for the typical scientist, or educator. These would be people whose life and work are not based on much belief or understanding of things spiritual, and often whose lives and works are based on "science" that can be proven with objective measurements. Dr. Wundt, in the very Introduction of his large work, says this:
Return To TopAs you read this, it seems very reasonable. Dr. Wundt takes note that there is a subject called "psychology" and another called "physiology." It is even reasonable to indicate that these two subjects, alone, may well be all that is needed to encompass the "facts of human life." He simply STATES that he is going to combine these two subjects into "something" which will be capable of measurement. It seems reasonable that his "measurement" will be objective and scientific. You hardly notice that he does not admit that he is unable to measure mental activity directly, and that he therefore feels it is sufficient to observe and hopefully measure the BEHAVIOR of a person. He assumes that the behavior is caused by some mental activity. If he cannot measure your "thinking" directly, he can measure your behavior. THEN, giving up on understanding any true mental activity, he starts putting electricity into the brain in order to cause certain behaviors. That, in a nutshell, is what his whole life's work is about. Return To TopThe final result of this "brilliance," of course, is the death of learning.
The Teaching Of Reading Fails Miserably In AmericaAmerican schools have failed miserably in teaching reading. There is an exact reason, described here:
Nothing seemed to breed success as much as failure at the Lincoln School. The teacher of teachers was obviously not successful, but there were money reasons behind lower level teachers being so eager to accept this foreign philosophy.
Return To TopThe failures in teaching reading, years ago, have continued into modern times. According to the Wall Street Journal in January 2003:
Return To TopFailure to graduate is most often related to failure in reading, as this example a high school student demonstrates:
There you have the essence of it -- the
destruction of American education by the ideas of Wundt put into
force and use by the billions from Rockefeller.
Some of these educational concepts may not seem familiar to you --
they are currently hidden under new words. Some of the new words are "phonics" and "whole language." These words weren't around when Dr. Wundt was doing his damage, but the battle has evolved among the disciples of Wundt and those others who, unlike Wundt, could somehow think clearly. The "Wundt Damage" done to our society, on the subject of the teaching of reading is no where near yet understood. Even I, Karl Loren, venture to suggest that you have NOT yet seen a sane and logical approach to the teaching of reading -- as I will present below. Return To TopThe failures in educational technology have been publicized, but there still seems to be some powerful, hidden influence that prevents logic from being applied:
Return To TopThe basics of language, and therefore the basics of communication, are sounds first, not letters, words or symbols. It is the failure to observe this truth that has ruined the technology of teaching reading. A baby, indeed, sees things, and, as many do, keeps pictures of what he sees. So, first learning is undoubtedly through seeing and pictures. But, mothers have not yet developed their skills at "seeing" the pictures of their child, and children have no way, yet, of popping their internal pictures out for mother to look at.
The most basic of all learning technology is "mimicking." The child hears "fo fo" on some random basis, and says, "fo fo." Some mothers might exalt that, "Our son has said his first words!" Let's take a more likely
example. Little Johnny says, "ma ma." Mother hears this -- and
assumes, immediately, that Johnny is calling her "mother" or "ma
ma." These might well have been nothing more than random noises
uttered by the kid. But, mother hears this sound and lights up,
smiles (kids have learned that smiles are good) and mother then
excitedly exclaims, "ma ma -- yes, ma ma!" The kid has been
acknowledged and has started a learning process -- based on voicing
a sound that, now, has some great significance. Why? Because mother
mimics the sound made by Johnny. Johnny has now experienced
something very precious in life -- he has been acknowledged for his
origination.
The child, initially, has no clue on any "meaning" of this sound, "ma ma," but he knows that mother has mimicked him, and has acknowledged him, and smiled. Return To TopSo, he now says "ma ma" again, and again. Every time, like pushing the button, he gets the same response from mother -- he gets the repeat, or a smile, or whatever he gets. And, so do the skills of
communication develop. This concept is NOT unique to me, Karl
Loren:
Return To TopThere is no other way for normal children to learn than by mimicking sounds they hear, and getting acknowledged and led to repeat those sounds. Let it be clear that UNDERSTANDING some meaning for these sounds is NOT a part of learning at this point. At some point, little researched, the duplication of the sound develops over into an understanding of what that sound "means." First is duplication, second is understanding. They cannot go in the reverse order, as the whole language technology usually involves. You cannot duplicate (for another) what you see. You can duplicate what you hear -- since that can be repeated for the teacher's correction, or more importantly for the mother's acknowledgment.
The kid may "understand" or may not, but at least he has duplicated the sounds and the "pointing" behavior. Return To TopThe child hears sounds. He voices sounds, but not with any regularity -- they are random sounds. Then, some sounds, acknowledged and repeated by a parent, become sounds-converted-to-syllables, whole words are later. To place whole words before syllables is exactly wrong. That is what "whole word, or worse, "whole language" teaching technology" has tried to do. It will fail, as it has failed.
At some magical moment the kid learns that "ma ma" is a short version of "mother." These are different sounds, but they mean the same thing. This is another of those huge cognitions a child has -- pretty much by himself. I don't know that we are teaching this conversion of "ma ma" and "mother" MEANING the same thing. If he smart (and IQ probably exists at birth??) he would then realize that two different sounds can have similar meanings, and perhaps more sounds even mean the same? What a world to explore for a bright kid. A dull kid might not ever "learn" this. I don't know of any research on these matters, but it would be relatively easy to devise such research. If you followed all the above? You could figure out how to reinforce the baby's conversion of "ma ma" to also mean "mother." Write and tell me how you would do this. He then moves, as you can guess, logically, to a whole vocabulary of sounds, many of which are considered words. He would certainly not, at this point, be exposed to LOOKING at a picture and SAYING what the picture either sounds like or means. If the kid is extremely intelligent, and has had an unusually smart mother, he could learn most of phonics by the time he is three years old. Return To Top"Learning" would mean that he could "recite" or speak these sounds. The next step, via phonics, would be associate each of these sounds with some picture of letters. It is still duplication, not understanding. He sees "ba" and he says "ba." He doesn't understand anything -- he simply, and remarkably, duplicates. The first words are those "ma ma" sounds. They ARE words. Then words get more complex -- a couple syllables and other complexities. Skill with words is followed by skill with word-phrases, sentences and is measured by vocabulary and understanding the proper word, and then the proper definition for that word in any usage. I am glossing over a great deal of detail, but you see that proper teaching of reading cannot be anything other than a parallel of the natural progression of a baby learning sounds. A very smart kid would not be ruined by the "modern teaching technologies," but some kids will be ruined if they don't get phonics in school -- not having got them at home. Smart kids make smart adults, but those smart adults may have no notion on why they are smart, and accept the stupid technology in the teaching schools -- and go on to ruin the lives of many children. They have the added disadvantage of thinking, "Well, if I could learn to read, using the whole language method, why can't these kids?" With the Wundt/Rockefeller emphasis on chemicals as the source and remedy for life and with the loss of morals, we became a society of instant gratification. With modern education we are after social control and behavior -- we are NOT after developing the mind. Return To TopWhole Language technology gives quicker gratification because the student duplicates whole words without understanding the sounds of syllables within those words, often without understanding the words themselves. Without understanding the syllables, he is destined to have to learn thousands of words, separately, rather than the 50 different sounds that make up our language. Once a student has learned to duplicate any word, by sounding out its syllables, he can pronounce that word -- even though he may not yet understand it. But he then starts to see that "teach" and "teacher" have similarities, and he learns that "-er" is a syllable that is often added to verbs in order to make nouns (although, of course, this level of understanding may be a bit further on). As long as "teach" and "teacher" are two completely unrelated words he will have a much more difficult time of understanding the words. Incidentally, the final step in
education is to learn how to exercise judgment. Ca Most cows eat glass! A student should be able to duplicate this line -- either say it or write it. Duplication does NOT include understanding or using judgment. This is a critical factor not understood by teachers' schools. A student should also be able to understand this line. He should be able to explain to you that, "This lines mean that most cows eat glass, and the word 'glass' means like what is in the picture to the right." Understanding is different from using judgment. He must understand before he can exercise judgment. Return To TopOnly when the student is working at the level of "judgment" can he say, "This line seems to present false information." His judgment would be right.
You say, "ma ma" to him, and invite him to say, "ma ma" back to you. You acknowledge his success or correct his error. You continue, progressing up to your feeding him words, or phrases or sentences, and asking him to repeat them back. You through in lines that are not "logical" to see if he is willing to duplicate something that is "wrong." He must if he is to differentiate the parts of the learning process. When you think of it most frauds in the area of marketing are associated with promotional claims where the words are not understood, but a judgment is made, often "to buy." "People have found that marine calcium is the superior form of calcium." Return To TopA person read this statement, does not understand what "marine calcium" is, and thus does not understand the sentence. But, in violation of the sequence of learning, he exercises judgment, buys the fraudulent stuff, and never does know that he has suffering from a lack of reading skill. Here is another example. Most cows eat dinglehurst. You might disagree with this -- in other words exercise judgment, but the truth is that you cannot possibly understand that line, since I made-up the word, "dinglehurst" and it has no meaning. If you cannot understand the line, you cannot, in logic, say that you disagree with it. You can say, "I don't understand the word 'dingloehurst.'" That is what you can say. You can, of course, repeat that line even though you do not understand it.
The use of "reason" comes in with math, very intensely. You can duplicate "two plus two equals four" without understanding it. You begin to understand that phrase when you put some apples or oranges on the table -- two apples in one part and two more apples in another, and then you count them, "one, two, three, four," and discover that the four you counted are the same as the "four" you memorized during the duplication step. But the word "equals" is the door to an immense new area of learning. Does the word "equal" mean "the same" or "similar" or something else. There is no rote answer here. Return To TopOne correct answer would be that one apple is NEVER the same as any other apple, so you could not, in logic, say "one apple plus one apple is equal to two apples" because the very word "apple" does not have the same exact definition in each of the usages. The apples, in fact, are "different" from one another. As a child starts to grapple with the meaning of "is" or "equal" he is into higher levels of learning, needing logic and reasoning. In fact you could say that intelligence is
nothing more than the ability to detect exactnesses, similarities
and differences.
The symbol, "x" which has no more meaning than a symbol, and does NOT stand for an apple, for instance, can be manipulated. You can say that "one x plus one x equals two x." That's exact. But, "one John and one John's brother" now have to be equaled to "people" or "family members." So the single word, "is," meaning "to exist" or "to equal" or any of many other meanings, is the single word that has so many meanings, and so much usage that it, alone, is worthy of much teaching time. I could go on with this, but I bring it up briefly because, as far as I know there is no known technology of teaching reading that gets into the concepts which I have presented here. Fundamentally the word "is" relates to and means "truth." "Truth" is a subject more vast than the teaching of reading and covered HERE. And so the learning of reading is a science, but not used much in our schools. Some of these concepts are unique with me, Karl Loren. However, the basic concepts here on teaching of reading that are NOT original with me. There is only one source for this reading technology. If you write to me, I'll give you more information on the actual origin. Return To TopWhen you look more carefully at the above text you realize that the teaching being described here is of objects in the physical universe. "Mother" and "cows" are items you find in the physical universe that can be "seen." But, how about "sad" or "angry?" Emotions are certainly found in the physical universe, but it is not straightforward to "see" them.
There IS technology to help you use objective observations of all the emotional tone levels, and even of other words, like "God" or "love," but you would certainly be into a different strata of teaching when you get into these words. I can help you understand that also.
So, the teaching of the reading of mental or spiritual phenomenon, or emotions, or moral issues? These are matters of "belief." They are no less specific, but the student should realize that the meanings of many of the words in this category mean what some author says they mean -- not much else. You can agree, if you wish, but you are free to have a different meaning also. When an author comes along and writes a story with some sadness in it, we rather all agree that if he writes, "Mary was crying," that he is depicting sadness. There are some easy agreements on these words, but there are, still, many words for which little or no definition of meaning has evolved. Consider the two words, "angry" and "antagonistic." Return To Top
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Angry (An"gry)
(#), a. |
|
|||||||||
Surely
you can see differences in the definitions of these two words. But,
you could also see "great literature" depicting some characters and
using descriptions that show "anger" or "antagonism" and you may
then further find that the descriptions are not as easy to JUDGE.
Is the boy on the left "sad" or "depressed" or "in despair" or some
other state?
You understand the words, but your judgment may indicate to you that the character is angry? Or that he is antagonistic? Or? How will you decide?
This too can be a matter of the teaching
technology, but it could also be a matter of the a
uthor
not using the standard definitions for these words, or being vague.
So, we get "professors" whose "opinions" on the emotional
characteristics of characters are considered "wise," or some such.
The teaching of great literature, and the "hidden meanings" within that literature -- sounds to me like a thicket into which I do not care to venture. But, you cannot deny that many people read stories and are impacted by the emotional message they get, and since this is true, there will be teachers telling you what you should understand in these stories.
Good enough when the student is sober and free of drugs.
What does the teacher do, wanting to "teach" about the emotional content of some text, when the student has a 4th grade reading level and/or is on drugs?
He
teaches "fuzzy literature!" This is the teaching of literature
where YOU are the only judge of what emotion is contained within the
story. So, because it is hard to get "standards" of judgment on
emotional content, today's professors (usually this is done in
college) throw away the standards and allow every student to find
ANY emotion they wish in the text.
Freedom!
Crazy!!
These
toxins are very unlike the toxic metals that cause heart disease.
Toxic metals do not change the personality. However, these chemical
pollutants seem to produce what could be called a "chemical
personality." These toxins can actually change your personality
from whatever it is, naturally, to one of being more hostile toward
others -- yet this hostility usually does not show in the outward
appearance. Another factor of this chemical personality is
dishonesty and a loss of morality.
The person's hostility is hidden and covert. From this personality change you can trace the increase in crime, divorce, poor schooling and the whole gamut of social turmoil we can now see so plainly -- if not see so plainly its origin in chemical pollutants. It is fruitless to try to teach a child who is chemically polluted. Child delinquency can easily be traced back to chemically-polluted parents, friends and the child himself.
It is not unlikely that sexual perversions and promiscuity have their bases in the chemical residues which so flood our bodies.
Since authors have become
increasingly dumb, because of drugs, and because there are fewer and
fewer good students, because of student drug histories, who are
skilled with language skills (vocabulary and grammar) the
educational system had to evolve a technique by which drug-headed
students could get high emotional inspirations from lousy
literature, written by other drug-heads. We have achieved the
ultimate of this in current television where DUMBER is always
better.
This is the reason that so much of American culture seems so dumb, and is getting dumber. Certainly in the old days movies or music were sold into the mass market, too. "Casablanca" was mass market, and so was Smokey Robinson and the Miracles. But those discrete markets aren't big or broad enough now to support the massive quarter-over-quarter revenue needs of a "cross-market" media giant. So they've created a world of hypermass. It's a formula alright: Hypermass=dumber2. By definition, you target the lowest common denominator -- then think lower. Thus we get the "reality" TV show "Joe Millionaire" now on FOX, which makes the original "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" on ABC look like Masterpiece Theater. The hit "Analyze This" degrades into the bomb "Analyze That." (source)
Thus, we now have teaching, even
in college, which asks the student to describe the emotion
they "feel" from literature, and would never teach them what to look
for, but how to feel. If one student "feels" sadness, and another
"feels" anger, so be it. All are correct. There is no standard --
fuzzy literature!
It is like getting drugged up. You can feel emotions easily then. Since many students are drugged up the teachers might as well validate the drugged condition by asking them for what emotion they feel when they read some prose or poetry.
The emotion they "feel" is
drug-based, but this new teaching technology can't admit that, so
the teacher then validates ANY emotion that the drugged student
"feels."
Ms. Savoy (the principal) insisted that my grades [for students] were "too low" and informed me that the law obliged me to pass a certain percentage of my students. I paid no attentio
It is easy to accept that one person, Jesus Christ, ignited a flame
of hope and salvation that spread across the planet and has guided
billions of people over thousands of years. Man is willing
But
isn't it entirely possible that the very virtue of Christianity,
to love,
has made it difficult for Christians to see evil? It is one thing
to call something evil, but much more to cast it out. Even Jesus
threw the money-changers out of the temple. Should those of strong
religious faith do any less for the evil men who have hidden
themselves inside the body of civilized society? According to Bible
students, this is the only example of Jesus ever using force! Is
not His example worthy of us today? 
I've
now set the stage! The stage on which we have Jesus on one
side, proclaiming God and His glory! On the other side were two
very human men -- this other side features John D. Rockefeller
(who claimed to believe in God but ultimately tried to destroy
religion) and Wilhelm M. Wundt (the hidden power who certainly
did not believe in God). They were born within a few years of
one another.
Before
Wundt, the subject of psychology was largely philosophical in
nature and dealt with the spirit, soul and mind. Wundt 's activity
"redefined psychology as a physiological rather than a
philosophical subject." Basically, everything previously
considered to be a fundamental part of man - spirit, mind, soul,
feelings, will, intention, hopes, and ideas - came to be ignored
and explained as only being a response to external stimuli and
physiology. Per Lionni, "What was will? For Wundt, will was the
direct result of the combination of perceived stimuli, not an
independent, individual intention as psychology and philosophy
had, with some notable exceptions, held up to that time". (
"Wundt
established the new psychology as a study of the brain and the
central nervous system. From Wundt's work, it was only a short
step to the later redefining of the meaning of education.
Originally, education meant the drawing out of a person's innate
talents and abilities by imparting the knowledge of languages,
scientific reasoning, history, literature, rhetoric, etc. - the
channels through which those abilities would flourish and serve.
To the experimental psychologist, however, education became the
process of exposing the student to "meaningful" experiences so as
to ensure desired reactions: 
The
Russian Pavlov was a student under Dr. Wundt, and later became
famous for his experiments with dogs. Most people have heard of
Pavlov ringing a bell to "condition" the dog to salivate. What most
people don't know is that Pavlov also used torture and electric
shock to condition the dog. In other words he used punishment and
reward to condition the dogs. In Russia they mostly used his
punishment approach to rule the people. In the US business has
tried the reward approach to motivate workers, but neither one works
when it is a conditioning, with no understanding of the mind.
You
may already see where this is leading? More modern psychologists
insert electrodes into the brains of living animals, and then send
electricity into the brain -- looking for ways to "teach" the cat???
behavior from remote
transmitters; giving 150 mcg of LSD per day to children age 7-11
for weeks and months at a time; building safe houses where CIA
personnel watched prostitutes turn tricks with customers - the
prostitutes gave their customers LSD without the customers'
knowledge; wiping out memories with electric shock, and using
animals with implanted brain electrodes as delivery systems for
chemical and biological weapons. (
Independently
of Pavlov Bekhterev developed a theory of conditioned reflexes,
studying both inherited an acquired reflexes in the laboratory.
He also accumulated a considerable volume of data on skeletal
reflexes that was later applied in neurology. 
The
so-called great philosophers had preceded Wundt -- laying the
groundwork. These included Emmanuel Kant who had no faith in any
spiritual goodness to man. He did believe that "God" was necessary
as a regulatory mechanism -- to keep man in check. Kant, thus,
prepared man for Dr. Wundt's later "science" 
"As
every school child used to know, Rockefeller created one of the
largest monopolies of his time. He began in the oil business in
1863, and by 1880 had won control of 95% of U.S. oil production.
He controlled the drilling for oil, the refineries, the prices,
and the transportation of crude and refined oil through an
intricate tank car system. He sabotaged his competitors, hired
spies to infiltrate the businesses of his enemies, and squeezed
out independent operators by carefully conceived secret contracts.
By 1910, when a glass of beer cost a penny and a loaf of bread
less than a nickel, when a three-room apartment went for five
dollars a month and a good pair of shoes for a dollar, Rockefeller
had assets of over $800 million (in 1980's buying power, that
equates to over $10 billion)! [Karl Note:
Now more than $80 billion]
Rockefeller liked to make money. At age 41, he was quoted as
saying, "I have ways of making money you know nothing of and later
attributed his money-making powers to a gift from God: (
Due
to large Rockefeller funding, Columbia Teacher's College was able
to 1) "invent" an entirely new subject (educational psychology),
2) hire numerous German-educated Wundtian psychologists, 3) spread
the word of this "new science", 4) maintain a virtual monopoly on
the subject for many years right up until present time, and 5)
implement, in many areas of society, destructive theories and
practices based on a) mere opinion parading as science, b) German
racist ideas (genetics, eugenics), and c) invalid notions of "man"
and how to "control" him. (
To
The
Lincoln School, despite its inability to teach its students how to
read and write, created broad effects on American education.
Discarding the traditional course of study, it developed the core
curriculum and merged the study of history, geography, and civics
into what it called the "social studies." To a generation of
teachers and administrators educated at Teachers College, the
Lincoln School was a model for the type of school they were to
create back home. To thousands of visitors, it was a showplace for
the new psychology and Progressive Education. For the
California's
4th-grade children now score last in the national ranking of 39
participating states in reading according to the 1994 National
Assessment of Educational Progress (1994 NAEP READING: A First
Look; 1-800-424-1616). 
Incidentally,
and obviously, a different language in the home would mean
different sounds for common items -- like "mother." Actually, the
word "mother" in English probably first arose when one group heard
"ma ma" and started converting that into "mother."
Mother
might point to herself, and say, "Ma ma." She would then point to
Johnny, and say, "Johnny." When the kid can master the TWO sounds
of "John ny" there is another big celebration. When the kid can
point to mother and say, "ma ma," and then point to his own body,
and
say, "John ny" mother may think there is an advanced state of
learning being exhibited. There might be, but in fact what is more
likely is that there is a further progression of mimicking only
sounds and pointing taking place.
At
some magical moment the kid has a huge cognition. He realizes that
"ma ma" MEANS something -- it is not just a sound. He has gone the
next step -- from duplication to understanding. There will be a
growing realization that various sounds, now, also MEAN something.
Soon he will be looking for the meaning of all the sounds he hears.
All
too often people make judgments before they understand. The man may
read, "Most cows eat glass." and he
understands, "Most cows eat grass." He
did not duplicate the line, so he understood HIS line, but not THE
line. In logic he cannot exercise judgment on a line that does not
exist. He might, foolishly, AGREE with the line. He is actually
agreeing with HIS line, but you might think he is agreeing with THE
line, so you think he is dumb. Yes, he is dumb, but there is an
explanation for this, and a solution. If you think his problem is a
"lack of reasoning power" you are wrong. He has a lack of skill at
duplicating the line. That is remedied, usually, by feeding him
SOUNDS, and asking him to duplicate those.
The
only proper action by the student would be to recognize that he does
not have a definition for 'dinglehurst' and look in a good
dictionary for that definition. Not finding any definition, he
could look further, but at some point he is going to want to ignore
this meaningless line, or query the author as to what is the
meaning. If her were to render an opinion on this, without
understanding it, he has some remedial learning to do -- as do the
great majority of our people, not just kids.
What
does the word, "God" mean? In logic it can only "mean" what some
man has decided is the definition. One man might say "God is
omnipotent." That tells us something -- that God is "all
powerful." But only a fool would say that "God is Caucasian." Yet,
