27 September, 2006

Public Schooling = Prussian Schooling Operated By Jews for White Cattle

Posted by alex in education, homeschooling, NEA, Prussia, public skools, real American history at 5:21 pm | Permanent Link

There’s an anti-NEA industry that takes as its epiphany the fact that U.S. public schooling is modeled after the Prussian. I wish the folks who write these treatises, which are correct as far as they go, would pay less attention to the Prussian origins in 18th century Europe and more attention to the jewish operators in 21st century America. The medium is only part of the message. While the factory setup is inherently undesirable, the specifics of that-which-is-inculcated are important, too. Prussian kids were not trained to hate themselves and their Prussian heritage, quite the opposite. White schoolkids are taught to hate themselves, and their ancestors. The jews would prefer they listen to hiphop, screw indiscriminately, and believe fervently in homoism, the Holocaust and Holy Israel.

The Public School Nightmare:
Why fix a system designed to destroy individual thought?
by John Taylor Gatto

I want you to consider the frightening possibility that we are spending far too much money on schooling, not too little. I want you to consider that we have too many people employed in interfering with the way children grow up–and that all this money and all these people, all the time we take out of children’s lives and away from their homes and families and neighbourhoods and private explorations–gets in the way of education.

That seems radical, I know. Surely in modern technological society it is the quantity of schooling and the amount of money you spend on it that buys value. And yet last year in St. Louis, I heard a vice-president of IBM tell an audience of people assembled to redesign the process of teacher certification that in his opinion this country became computer-literate by self-teaching, not through any action of schools. He said 45 million people were comfortable with computers who had learned through dozens of non-systematic strategies, none of them very formal; if schools had pre-empted the right to teach computer use we would be in a horrible mess right now instead of leading the world in this literacy. Now think about Sweden, a beautiful, healthy, prosperous and up-to-date country with a spectacular reputation for quality in everything it produces. It makes sense to think their schools must have something to do with that.

Then what do you make of the fact that you can’t go to school in Sweden until you are 7 years old? The reason the unsentimental Swedes have wiped out what would be first and seconds grades here is that they don’t want to pay the large social bill that quickly comes due when boys and girls are ripped away from their best teachers at home too early.

It just isn’t worth the price, say the Swedes, to provide jobs for teachers and therapists if the result is sick, incomplete kids who can’t be put back together again very easily. The entire Swedish school sequence isn’t 12 years, either–it’s nine. Less schooling, not more. The direct savings of such a step in the US would be $75-100 billion, a lot of unforeclosed home mortgages, a lot of time freed up with which to seek an education.

Who was it that decided to force your attention onto Japan instead of Sweden? Japan with its long school year and state compulsion, instead of Sweden with its short school year, short school sequence, and free choice where your kid is schooled? Who decided you should know about Japan and not Hong Kong, an Asian neighbour with a short school year that outperforms Japan across the board in math and science? Whose interests are served by hiding that from you?

One of the principal reasons we got into the mess we’re in is that we allowed schooling to become a very profitable monopoly, guaranteed its customers by the police power of the state. Systematic schooling attracts increased investment only when it does poorly, and since there are no penalties at all for such performance, the temptation not to do well is overwhelming. That’s because school staffs, both line and management, are involved in a guild system; in that ancient form of association no single member is allowed to outperform any other member, is allowed to advertise or is allowed to introduce new technology or improvise without the advance consent of the guild. Violation of these precepts is severely sanctioned–as Marva Collins, Jaime Escalante and a large number of once-brilliant teachers found out.

The guild reality cannot be broken without returning primary decision-making to parents, letting them buy what they want to buy in schooling, and encouraging the entrepreneurial reality that existed until 1852. That is why I urge any business to think twice before entering a cooperative relationship with the schools we currently have. Cooperating with these places will only make them worse.

The structure of American schooling, 20th century style, began in 1806 when Napoleon’s amateur soldiers beat the professional soldiers of Prussia at the battle of Jena. When your business is selling soldiers, losing a battle like that is serious. Almost immediately afterwards a German philosopher named Fichte delivered his famous “Address to the German Nation” which became one of the most influential documents in modern history. In effect he told the Prussian people that the party was over, that the nation would have to shape up through a new Utopian institution of forced schooling in which everyone would learn to take orders.

So the world got compulsion schooling at the end of a state bayonet for the first time in human history; modern forced schooling started in Prussia in 1819 with a clear vision of what centralized schools could deliver:

  1. Obedient soldiers to the army;
  2. Obedient workers to the mines;
  3. Well subordinated civil servants to government;
  4. Well subordinated clerks to industry
  5. Citizens who thought alike about major issues.

Schools should create an artificial national consensus on matters that had been worked out in advance by leading German families and the head of institutions. Schools should create unity among all the German states, eventually unifying them into Greater Prussia.

Prussian industry boomed from the beginning. She was successful in warfare and her reputation in international affairs was very high. Twenty-six years after this form of schooling began, the King of Prussia was invited to North America to determine the boundary between the United States and Canada. Thirty-three years after that fateful invention of the central school institution, as the behest of Horace Mann and many other leading citizens, we borrowed the style of Prussian schooling as our own.

You need to know this because over the first 50 years of our school institution Prussian purpose–which was to create a form of state socialism–gradually forced out traditional American purpose, which in most minds was to prepare the individual to be self-reliant.

In Prussia the purpose of the Volksshule, which educated 92 percent of the children, was not intellectual development at all, but socialization in obedience and subordination. Thinking was left to the Real Schulen, in which 8 percent of the kids participated. But for the great mass, intellectual development was regarded with managerial horror, as something that caused armies to lose battles.

Prussia concocted a method based on complex fragmentations to ensure that its school products would fit the grand social design. Some of this method involved dividing whole ideas into school subjects, each further divisible, some of it involved short periods punctuated by a horn so that self-motivation in study would be muted by ceaseless interruptions.

There were many more techniques of training, but all were built around the premise that isolation from first-hand information, and fragmentation of the abstract information presented by teachers, would result in obedient and subordinate graduates, properly respectful of arbitrary orders. “Lesser” men would be unable to interfere with policy makers because, while they could still complain, they could not manage sustained or comprehensive thought. Well-schooled children cannot think critically, cannot argue effectively.

One of the most interesting by-products of Prussian schooling turned out to be the two most devastating wars of modern history. Erich Maria Ramarque, in his classic “All Quiet on the Wester Front” tells us that the First World War was caused by the tricks of schoolmasters, and the famous Protestant theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer said that the Second World War was the inevitable product of good schooling.

It’s important to underline that Bonhoeffer meant that literally, not metaphorically–schooling after the Prussian fashion removes the ability of the mind to think for itself. It teaches people to wait for a teacher to tell them what to do and if what they have done is good or bad. Prussian teaching paralyses the moral will as well as the intellect. It’s true that sometimes well-schooled students sound smart, because they memorize many opinions of great thinkers, but they actually are badly damaged because their own ability to think is left rudimentary and undeveloped.

We got from the United States to Prussia and back because a small number of very passionate ideological leaders visited Prussia in the first half of the 19th century, and fell in love with the order, obedience and efficiency of its system and relentlessly proselytized for a translation of Prussian vision onto these shores. If Prussia’s ultimate goal was the unification of Germany, our major goal, so these men thought, was the unification of hordes of immigrant Catholics into a national consensus based on a northern European cultural model. To do that children would have to be removed from their parents and from inappropriate cultural influence.

In this fashion, compulsion schooling, a bad idea that had been around at least since Plato’s “Republic”, a bad idea that New England had tried to enforce in 1650 without any success, was finally rammed through the Massachusetts legislature in 1852. It was, of course, the famous “Know-Nothing” legislature that passed this law, a legislature that was the leading edge of a famous secret society which flourished at that time known as “The Order of the Star Spangled Banner,” whose password was the simple sentence, “I know nothing”–hence the popular label attached to the secret society’s political arm, “The American Party.”

Over the next 50 years state after state followed suit, ending schools of choice and ceding the field to a new government monopoly. There was one powerful exception to this–the children who could afford to be privately educated.

It’s important to note that the underlying premise of Prussian schooling is that the government is the true parent of children–the State is sovereign over the family. At the most extreme pole of this notion is the idea that biological parents are really the enemies of their own children, not to be trusted.

How did a Prussian system of dumbing children down take hold in American schools? Thousands and thousands of young men from prominent American families journeyed to Prussia and other parts of Germany during the 19th century and brought home the Ph. D. degree to a nation in which such a credential was unknown. These men pre-empted the top positions in the academic world, in corporate research, and in government, to the point where opportunity was almost closed to those who had not studied in Germany, or who were not the direct disciples of a German PhD, as John Dewey was the disciple of G. Stanley Hall at Johns Hopkins.

Virtually every single one of the founders of American schooling had made the pilgrimage to Germany, and many of these men wrote widely circulated reports praising the Teutonic methods. Horace Mann’s famous “7th Report” of 1844, still available in large libraries, was perhaps the most important of these.

By 1889, a little more than 100 years ago, the crop was ready for harvest. It that year the US Commissioner of Education, William Torrey Harris, assured a railroad magnate, Collis Huntington, that American schools were “scientifically designed” to prevent “over-education” from happening. The average American would be content with his humble role in life, said the commissioner, because he would not be tempted to think about any other role. My guess is that Harris meant he would not be able to think about any other role.

In 1896 the famous John Dewey, then at the University of Chicago, said that independent, self-reliant people were a counter-productive anachronism in the collective society of the future. In modern society, said Dewey, people would be defined by their associations–not by their own individual accomplishments. It such a world people who read too well or too early are dangerous because they become privately empowered, they know too much, and know how to find out what they don’t know by themselves, without consulting experts.

Dewey said the great mistake of traditional pedagogy was to make reading and writing constitute the bulk of early schoolwork. He advocated that the phonics method of teaching reading be abandoned and replaced by the whole word method, not because the latter was more efficient (he admitted that it was less efficient) but because independent thinkers were produced by hard books, thinkers who cannot be socialized very easily. By socialization Dewey meant a program of social objectives administered by the best social thinkers in government. This was a giant step on the road to state socialism, the form pioneered in Prussia, and it is a vision radically disconnected with the American past, its historic hopes and dreams.

Dewey’s former professor and close friend, G. Stanley Hall, said this at about the same time, “Reading should no longer be a fetish. Little attention should be paid to reading.” Hall was one of the three men most responsible for building a gigantic administrative infrastructure over the classroom. How enormous that structure really became can only be understood by comparisons: New York State, for instance, employs more school administrators than all of the European Economic Community nations combined.

Once you think that the control of conduct is what schools are about, the word “reform” takes on a very particular meaning. It means making adjustments to the machine so that young subjects will not twist and turn so, while their minds and bodies are being scientifically controlled. Helping kids to use their minds better is beside the point.

Bertrand Russell once observed that American schooling was among the most radical experiments in human history, that America was deliberately denying its children the tools of critical thinking. When you want to teach children to think, you begin by treating them seriously when they are little, giving them responsibilities, talking to them candidly, providing privacy and solitude for them, and making them readers and thinkers of significant thoughts from the beginning. That’s if you want to teach them to think. There is no evidence that this has been a State purpose since the start of compulsion schooling.

When Frederich Froebel, the inventor of kindergarten in 19th century Germany, fashioned his idea he did not have a “garden for children” in mind, but a metaphor of teachers as gardeners and children as the vegetables. Kindergarten was created to be a way to break the influence of mothers on their children. I note with interest the growth of daycare in the US and the repeated urgings to extend school downward to include 4-year-olds. The movement toward state socialism is not some historical curiosity but a powerful dynamic force in the world around us. It is fighting for its life against those forces which would, through vouchers or tax credits, deprive it of financial lifeblood, and it has countered this thrust with a demand for even more control over children’s lives, and even more money to pay for the extended school day and year that this control requires.

A movement as visibly destructive to individuality, family and community as government-system schooling has been might be expected to collapse in the face of its dismal record, coupled with an increasingly aggressive shake down of the taxpayer, but this has not happened. The explanation is largely found in the transformation of schooling from a simple service to families and towns to an enormous, centralized corporate enterprise.

While this development has had a markedly adverse effect on people and on our democratic traditions, it has made schooling the single largest employer in the United States, and the largest grantor of contracts next to the Defence Department. Both of these low-visibility phenomena provide monopoly schooling with powerful political friends, publicists, advocates and other useful allies. This is a large part of the explanation why no amount of failure ever changes things in schools, or changes them for very long. School people are in a position to outlast any storm and to keep short-attention-span public scrutiny thoroughly confused.

An overview of the short history of this institution reveals a pattern marked by intervals of public outrage, followed by enlargement of the monopoly in every case.

After nearly 30 years spent inside a number of public schools, some considered good, some bad, I feel certain that management cannot clean its own house. It relentlessly marginalizes all significant change. There are no incentives for the “owners” of the structure to reform it, nor can there be without outside competition.

What is needed for several decades is the kind of wildly-swinging free market we had at the beginning of our national history. It cannot be overemphasized that no body of theory exists to accurately define the way children learn, or which learning is of most worth. By pretending the existence of such we have cut ourselves off from the information and innovation that only a real market can provide. Fortunately our national situation has been so favourable, so dominant through most of our history, that the margin of error afforded has been vast.

But the future is not so clear. Violence, narcotic addictions, divorce, alcoholism, loneliness…all these are but tangible measures of a poverty in education. Surely schools, as the institutions monopolizing the daytimes of childhood, can be called to account for this. In a democracy the final judges cannot be experts, but only the people.

Trust the people, give them choices, and the school nightmare will vanish in a generation.

  1. Similar posts:

  2. 07/09/07 Terrorism + Child Abuse = Public Schooling 62% similar
  3. 12/30/17 The American Public Schools: When Will They Be Sued by White People for Producing Millions of Defective Children? 32% similar
  4. 11/23/13 Why Do White People Send Their Children to Public Schools? 28% similar
  5. 12/30/09 The School Problem 26% similar
  6. 01/04/18 The War on White People Continues: Cultural Marxism in the Public Schools 25% similar
  7. 17 Responses to “Public Schooling = Prussian Schooling Operated By Jews for White Cattle”

    1. alex Says:

      How the WASP destroyed America, Using Prussian Schooling — and How the Jew Took Advantage of It (the story of the last 150 years)

    2. alex Says:

      In a nutshell:

      Public Schooling Is Child Abuse

    3. alex Says:

      Another article on same topic, sense mixed with stupidity. I never ceases to amuse me how the same WASPs who shit themselves running from naming the jew leap to pin the tail on Prussia.

      Are we teaching American Citizens or training Prussian Serfs?

      from a speech by Senator Ann O’Connell

      adapted by Diane Alden

      ow do we Americans begin to understand the problems we are experiencing today with our educational community and with our system of education? Oddly enough, the answer to this and other perplexing questions regarding education go back in history to Napoleon’s defeat of the Prussian army in 1806. Because of the Prussian failure to defeat Napoleon, Germany took a long hard look at its institutions—primarily its school system. This introspection led to the conclusion that Prussian pride and power could only be restored by restructuring that system.

      A strategy was devised in which the Prussian government would set up a forced government educational system which would turn out well disciplined students who would follow orders without questioning authority. To accomplish this feat, the goal of educating children became a national priority permeated with strategies adapted to turn out a national work force rather then an educated citizenry. Every step in the education process was calculated to offer authority figures the least amount of trouble and consequently train a well disciplined albeit docile citizen.

      Of course the government’s attitude towards ordinary citizens did not carry over to the aristocratic upper classes, about 200 families, that owned most of the property and controlled the purse strings in Prussia—and who were intent on keeping it that way. These families did not want their children attending school with the lower classes and in the course of things the new educational protocol gave the upper classes choice in deciding the kind of schools their children would attend, a choice it did not offer to the average German.

      The Prussian system may seem familiar to Americans in that it demanded compulsory attendance, national training for teachers, national testing for all students (important because it gave the government the ability to classify children for potential job training), national curriculum set for each grade, and mandatory kindergarten. Mandatory kindergarten was necessary because it served to break the influence of the mother over the child thus making the child more responsive to government influence.

      So how did the Prussian system get from Germany to the United States and what reasons were offered for its adoption here? The Prussian system proved to be a success for that government’s purposes. By the late 1800’s men in the United States including Horace Mann, Barnis Sears, and Calvin Stove heard about the successes of the Prussian system. They traveled to Germany to investigate how the educational process worked. Upon their return to the United States they lobbied heavily to have the Prussian model adopted.

      How it Used to Be

      Up until the late 1800’s a good education in the United States could be obtained without government interference or oversight. Surprisingly, 50 percent of a population of 3 million in 1776 were indentured servants and 20 percent were African slaves. Yet during that time 600,000 copies of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense had been sold in the United States and had been read by countless Americans. By 1812, with a population of approximately 7 million, Pierre DuPont wrote in Education in the United States, “…that out of every 1,000 persons fewer than four can’t read or do numbers.” He attributed this fact to traditional dinner table debates over passages read from the Bible. In other words, children learned how to read with an understanding of what they were reading and they knew their numbers. All this education took place at home or in one room school houses, or “Dame Schools,” primarily taught by women. The children who came out of these schools grew up to be self reliant and individualistic, in marked contrast to the Prussian system which produced an obedient, collectivist trained populace.

      Another development added to the growing furor and revolution in American education. In the early 1800’s, what is commonly known as the Ph.D. did not exist in the United States. Then a well connected American named Edward Everett went to Germany to take courses and returned to this country as the first American to receive a Ph.D. degree. Eventually, 10,000 of America’s wealthiest families would send their sons to obtain the Ph.D. in Prussian universities. Ultimately, this development would affect the educational and intellectual make up of the entire education system from kindergarten through college. These German trained Ph.D.’s took over the educational establishment in the United States and anchored themselves in positions of political and economic power and influence. The substance of the course work in Prussian universities in tandem with the educational philosophy tended to be socialist and collectivist in nature. Consequently, the knowledge and mind set of the Prussian system were passed on to several generations of American intellectuals.

      Implementation of the Prussian System Implementation of the Prussian system was to become the goal of Edward Everett, America’s first Ph.D. As Governor of Massachusetts, Everett had to deal with the problem of the influx of poor Irish Catholics into his state. In 1852, with the support of Horace Mann, another strong advocate of the Prussian model, Everett made the decision to adopt the Prussian system of education in Massachusetts. Unfortunately for the children and poor Irish Catholics of Massachusetts and elsewhere, the system produced a willing, cheap labor force with minimal reading and numbers skills. The Everetts of the world understood that people who could read and understand are dangerous because they are intellectually equipped to find out things for themselves, thus becoming a threat to already established power elites.

      Shortly after Everett and Mann collaborated to adopt the Prussian system, the Governor of New York set up the same method in 12 different New York schools on a trial basis. Incredibly, within two weeks he declared the system a total success and took control of the entire education system in the State of New York. In a “blitzkreig” action with no debate, public hearing, or citizen involvement, government forced schooling was on its way in America.

      The Results of the Prussian System

      The history of American education since the acceptance of the Prussian system is checkered with failure and elitism. From the time of John Dewey, who felt people should be defined by groups and associations and who believed that people who were well read were dangerous, to our own era, U.S. education has suffered. We have in this day and age the disheartening statistics showing 33 percent or our nation’s college graduates can’t read or calculate well enough to perform the jobs they seek.

      Working against the concepts and principles the Founding Fathers provided in the Constitution, the Prussian system has produced a gradual but statistically provable decline in literacy and intellectual capability of typical Americans. We can track the five different stages that American education has gone through: 1750-1852—The idea of government controlled schools was conceived; 1852-1900—It was politically debated in state legislatures; 1900-1920—We had government controlled industrialized factory modeled schooling; 1920-1960—Schools changed from being academically focused to becoming socialized; and 1960 to the Present—Schools became psychological experimental labs.

      In the year 1941 the Defense Department was preparing for World War II. In testing 18 million men between 1941 and 1944, the Defense Department found 96 percent of those tested were literate. During this same period, among African Americans who were tested—the majority of whom had only three years of schooling—80 percent were found to be literate. By literate we mean that Americans, both white and black, could read with understanding.

      During the Korean War the Department of Defense tested three million men for service and only 19 percent were found to be literate. In less then 10 years there had been a 500 percent rise in illiteracy. Perplexed, the Defense Department investigated and found that the same test had been used during the two wars and the only difference was that those men and women tested during the Korean War had more schooling—at a significantly higher cost.

      Twenty years later, around 1970, the same test was used at the time of a new war. Among the Vietnam draftees and enlistees who were tested for literacy only 27 percent were found to be capable of reading with understanding the material which they needed in order to serve in the armed forces. Again the major difference between American soldiers in the 1940’s and the 1970’s was more schooling for the latter group at a higher cost to the taxpayers.

      Consider that the billions of taxpayer dollars were spent over the time period from the 1940’s to the present increased by some 350 percent with totally unacceptable results despite all the increased spending. In 1996 statistics prepared by the National Association of Education for Progress showed that some 44 percent of African Americans can not read at all. The same set of statistics shows that illiteracy among whites has quadrupled. Incredibly, educating Americans continues to cost massive amounts of taxpayer dollars to achieve unacceptable and devastatingly poor results.


      The cost to America can’t be measured in just dollars and cents. While the economic cost is monumental as indicated by the $30 billion annual Department of Education budget and billions more spent by local communities, the lack of results for the dollars we spend is catastrophic. We are paying billions to maintain a system which is ineffective and dangerous—because it is not teaching people the critical intellectual skills which are crucial to making economic and political decisions for themselves.

      What is the answer? While the privileged class may choose to send its children to private schools, most Americans have only one option, public education. Public schools are the country’s largest employer and the largest mediator in contracts. Unfortunately, the public education establishment is so powerful it can outlast public outrage. Consequently Americans face a dismal educational future unless we insist on parental choice. Until then there is little likelihood that a Prussian inspired educational system will change and deliver the desired results—a literate, intellectually capable citizenry.

      An American hero, Abraham Lincoln, was very outspoken against the Prussian idea that ordinary people should not be taught the same way as the privileged class. He said such a concept was unAmerican—that this country was built by its common people. God created all men as equals and they deserved to be educated in the same manner, rich and poor alike.

    4. alex Says:

      So, Alden adapts O’Connell who steals from Gatto? Nice work, gals.

    5. alex Says:

      Note too the irony of Lincoln being praised as an American hero, when in fact he destroyed the American system by centralizing all power. He did the same thing to the political system that the Prussians did to the educational system.

    6. Mark Says:

      It’s interesting to hear the defense for the reason blacks are so criminal and unsuccessful. I was watching a little of the post-Katrina documentary by Spike Lee. Obviously it’s a biased piece, he’s a militant black afterall. It’s the same consistent theme you see with explaining black behavior and lack of self-determination. Why didn’t the government do this and that, some even have the idea the levy break was done on purpose (which doesn’t make much sense, they’ve gained nothing and spent billions), whites got better treatment, only blacks suffer, etc.

      Not only was there rampant criminal behavior during the Katrina disaster, but also after. Crime was out of control, as they had to call in the National Guard. So what’s to explain all of this criminal behavior, lack of ability to restore for themselves what was done? Education they say, poverty they say. Black men don’t get the right education, whatever that may be, and somehow they don’t have the opportunity. Notice how it’s always someone or something else’s fault, never is it a fault of the black community. Never do they take responsibilty for a criminal subculture within the black community. Until they do that, they will never improve. They embrace the negative elements of their own community in a racist fervor, just to spite whites. Dysfunctional people create dysfuctional environments.

    7. Stronza Says:

      Ahem. It must have caused you a fair bit of anguish to publish Gatto’s essay in that you agree and disagree with it at the same time. So you are to be thanked for giving us all the opportunity to read it as well as your commentary at the beginning, which I thought was a well-worded sorting-out of the issue.

      You said, “Prussian kids were not trained to hate themselves…” Well, I wonder. Way back in 1969 I met an older man, in his 60s, who was born in Germany (Prussia, to be exact) who attended school there. He described the excessive and cruel “discipline” – it would have made your toes curl. It makes the boys schools in Britain of the past seem like a tea party in comparison. I should think that when you are told what a piece of shit you are, day after day, and whipped and whacked mercilessly, you would either hate yourself or the whole world, or at least your own people.

      Please, let’s own up to the fact that just because we are white (and some of us Germanic or Nordic) does not mean that all was perfection.

    8. alex Says:

      Yes indeed. I’m sure Prussian state schooling was defective in many ways beyond producing automatons.

      I have mentioned Gatto many times. He isn’t necessarily wrong about anything, that I can see. He correctly identifies and explains the dumbing down the system is geared to produce. What is also needed is a detailed explanation of the actual agenda schools pursue, and who this agenda benefits – beyond the general big corporations and big government. Gatto must be taken along with MacDonald’s Culture of Critique and other works to achieve a complete understanding of how we arrived at AmeriKwa, Inc.

    9. Arch Says:

      Such articles always seem a stretch. Somehow I have a difficult time wrapping my mind around Prussian children of the period being allowed to desecrate their young bodies with tattoos and studs while wearing baggy pants and stupid, sideways-mounted,baseball caps. And how does this article square with the following:
      Frederick the Great was once asked why it was that he chose his officer corps only from the Junkers of Prussia, rather than other groups. Why not a clever baker’s son from Dresden? What’s wrong with a solid farmer from Pomerania? “Nein,” he replied, explaining his preference for the Junkers, “Because they will not lie and cannot be bought.” Can you imagine any American schools instilling such discipline? Imagine if the members of our ruling class did not lie and could not be bought, wrap your mind around that!


      Arch Stanton

    10. Carpenter Says:

      At the most extreme pole of this notion is the idea that biological parents are really the enemies of their own children, not to be trusted.

      But it could not have been in the same way as today. The Prussians probably thought parents were flawed caretakers because they didn’t teach their kids enough discipline and tradition. Today, parents are considered flawed because they teach their kids too much discipline and tradition.

      Connecting schools to Prussia is just a way of saying the socialist schools are like Nazi institutions. As usual, the Nazi analogy is bullshit.

    11. EYW Says:

      “How the WASP destroyed America, Using Prussian Schooling — and How the Jew Took Advantage of It (the story of the last 150 years)”

      You forgot: “WASPs” created America in the first place.

    12. alex Says:

      We weren’t discussing who created America but who destroyed it.

    13. Scipio Americanus Says:

      Here is an excellent link on the subject of education: The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, by Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt. http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/

      The decline and subsequent collapse of standards in education was accelerated by forced “integration” with savages, something the politically correct, who believe in human “equality”, will never mention. Since it is impossible to raise the intelligence of certain groups of people, the establishment simple lowers the standards so that all can pass. It is a disaster for all who participate.

      Alex, you are correct in condemning the public school system. It is tantamount to child abuse, of a spiritual kind. The creatures who now stock our schools almost have a perverse joy in sabotaging the minds of our young. I’ve seen this with my own eyes. It is truly horrifying. The only solution is to pull your children out of these schools and let them implode under the weight of shear incompetence. This is why home-schooling is so important and why its legality cannot be questioned and must be defended at all costs!

    14. Paul Forster Says:

      The usual Germanophobic garbage.Where do these idiots come from?

    15. Aherne Says:

      What a disgusting piece of trash this article is. I suppose germans are to blame for the current disaster in the ejewcational system…

    16. Stronza Says:

      John Taylor Gatto attended something called Yeshiva University (among countless other universities) for graduate work. His grandfather, who he can’t shut up about in some of his writings, was named “Harry Taylor Zimmer”. Gatto describes this grandfather as “German”. The Gatto grandpa was Italian.

      Gatto, as you will see if you read his writings on The Odysseus Group, is mighty full of himself. I do know that homeschooling groups who hire Gatto the Great to address their members have to charge $50 per head to be able to cover the costs of their members hearing & seeing Himself in person. (These are one-income families, keep in mind.) I had the opportunity to be in His presence a couple of years ago at one of his speeches, but I thought I’d forego the honor. Glad I did, now.

      In one of his essays, Gatto referred to his noble Uncle Bud going overseas to smash Nazi heads.

      They’re everywhere.

    17. Stronza Says:

      If you go to the Odysseus Group Discussion Forum (run by the John Taylor Gatto bunch), you may find posts there of interest. Did they perhaps originiate with some of you folks?