Yesterday I wrote about the latest plan of edubabble to literally remove literature from our public “school” curricula across the country. This is not merely a passing phenomenon, it is a matter of law, as the US Federal “government” in another of its educational mandates has more or less stated that English as a subject is simply to concentrate on “nuts and bolts” writing: “basic skill sets” (to use the jargon of the pseudo-discipline of “education”) such as alphabetizing and how to read directions on boxes of Bisquick are to be emphasized: no need for nasty things like literature that makes one think; away with JS Sallinger and William Shakespeare (or if one prefer, the Earl of Oxford). The approach, one can also envision, will reach out to engulf other disciplines where critical thinking and the ability to “read between the lines” in fostered, such as history. Unfortunately, history and historiography, as disciplines, long ago within the USA came under the control of vest financial interests that promoted various fronts – the American Historical Society comes to mind – whose principal function is to foster and further what The Daily Bell likes to refer to as “directed narratives,” an “approved version” of the narrative of human history… a narrative where bold generalizations are the bland tonic-dominant movements of all of history.
As I sat and pondered the Daily Bell article that I referenced in part one of this two part blog, however, I was troubled by the question that probably troubles many of you: Why? It is self-evident that American schools have been deliberately used by the elites as a mechanism to “dumb down” the population, to the point that today’s school children are some of the most bored, illiterate, passionless brainless twits on the planet. The same elites have been behind a destruction of the whole idea of a hierarchy of cultural expression to the point that the average American “thinks” that rap and JS Bach both qualify as the same “art” but are merely different “stylistic” expressions.
But again, the question is why? Why would anyone deliberately want to destroy the curriculum, with the recent assault on classic literature being but the latest example? As I sat and pondered this question, a number of scenarios came to mind, and many of them have been rehearsed elsewhere: the cultural distinctives of the USA have to be obliterated to ease the amalgamation of the USA, Canada, and Mexico into a European Union style stew, or the population has to be dumbed down to make it easier to control.
I submit, however, that there might be something much more profound going on, even while any number of the scenarios others have rehearsed might be simultaneously true; after all, it is a hallmark of oligarchical operations that they always try to combine several objectives within one operation. I believe that the end result of such inane and insane federal policies will be to create – within the USA at least – a “culture free zone” – a new Dark Ages where the vast numbers of the population are for the most part culturally illiterate; where they have been reduced to serfs living on the lords of the land. Many have indeed commented that the reduction of the world population to serfdom and a new kind of feudalism is indeed the goal of the western oligarchy, but few have noted its cultural consequences, for what this means is that the high culture will be reduced and restricted – as it was during the middle ages – to isolated pockets of learning: monasteries, royal and noble courts, ecclesiastical courts, and so on. There will be, if the pattern persists, a similar result in modern times.
I submit that this might explain the “why” of the question at a profounder cultural level, and the “why” has, I believe, two parts: (1) reduction and restriction of the high culture in such a fashion really constitutes a form of “ownership,” is is a means of possession and social bifurcation, already well under way in America; and (2) it is a means of allowing what for all intentions and purposes, at the very pinnacle of elite power, is a breakaway civilization, to step on to the stage and openly declare itself.
The medieaval analogy is perhaps a clumsy one, but it is I think also an illustrative one, for the elites of that day continued to preserve and to read and study the “forbidden manuscripts” and “narratives,” while denying to the vast majority of people any real opportunity to participate in it, unless, of course, one wished to join the elites, and learn to repeat the “directed narratives”… Then, maybe, just maybe, one would be allowed to peruse the occasional “forbidden manuscript.”
There is a lesson here, and it is one we had better learn and practice quickly: if your local school is not teaching your child the details of English literature (or for that matter Western literature as a whole), or history, then we must do so, and we must do so with a view to teaching its value as an aid to critical and independent thought that examines every narrative in order to find the flaws and holes in it. And we must also do so in full knowledge that to do so may, at some point, be as dangerous as being a Cathar in southern France…
…See you on the flip side.