|Vibrant Life Home Web
Family Of Three Oral Chelation Formulas
The Wednesday Letter
The Hubbard Human Detoxification Program
Hopeless Diseases -- Invented to Sell Drugs
Wrong Relationship Cause of Disease
Brain Chemical Imbalance
Dr. Garry F. Gordon
|Ultimate Resource On Chelation Therapy Home Page||
Separate Search Page
|Prevent Cancer|| Karl Loren's Policy On Psychiatric Drugs
Destruction Of American Education
|Write To Karl Loren||Table Of Contents|
Source: Original Article by Karl Loren
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 and able to look at "goodness" far more easily than he looks at "badness." We admire love, not hate!
It is hard to accept the reality of how our society could be damaged so much by a single person, or two! Who could be the person capable of causing so much harm? Who might belong on the stage of public inspection along side Jesus Christ? Could there be anyone who was as bad a person, as Jesus was good?
This article is intended to ignite the flames of outrage rather than hope and salvation. I leave to the capable Christians the job of proclaiming Christ. Surely the harm done by two humans, described in great detail in this article, and in the many supporting pages -- that harm is not as great as the goodness created by Christ those thousands of years ago. In that we are fortunate.
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? (click here for biblical story)
Who is this man, evil incarnate, who can take a position of such power against the word of God?
Amount it took to
equal $1 in 1913
Source: Bureau of
You may already recognize his photo above His name is John D. Rockefeller. He lived between 1839 and 1937. He created the Standard Oil Company and ultimately became the most wealthy man in the world. During his life time he gave away more than $500 million dollars. If you take 1913 as the "average" date when his donations are measured from, then the 90 some years since then have seen each $1.00 be "worth" $17.89 in 2002. Thus, giving $500,000,000 THEN would be the equivalent of giving $9 billion dollars away today. No person comes close to that amount of private philanthropic activity. From a reader: "They say he was worth $30 billion when he died!"
When I talk of the faithful detecting and ejecting the evil one from the body of the Church, I speak specifically of John D. Rockefeller's bribery of his own Church. For many years foolish churches and schools accepted these bribery payments -- and adored the man who was destroying them. John D. said:
"I believe it is every man’s religious duty to get all he can honestly and to give all he can," he once wrote. During the 1850s, he made regular contributions to the Baptist church, and by the time he was 21, he was giving not only to his own but to other denominations, as well as to a foreign Sunday school and an African-American church. Support of religious institutions and African-American education remained among his foremost philanthropic interests throughout his life. (source)
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.
Some 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
"Wilhelm Maximilian Wundt was born in 1832 in Neckarau, in a small town in southern Germany. Wundt entered the university at Tubingen when he was 19, transferred to Heidelberg after half a year, and graduated as a medical doctor from the university in 1856. He stayed on at Heidelberg for the next seventeen years, working first as a professor's assistant, and later as a professor himself, in the field of psychology. Psychology, at that time, meant simply the study (ology) of the soul (psyche), or mind."
Psychology has a noble heritage. I'm fond of telling the story about St. Thomas Aquinas -- the man I think could be called the first "psychologist." Click here for my article on him. In 600 short years we went from the Devout St. Thomas to the Devil in Dr. Wundt!
Why was St. Thomas called on by his Pope to become a "psychologist?" Aristotle was famous for proving that God existed by using Science and Logic -- these were tools not used by the Catholic Church -- and the Church was losing membership because Aristotle appealed to more and more people.
The Pope, seeing this vast competition to the power of the Church, (unofficially) appointed St. Thomas Aquinas to be the first official "psychologist" -- "psyche" being "soul" and "gist" meaning the "study of." [Source]
"In 1874, Wundt left Heidelberg to take a position as professor of philosophy at Zurich. He stayed there for only a year, and then accepted a chair in philosophy at the University of Leipzig, in Germany. He was to remain at Leipzig for the rest of his academic career, eventually being appointed rector of the university. Wundt died in 1920."
"Those are some of the vital statistics. What they omit is that Wundt was the founder of experimental psychology and the force behind its dissemination throughout the western world."
"To Wundt a thing made sense and was worth pursuing if it could be measured, quantified, and scientifically demonstrated. Seeing no way to do this with the human soul, he proposed that psychology concerns itself solely with experience."
"Wundt asserted that man is devoid of spirit and self-determinism. He set out to prove that man is the summation of his experiences, of the stimuli which intrude upon his consciousness and unconsciousness. (source)
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.
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.
Dr. 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:
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". (Source -- Chapter 1)
This 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.
"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:
" ...learning is the result of modifiability in the paths of neural conduction... The situation-response formula is adequate to cover learning of any sort, and the really influential factors in learning are readiness of the neurons, sequence in time, belongingness, and satisfying consequences.
"If one assumes (as did Wundt) that there is nothing there to begin with but a body, a brain, and a nervous system, then one must try to educate by inducing sensations in that nervous system. Through these experiences, the individual will learn to respond to any given stimulus, with the "correct" response."
"Wundt's thesis laid the philosophical basis for the principles of conditioning later developed by Pavlov (who studied physiology in Leipzig, in 1884, five years after Wundt had inaugurated his laboratory there) and American behavioral psychologists such as Watson and Skinner; for lobotomies and electro-convulsive therapy; for schools more oriented toward the socialization of the child than toward the development of intellect; and for the emergence of a society more and more blatantly devoted to the gratification of sensory desires at the expense of responsibility and achievement." (source)
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.
Before 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!"
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 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!
Here's Wundt's pupil, Pavlov:
One of Pavlov's most important findings was exactly what happens to conditioned behavior patterns when the brain of a dog is "transmarginally" stimulate by stresses and conflict beyond its capacity for habitual response. He could bring about what he called a "rupture in higher nervous activity" by employing four main types of imposed stress. The first was, simply an increased intensity of the signal to which the dog was conditioned; thus he would gradually increase the voltage of the electric current applied to its leg as a food signal. When the electric shock became a little too strong for its system, the dog began to break down. (source)
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???
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?
The Appendices to BLUEBIRD provide full proof of the fact that the Manchurian Candidate is real, and has been created by the CIA and military. The documented mind control research includes putting brain electrodes in children as young as 11 years old and controlling their 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. (source)
The 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.
Through these students, the Leipzig Laboratory exercised an immense influence on the development of psychology. It served as the model for the many new laboratories that were developed in the latter part of the nineteenth century. The many students who flocked to Leipzig, united as they were in point of view and common purpose, constituted a school of thought in psychology. (source Chapter 2)
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.
Vladimir M. Bekhterev (1857-1927)
He extended to humans the same pattern of thinking that Pavlov had developed in his work on conditioned reflexes in dogs, Bekhterev was another forerunner of behaviourism.
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.
Bekhterev's interest was the motor conditioning response (i.e., the application of conditioning to the muscles). Bekhterev concluded that the reactions were reflective rather than a result of mental processes. He argued in favor of a purely objective psychology void of the use of mentalistice terms and concepts.
Ten years after the Bolshevik Revolution, in December 1927, Joseph Stalin called the 70-year old Bekhterev to the Kremlin. Three years after the death of Lenin, Stalin was engaged in the final stages of the struggle for power. Stalin felt depressed. There was nothing strange in his turning to Bekhterev, for the latter was the undisputed psychoneurological authority in the Soviet state and he had also rendered the Revolution "exceptional services." In 1923, the ailing Lenin had twice sent for him. It is unclear, as perhaps it will always remain, what then ensued. Persistent rumors in the Soviet Union have it that Bekhterev diagnosed Stalin as suffering from "grave paranoia." The same day he had visited the Kremlin he suddenly died (some say a couple of days later). According to the rumors, Stalin had him murdered, this being the patient's revenge for the diagnosis. Perhaps, however, the death may have had some connection to Bekhterev's acceptance of women and Jews (as students and colleagues) at a time when they were excluded from Russian universities. (source -- external)
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"
His image is to the left. He wrote:
"I have long been settled in my own opinion, that neither Philosophy, nor Religion, nor Morality, nor Wisdom, nor interest, will ever govern nations or Parties, against their Vanity, their Pride, their Resentment or Revenge, or their Avarice or Ambition. Nothing but Force and Power and Strength can restrain them." (source)
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:
It is not my present purpose to criticise these thinkers; but I cannot help referring, for illustration, to a systematic treatise by one of the most illustrious of them, the Metaphysics of Ethics, by Kant.
This remarkable man, whose system of thought will long remain one of the landmarks in the history of philosophical speculation, does, in the treatise in question, lay down a universal first principle as the origin and ground of moral obligation; it is this: "So act, that the rule on which thou actest would admit of being adopted as a law by all rational beings."
But when he begins to deduce from this precept any of the actual duties of morality, he fails, almost grotesquely, to show that there would be any contradiction, any logical (not to say physical) impossibility, in the adoption by all rational beings of the most outrageously immoral rules of conduct. All he shows is that the consequences of their universal adoption would be such as no one would choose to incur. (Source)
You 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.
This approach has reared it's ugly head in recent times as the "look-see" method of reading. It never works and
Directions to the Teacher - Say to the child, pointing to
the first picture, "What is that? Do you know his name?
I wonder if he has a name? Suppose we call him Frank.
O there is his name right under him," pointing to the
whole word, Frank, but not to the letters. Nothing is
yet to be said about letters. "Here is his name again.
And here it is again. And here it is once more. What
is that?"," pointing to the other picture. "Perhaps it is
Frank's sister. What is her name? O here is her name. It
is Jane. Can you show me her name again? - again -
once more." Repeat till the child can tell the words
the result is always impaired reading ability of students, yet the education establishment demands it's use and prohibits the more successful phonics approach to reading. The problem is simple.
Of course grown adults don't sound out words - Cattell tested adults in his study. Adults have long since learned the sound of words and have associated these sounds and meaning with the "picture" or "shape" of the word. But when they were learning to read they did sound out words using traditional phonics methods, and only later learned the visual "total word picture" through repetition and experience.
Using the look-see method, the student has absolutely no tools to figure out how to say new words, and his vocabulary is limited to the words he has specifically been taught and memorized. Leave it to psychologists to "deduce" 5 year old children and grown adults perceive and read the same way.
It would be laughable if the results weren't so disastrous to the children. This is only one example of many where their gross dullness and stupidity camouflages itself with such catch words as "science", "innovative" and "progressive". (source -- Chapter 3)
Dr. Cattell, one of Wundt's first students, had a massive influence on American education -- all of it bad.
"In 1887, he left the country again to lecture at Cambridge, where he met and was deeply impressed by Charles Darwin's cousin, the English psychologist Francis Galton. Galton's theories held that "a man's natural abilities are derived by inheritance, under exactly the same limitations as are the form and physical features of the whole organic world." Cattell quickly absorbed Galton's approach to eugenics, selective breeding, and the measurement of intelligence. Cattell was later to become the American leader in psychological testing, and in 1894 would administer the first battery of psychological tests ever given to a large group of people, testing the freshman and senior classes at Columbia University."
"In 1891, Cattell joined the faculty of Columbia University as professor of psychology and head of Columbia's new psychology department, a critical position for the union of psychology and education." (source)
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.
As briefly stated by Thorndike himself, psychology was the science of the intellect, character, and behavior of animals, including man. (source -- Chapter 4)
Thorndike went on to write literally hundreds of books and papers, including some of the most influential in all of American education.
In The Principles of Teaching based on Psychology (1906), Thorndike proposed making "the study of teaching scientific and practical." This is his definition of the art of teaching:
... the art of giving and withholding stimuli with the result of producing or preventing certain responses. In this definition the term stimulus is used widely for any event which influences a person, - for a word spoken to him, a look, a sentence which he reads, the air he breathes, etc., etc. The term response is used for any reaction made by him, - a new thought, a feeling of interest, a bodily act, any mental or bodily condition resulting from the stimulus. The aim of the teacher is to produce desirable and prevent undesirable changes in human beings by producing and preventing certain responses. The means at the disposal of the teacher are the stimuli which can be brought to bear upon the pupil, the teacher's words, gestures, and appearance, the condition and appliances of the school room, the books to be used and objects to be seen, and so on through a long list of the things and events which the teacher can control. (source)
How much of the educational method of 2002 is still based on this theory?
As 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.
"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: (source -- Chapter 5)
Rockefeller 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!
The game plan was simple: here was all this Rockefeller money, and here was Mr. Rockefeller being constantly badgered, scrutinized, and hauled into court; why not set up a monopoly on philanthropy, funnel into it large sums from the fortunes of Rockefeller and the other industrial barons, and distribute the money in a way guaranteed to ensure Mr. Rockefeller the respect and admiration of those elements of society which had castigated him most? In other words, it was time to launder the money. (source -- Chapter 6)
Here is, finally, where money flowed toward Wundt's protégés, and Wundt psychology began to overtake American education and culture.
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. (source -- Chapter 7)
While 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.
To Dewey and Thorndike, the schoolroom was a "great laboratory" in which to do their research and refine "the modification of instincts and capabilities into habits and powers." Yet there was no large laboratory school at Columbia, no institution filled with willing or unknowing subjects for the great psychological experiments of the Wundtians at Teachers College - not until 1917, that is, when an offer to establish such a laboratory school came from Abraham Flexner of the General Education Board. (source -- Chapter 8)
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:
THE title of the present work is in itself a sufficiently clear indication of the contents. In it, the attempt is made to show the connexion between two sciences whose subject-matters are closely interrelated, but which have, for the most part, followed wholly divergent paths. Physiology and psychology cover, between them, the field of vital phenomena; they deal with the facts of life at large, and in particular with the facts of human life. Physiology is concerned with all those phenomena of life that present them selves to us in sense perception as bodily processes, and accordingly form part of that total environment which we name the external world. Psychology, on the other hand, seeks to give account of the interconnexion of processes which are evinced by our own consciousness, or which we infer from such manifestations of the bodily life in other creatures as indicate the presence of a consciousness similar to our own. (Source)
As 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.
The final result of this "brilliance," of course, is the death of learning.
Unblushing materialism finds its crowning triumph in the theory of the modern school. In the whole plan there is not a spiritual thought, not an idea that rises above the need of finding money for the pocket and food for the belly ... It is a matter of instant inquiry, for very sober consideration, whether the General Education Board, indeed, may not with the immense funds at its disposal be able to shape to its will practically all the institutions in which the youth of the country are trained. (source -- Chapter 9)
American schools have failed miserably in teaching reading. There is an exact reason, described here:
A tragic failure of American education in this century has been a failure to teach children how to read and write and how to express themselves in a literary form. For the educational system this may not be too distressing. As we shall see later, their prime purpose is not to teach subject matter but to condition children to live as socially integrated citizen units in an organic society - a real life enactment of the Hegelian absolute State. In this State the individual finds freedom only in obedience to the State, consequently the function of education is to prepare the individual citizen unit for smooth entry into the organic whole. Skull & Bones Society: How The Order Controls Education - The Look-Say Reading Method
I, Karl Loren, conclude that the "look-say," whole language method of teaching reading is deliberately done to keep children stupid and make it easier for government to control them. That is the result, of course and I think it is the intended result.
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.
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 Rockefeller forces, it was a demonstration of the humanitarian intentions behind the Rockefeller fortune. Yet it was not, however large, the sum of all the Progressive Education activities at Teachers College. Nor did it represent the thousands of ways in which a now affluent Teachers College was forwarding the steady overhaul of American education. There is little in the way of change in our educational system and our society to which the professors at Teachers College didn't apply themselves. (source -- Chapter 10)
Sanity and enlightenment were built into American education in the late 18th century by the likes of Benjamin Franklin or the Quaker settlers who established important schooling systems throughout the midwest. The seeds they and others planted produced a vast and advanced network of schools and teacher training institutions throughout the U.S. This network did not reach everyone and there were flaws, to be sure, but the foundations were in place for an unprecedentedly effective national education program. What the country needed was bold educational policy that built on those foundations - what it got was an ideological takeover. (source -- Research Notes)
The failures in teaching reading, years ago, have continued into modern times. According to the Wall Street Journal in January 2003:
Three years ago in New York, the percentage of black students who did not graduate from high school was 54%. In California, 41%. In Tennessee, 54% didn't graduate. And in Wisconsin, which is thought of as a fairly normal place, the percentage of black kids who didn't make it out of high school in the class of 2000 was a mind-boggling 59%.
This data appears in Education Week's annual report, "Quality Counts." Across the nation, the average non-graduation rate for black students is 45%. These numbers are surely the same year in and year out, which means that every June in America, largely unnoticed and unremarked upon, almost half the nation's black kids wash over the falls of our urban school systems. (source)
Failure to graduate is most often related to failure in reading, as this example a high school student demonstrates:
"The Spanish teacher, Mr. Miller, I don't feel was qualified to teach Spanish at all because he didn't seem to know too much Spanish hisself. He was also absent from class. And when I say absent, I mean I would see him there, but he wouldn't come to my actual period . . . . We had a numerous amount of substitutes in that classroom for a while. And during those times we had those substitutes we watched movies in class. We played games in class. We basically had a free period where we did whatever we wanted to. We had different substitutes almost every day. And then we had a final at the end of that. And I don't understand how they could have gave us a final in Spanish when we did not learn a lick of Spanish. I think they really should have tested me on the movies I was sitting there watching."
That account of a former student at Balboa High School in San Francisco, quoted in a recent issue of Education Week, is taken from a class-action lawsuit filed against the State of California to ensure "the minimum tools necessary to learn." Dream on. (source)
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.
The failures in educational technology have been publicized, but there still seems to be some powerful, hidden influence that prevents logic from being applied:
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).
- Aren't the low scores due to low levels of funding? No. California falls slightly below the national average in per pupil expenditure. In 1991-2 California spent $4491 per pupil. Across the states per pupil expenditures ranged from $2960 (Utah) to $8645 (New Jersey).
- Aren't the low scores due to a large population of minorities? No. Among white children, California scored last; among children of college-educated parents, California scored second from last. Among black children, California scored fourth from last.
- Has California changed direction on whole language? Yes. A 1995 California task force on reading concluded that mandating whole language statewide was a mistake. On September 12, 1995, the California legislature passed AB170, which requires the State Board of Education to ensure that the materials it adopts for reading instruction include "systematic, explicit phonics." The vote was unanimous in both legislative chambers. (source)
The 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.
But, sounds are different. Children have a simple way of hearing a sound and mimicking that sound in a way that mother can hear. We even call it "parroting" because parrots can do something rather similar.
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.
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."
Also incidentally, and not so obviously, when Johnny says, "ma ma," and mother says, "Oh Johnny, you said 'ma ma,' and you meant me, and you meant 'mother' and I'm so proud of you. I'm going to call daddy." All those words were such much junk to Johnny. The ONLY proper response, if you really want to teach your child to talk, is for mother to say, "ma ma." She should smile. It is the duplication of the child's sounds that helps the child realize that he has done something memorable. The glut of other sounds does nothing but confuse the issue.
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.
So, 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:
The word "infant" literally means "not speaking." Unlike many of the motor skills your baby is trying to learn, such as sitting up and grabbing a rattle, learning to speak is inherently a social activity and cannot be done alone. The slow progression toward using sounds as words requires your help and lots of verbal interaction. (source)
There 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.
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.
The kid may "understand" or may not, but at least he has duplicated the sounds and the "pointing" behavior.
The 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 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.
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.
"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.
Whole 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. Can YOU duplicate the sentence:
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.
Only 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.
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.
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."
A 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 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.
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.
One 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.
|=||Well? They are both "fruit?"|
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.
When 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.
(You can make a mental PICTURE of a tree, and recall it. You cannot easily make a mental picture of SAD.)
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.
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, HERE is a page that does just that. Here is a claimed image of Mary, mother of Jesus, so God must be white!!! Obviously people who have political agendas will often create their own definitions. The word, "liberal" used to have one meaning, 100 years ago, and it has a very different meaning today.
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."
|Angry (An"gry) (#),
[Compar. Angrier (#); superl. Angriest.]
1. Troublesome; vexatious; rigorous. [Obs.] "God had provided a severe and angry education to chastise the forwardness of a young spirit." Jer. Taylor.
2. Inflamed and painful, as a sore.
3. Touched with anger; under the emotion of anger; feeling resentment; enraged; -- followed generally by with before a person, and at before a thing. "Be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves." Gen. xlv. 5. "Wherefore should God be angry at thy voice?" Eccles. v. 6.
4. Showing anger; proceeding from anger; acting as if moved by anger; wearing the marks of anger; as, angry words or tones; an angry sky; angry waves. "An angry countenance." Prov. xxv. 23.
5. Red. [R.] "Sweet rose, whose hue, angry and brave." Herbert.
6. Sharp; keen; stimulated. [R.] "I never ate with angrier appetite." Tennyson.
Synonyms -- Passionate; resentful; irritated; irascible; indignant; provoked; enraged; incensed; exasperated; irate; hot; raging; furious; wrathful; wroth; choleric; inflamed; infuriated.
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 author 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.
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
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 attention, and she cited me for insubordination. (source)
John feels the "anger" in the prose. Jane feels the "sadness," while Mary gets off on the mysterious "joy." They are all reading the same material, each finding some "deep" emotion, based on their drugged state, and furthered by drugged teachers who, themselves, FEEL the emotions so easily in that state.
All the while the prose need not use language with any skill. In fact the skill would get in the way of the wide variety of emotions that different people can get out of the same piece.
So, literature is now "appreciated" on the basis of a drugged haze. And universities now praise their professors for dumbing down their teaching to the drugged level of the students' abilities. Here is a champion “professor” at a University in Texas.
Dr. Betty Sue Flowers looks drugged to me, and the "class" looks like what has become far too common in society -- a class of dud-heads who "feel" the emotions, but who suffer from tiny vocabularies and no sense of grammar. This professor says:
"Literature is quite good for helping us see how it is that we feel and how we think about feeling and how feeling is connected to our thought. (source)"
Another important part of this dead-head technology is that you cannot possibly flunk in this type of course. All you have to do is express your emotions. If you can't write, we'll have the professor listen to your ramblings. We'll find a way to validate your drugged emotions. Not feeling expressive? Add Prozac to your presentation -- feel the emotion.
Her classes include a number of classroom exercises and assignments, including what she refers to as "thought assignments" to prepare them for class discussions. For example, she asks students to spend ten minutes thinking about their own deaths, or to imagine what they would write if they were to produce a personal Genesis myth for their own lives. (source)
Need you look further for the Godless nature of this approach. Consider "Genesis" a myth, and create your own. Make "god" a homosexual, if you wish, or a dog. It is all myth, anyway, so just do your thing!
As a parent, even 47wanting to attend, dutifully, your local PTA meetings, you hardly ever see the insidious inroads being made in YOUR school, but the Wundt promoters. Another concept, loved by the Wundt people, is that it is bad to fail any student. Give them good marks for trying. That doesn’t work in the real world, but they force it into the schooling.
Take “fuzzy math” as an example more dumbed down teaching, in an article for the Wall Street Journal by Lynn V. Cheney.
Kids are writing about "What We Can Do to Save the Earth," and inventing their own strategies for multiplying. They're learning that getting the right answer to a math problem can be much less important than having a good rationale for a wrong one.
Sometimes called "whole math" or "fuzzy math," this latest project of the nation's colleges of education has some formidable opponents. In California, where the school system embraced whole math in 1992, parents and dissident teachers have set up a World Wide Web site called Mathematically Correct to point out the follies of whole-math instruction. (source)
Are math scores bad? Read this Wall Street Journal
In the year 2000's standardized NAEP test for math achievement, this is the percentage of black eighth graders who passed respectively in some famous states: New York, 8%; California, 6%; Michigan, 6%; Tennessee, 6%; Texas, 7%; Arkansas, 2%. Indeed the national average for black eighth graders is 6% compared to 40% for white students, a 34% achievement gap. (source)
The Politically Correct People use fuzzy math. The Mathematically Correct people have a simple motto:
As you can guess President Bill Clinton was pushing changes in education that would have accelerated "whole math" and the dumbing down of education generally.
It is hard to corrupt the teaching of engineering. After all if you are an engineer, with the task of building a tunnel through the mountain, then the two ends of the tunnel must connect inside the mountain – anything else is not acceptable. Even here, fuzzy math guarantees that many students from the public schools will have a hard time if they DO want to go into engineering.
Perhaps the greatest travesty in American education is related to the teaching of reading -- certainly the most basic of all social skills. Without reading man is little more than the very animal which Dr. Wundt called him. I covered the PROPER way to teach reading above, but let me delve into the wrong ways in more detail now.
There are many different, miserably failed, technologies in the field of reading education. The bad ones trace back to Dr. Wundt and John D. Rockefeller.
Here is an excerpt from a readable explanation, by Robert Wilson, of reading teaching:
This paper was first written in the 1970s in an attempt to clarify the ongoing debate about the best method of teaching reading. While I am not a reading specialist, I do have some knowledge of the history of education and I knew that this debate was not new. I hoped that an historical view would assist those in the debate to be clearer and more accurate in their arguments. It has been somewhat updated but the substance has not changed. It should also be noted that the work suffers from the inaccuracy that inevitably comes with such a brief overview of a large topic. (source)
I can understand that. This seems like plain English to me.
Here is an excerpt from the official State of California "Policy" on the teaching of reading:
It was determined that a balanced and comprehensive approach to reading must have:
- a strong literature, language, and comprehension program that includes a balance of oral and written language;
- an organized, explicit skills program that includes phonemic awareness (sounds in words), phonics, and decoding skills to address the needs of the emergent reader;
- ongoing diagnosis that informs teaching and assessment that ensures accountability; and
- a powerful early intervention program that provides individual tutoring for children at risk of reading failure." (Source)
Maybe I'm just prejudiced? I haven't the slightest idea of what these words mean. Perhaps they have "special meanings" to those "experts" who deal with the teaching of reading? Actually a new word has come into our vocabulary: "psychobabble" meaning some text where you can recognize individual words, but the combination and sequence of them renders them unintelligible. It was invented after psychiatrists invented diseases with very vague and illogical definitions, and ultimately they were termed "psychobabble."
Let me take my hand to a bit of creative psychobabble:
The pituitary hormone is not a well-known aperture of the toe! Unlike other bones of the toe, this hormone has a function usually during rice and menopause. Study of it should be delayed until, thirdly, the former principles of hypertavia are well understood! (Source: Karl Loren)
Then Mr. Wilson's summary makes very clear sense to me:
One of the problems encountered when discussing this topic is what does it mean when we say a person can read?
At first sight it means that someone can recognize marks and translate them into spoken words.
But usually what is meant is that the person understands what he or she reads, or is "functionally literate."
Beyond the recognition of the letters and words is the knowledge and understanding that the reader must bring to the written words to be able to make sense of them.
[Karl Note: I would add, here that "understanding" cannot be "understood" in an intellectual sense, but can only be demonstrated by "applying" the data in the physical universe. In this sense "love of God" may seem to be capable of being understood by observing a person "in prayer." But, this is obviously much too superficial, so "Love of God" is a phrase that may well be beyond "understanding," and may be only capable of experiencing personally. Fortunately, the words and phrases being used here do have application in the physical universe. Bob can either read, or cannot, or Bob can read and pass a test and then apply what he read? or not.
The same adolescent who has difficulty in reading a school history text may have no similar difficulty in deciphering the complex information in a car repair manual and the history teacher may not understand the car manual. In similar ways these days we hear about "computer literacy" and "media literacy," phrases that do not take on meaning until they are used in context.
Some definitions of literacy are so all-encompassing that they include almost everything that is taught in schools. The differences in evaluating the effectiveness of methods of teaching reading are often the result of lack of agreement on what is trying to be achieved. Tests of reading ability are far more than deciphering and understanding of letters and words.
Another complication is the terminology used by the supporters of the many different methods and sub-methods advocated. Often the same name is given to different systems, and similar systems are given different names. But this multitude can be reduced to two for teaching basic literacy which, in this paper, will be called "phonics" and "whole word".
"Phonics" (code-emphasis) requires the letters and combination of letters to be learned first, and then combined to form the word.
"Whole word" (meaning-emphasis) has the child first learn to recognize and understand the complete word or group of words in context. (source)
OK! I understand that section. I don't know from this, yet, whether "whole word" learning is better or "phonic" learning is better, and I don't even know yet whether I agree that ALL of the teaching of reading is either mostly one or the other of these two techniques. I don't even know what those different technologies are, but I've got the picture for more study.
Now, going back to the official "guidance" about "phonics" from the Department of Education, State of California, I find:
Systematic, Explicit Phonics
This term refers to an organized program where letter-sound correspondences for letters and letter clusters are directly taught; blended; practiced in words, word lists, and word families; and practiced initially in text with a high percentage of decodable words linked to the phonics lesson. Teachers should provide prompt and explicit feedback.
Karl Note: Here starts the psychobabble.
The word "phonics" seemed simple to me, but what in the dickens is "explicit phonics?" Or, is it "systematic phonics?" Or, is it "systematic, explicit phonics?" Or what? (These terms are defined further along, but those definitions are, themselves, vague and useless.)
Psychobabble, as an aside, is the common language used in fraudulent scams on the web. Click here for an MLM selling a "machine" that works miracles. When you read through the claims for this machine you will be experiencing psychobabble in the world of commerce -- it is widespread! The image on the right is part of that presentation which is deliberately confusing. If you are not careful, and do NOT detect this psychobabble, you are going past a word or symbol for which you have no meaning. When that happens, as the psychologists intend, you go mentally blank, and become, for that moment, a functional illiterate, and that leads to a hypnotic condition in which you accept further, including false, data without question. I've given you here one of the secrets of psychological manipulation, as it is used to "teach" students in schools, and thereby achieve the social control the Wundtians want!
Psychological behavioral conditioning is best done on animals, and humans, who have been drugged, or shocked, or tortured into a level of acceptance of anything that comes along. Dr. Freud is certainly the most famous of people for using psychobabble.
Is there some other explanation of phonics? This is a typical illustration of how the suppressive people manipulate meanings -- they use words that have no agreed on meaning, deliberately cause confusion, and after that confusion you don't have enough sense left to catch further deliberate lies and misrepresentations. Mr. Wilson has a simple explanation of "phonics."
"Phonics" (code-emphasis) requires the letters and combination of letters to be learned first, and then combined to form the word. (Source)
I can guess at what a "blended" teaching program of phonics might be, but when you say "practiced in words, word lists, and word families" -- what does all that mean. And, if you practice these letters in TEXT first, isn't that directly contrary to starting with sounds and letters. The California psychobabble says there should be a "high percentage" of "decodable words!" This sounds exactly opposite of phonics beginnings, where letters are learned, not "decodable words," whatever they might be.
The next paragraph below is a blatant introduction of exactly the evil reading technology based on behavioral psychology developed by Dr. Wundt, and specifically contrary to true "phonic" teaching. There is enough truth here, below, but more than enough psychobabble, that many professionals might not even catch the harmful intention.
In reading for meaning, skillful readers move their eyes through text left to right, line by line, and word by word. With the exception of short function words, such as a, on, of, and any, they almost never skip or guess. Instead, they fixate on very nearly each and every word of text. Further, during the fraction of a second that they do so, they take in--and must take in--all of its letters, translating them to speech sounds on their way to evoking the word's meaning.
Here, in the beginning of the explanation of what California thinks it will teach, emphasizing something that MIGHT be phonics, they give a true statement that is very deceptive. "Skillful" readers, by definition, are NOT those students just learning to read. Indeed, "skillful" readers may well read word by word by word. But, the whole idea of phonics, it seems to me, is that a beginning student cannot "read" at all, and should be "learning" what "a" is and how it sounds. He starts with letters and sounds, perhaps clusters of letters, such as "am-".
Since "skillful readers" read word by word, then, per California, beginning reading learners MUST be taught, quickly as they get their "phonics" training, to recognize "words," not just letters.
California gives its game away, perhaps, when it suggests that a student will read the word, then sound it in his mind, then speak it. We know full well that those people who read by silently mouthing the sounds of the words will always be poor readers. Click here for the history of "silent reading."
This is deliberate sabotage of the will of the people, denying the authority of law, and persisting in the failed reading technology that has doomed so many millions of students to illiteracy. Here is how another spotted the manipulation:
Again, it is amazing how dull and fascinated with meaningless complex details the "professional educational psychologists" are. It takes about 15 minutes of reading all about this and some familiarity with phonics to understand what they are doing wrong and what should be done.
Yes, adults do read words as "whole words", but that is long after they have learned to read, and have contacted each words thousands of times. Through repetition, the words are seen and recognized instantly. But for learning word recognition, and meaning, it is best to employ phonics, where the child learns to sound out basic word sounds of the English language (there's less than 50 to learn). Once the child learns the system, which any child can learn, it is simple to sound out every new word he encounters. This skill stays with the child his entire life. Repetition is also used, and as the child contacts the same word over and over, he comes to become familiar with it and recognize it. He gradually and automatically learns to associate the shape of the word and letters, with the sound of the word and the meaning of the word. It is not based upon memorization.
The look-say method depends upon memorization, and gives the child no way to learn how to pronounce any word he hasn't earlier memorized. This puts an incredible limit on his future vocabulary. Children taught on this method often have eyes which dart all over the page - from their earlier attempts to look for and find pictures which tell them what the word refers to and means. This acts as an actual distraction to reading and comprehension.
That so many people, with so much money, can come up with such ludicrous and unsuccessful study techniques is mind-boggling. Either they never intended to solve the problems they were addressing, or they were (are) truly dumb people - pretending to be experts and authorities when they actually were (are) not. Part of the problem, I believe, is that they take themselves and their complex ideas much too seriously - with harmful results for the rest of us. They would rather conceive themselves to be "right" and have the world falling apart at it's seams, that admit their severe errors and let the world possibly become a decent place. (Source)
Back to the State of California and its psychobabble:
These word recognition processes are far too rapid and automatic for skillful readers to be aware of them. Nevertheless, their reality has been broadly confirmed through a variety of technologically sophisticated research methods with mature readers, including eye-movement recordings and brain-imaging techniques.
In terms of instruction, these findings carry a critical implication. To become skillful readers, children must learn how to decode words instantly and effortlessly. It is for this reason that children must be taught initially to examine the letters and letter patterns of every new word while reading. Similarly, while practicing phonetic decoding, children must not be taught to skip new words or guess their meaning. While the interpretation of text depends integrally on context, the recognition of its words should not. Research reveals that only poor and disabled readers rely on context for word identification (Stanovich, 1980). Conversely, poorly developed knowledge of spellings and spelling-sound correspondences is found to be the most frequent, debilitating, and pervasive cause of reading difficulty (Bruck, 1990; Perfetti, 1985; Rack, Snowling, and Olson, 1992; Vellutino, 1991). Young readers must develop fast, accurate decoding skills; and research verifies that they are much more likely to do so if they receive a good program of phonics instruction.
More tripe. They say, "only poor and disabled readers rely on context for word identification." This is simply false no matter how many psychological degrees Dr. Stanovich may have behind his name. Readers. generally, get the meaning of a word from the context. The word "to" has, in many dictionaries more than 30 different definitions. Which of those definition fits in some sentence? The ONLY way to figure that out is from the context. How can you "identify" a word if you do not understand it, and have its meaning? You can "sound out" a word, yes, without understanding it, but to "identify?" a word? Here, again, we have psychobabble using words without defining them.
The role of effective phonics instruction is to help children understand, apply, and learn the alphabetic principle and conventions of written language. Phonics instruction is not about rote drill involving a comprehensive list of spelling-sound correspondences and phonics rules.
The most effective phonics instruction is explicit--that is, taking care to clarify key points and principles for students. In addition, it is systematic--that is, it gradually builds from basic elements to more subtle and complex patterns.
The goal is to convey the logic of the system and to invite its extension to new words that the children will encounter on their own. Teaching phonics opportunistically by pointing out spelling-sound connections only as they arise does not have the same impact on learning.
[Karl: More tripe. California tries to "re-define" phonics. The above says, "Phonics instruction is not about rote drill involving a comprehensive list of spell-sound correspondences and phonics rules." Well, Mr. Stupid, yes it is. That is exactly what "phonics" is all about -- rote memory of simple basics.
Research shows that children are naturally inclined to view words as holistic patterns, rather like pictures. The drawback to this approach is that learning to recognize one word as a picture offers no advantage toward learning to recognize the next. Toward developing children's word recognition abilities, it follows that among the first and most critical challenges is that of persuading children to go beyond this tendency.
By its very nature, phonics instruction encourages children to examine all the letters of each new word, left to right. Conversely, by linking speech sounds to the letters, it enables students to use their oral knowledge of a word to remember the word's spelling. In addition, it provides a strategy by which students can identify previously unseen words on their own as they read. (Source)
Click here for the nation's leading state, California, and its official theory on teaching reading. This was written as a perversion of the law that was, itself, a perversion of what the people of California demanded. Click here for a detailed analysis of the California "experiment."
Click here for another very covertly hidden, and influential approach that very carefully avoids using the dreaded words, "whole language" in favor of pure tripe -- words that say nothing. Ohio University is one of the many places where teachers are taught to teach young children. In this case it is called the "Literacy Collaborative" approach, and is all the more evil because they use whole language methods without ever using that term. This method was designed, as you can guess, by a psychologist.
Instead they cloak their approach in words that mean nothing, but finally you realize that it is "whole language" teaching without use of that phrase. You may not see is clearly until you think more about it. Phonics teaches, first, sounds that have no meaning. "Whole language" teaches you to understand words, or even sentences first. This is evil indeed!
There are four contexts for READING:
1. Reading Aloud to Children
2. Shared Reading
3. Guided Reading and Reading Workshop
4. Independent Reading (source)
Click here for a vigorous and professional critique of "whole word" learning and the harm that has done in our society.
Another phrase for these evils in education is "Outcome Based Education," which is social engineering -- the ideal form of Wundt's vision of education.
Psychiatry, following the lead of Wundt has long-taught that there is no place for morals in society.
If morals are not going to be taught in schools, and children have no moral foundation in their schools, then chemicals are much more easily accepted to "create happiness" and "social control" is much more readily accepted as the goal of education. It was leading psychiatrist Dr. G. Brock Chisholm, who said: "To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism and religious dogmas." (source)
The psychiatrists have achieved deadly success. Ask any teacher about morality in the classroom, or, more bluntly, discipline.
Of course, Emery is hardly unique. Many new acquaintances of mine who have taught in D.C.'s schools report discipline problems that turned them into U.N. peacekeepers. Several told me of facing fabricated corporal-punishment allegations. A union official confided that the union is flooded with such charges each year. As a result, teachers are afraid to penalize students or give them the grades they deserve. The victims are the kids whose education is commandeered by out-of-control classmates and a broken school system. (source)
Do you think teaching can take place in such a setting? Or, is this just a school waiting for Ritalin to quite the kids down? Wundt is winning! Wundt's influence may have a more sinister origin! Wundt was born in 1832, yet the source below was speaking in 1835 when he used Wundt's ideas to subjugate India. These concepts have a very ancient heritage and have cast their shadows into our 21st Century.
Consider India, the largest population that has a tradition of democracy on the planet. What is long-lost in our history students is the early efforts of England to conquor India and how, eventually this was done.
The image on the right is Lord Macaulay -- his address to the British Parliment in February 1835, predicting the words of Dr. G. Brock Chisholm who, in turn, took his marching orders from Wundt. Chisholm spoke those words, above, just a few decades ago. India suffered this invasion a couple centuries ago. These are NOT new concepts, they are evil and they are hidden -- man must awaken!
"I have travelled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief . . . "
Click here for some fascinating history on the tremendous importance and stature of Lord Macaulay. Click here for one authority who throws question onto the accuracy of that reference.
The terrible disaster in American, and all Western reading technology carries over into society in many different places -- no matter what you may think about war with Iraq in 2003, you have to go back only a few years when the Democrats were saying that Iraq was the greatest threat to world peace of any person or place. Today they say something very different and some part of our society "cannot remember" and, instead, is swayed by psychobabble.
Psychobabble has another central characteristic -- it is designed to create emotional reaction and not analytical consideration. Words are used, per psychobabble, in ways that have no logical meaning -- but they DO have emotional meanings. A person who has been badly taught to read is not able to use logic, but can always be influenced by emotion.
Thus, for years it has been true that cars were advertised showing pretty girls standing near the car. The girl has nothing logical to do with the decision to buy a car, but the image of the pretty girl evokes an emotional response. Without "thinking" the man is emotional involved and wants that car (woman ?).
This is, again, because the person is making a judgment without understanding the word.
Or, he reads that TIDE is the "Mid Century Miracle."
On one of the commercials from PERRY MASON, Dixon described Tide as a "Mid-Century Miracle." It most certainly was an accurate statement, because this one product alone completely changed how the laundry was washed. The competition eventually came out with their own brands of detergent, but not one of them could surpass or even equal Tide in popularity. (source)
There is psychobabble in one of its early forma. In 1949 there were enough religious people around that the word "miracle" have very certain meanings. Psychobabble uses the technique of taking a word that has a well-known definition, like "miracle," and using that word in a context where that old meaning is not logical. Eventually the language is degraded and words come to mean many different things.
"I believe the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction presents the greatest threat that the world has ever known. We are finding more and more countries who are acquiring technology -- not only missile technology -- and are developing chemical weapons and biological weapons capabilities to be used in theater and also on a long-range basis. So I think that is perhaps the greatest threat that any of us will face in the coming years."
Who said that? Donald Rumsfeld? Dick Cheney? Richard Perle? Rush Limbaugh?
No, this Cassandra was Bill Cohen, the moderate par excellence, at his 1997 confirmation hearings to be Bill Clinton's defense secretary. (source)
Since Wundt and Rockefeller were promoting the chemical basis for man, it is logical that their work created chemical (and electrical) psychiatry.
In this page you'll find links to articles and critical documents on biological-psychiatry. Biological-psychiatry's official theory describes psychological or personal problems as having a biological origin caused by genetic or chemical 'imbalances' to be corrected by drugs and other interventions like Electro-Convulsive Therapy [ECT] or insulin shock. These widely used but controversial methods in official medicine have been for many years amply invalidated, showing clearly that they are absolutely unscientific, that they tend to alienate patient's rights, are unable to solve the problems presented, are dangerous for one's health, and are submissive to pharmaceutical companies. The need for a drastic reduction in the power of the medical-chemical-industrial lobby is an important task to ensure that all people have the right to positive mental health, and to re-direct science's energies towards therapeutic practices which are focused upon the social and familial systems which are generating the personal suffering, instead of upon erroneous and misguided efforts to eliminate symptoms of social distress generated in individuals. (source)
You may have already been swallowed up in the myth that AIDS is a biological health problem, not a problem in sexual morality. The whole idea of "morals" has been consistently removed or minimized by a "man is an animal" philosophy.
You may wonder about AIDS -- a disease that depends on something called a "virus" being alive. You can see, now, that if man arose from mud, a virus (which is not alive) can be considered the cause over something that is alive. I have a major article on that HERE.
That article includes references to the terrible epidemic of AIDS in Africa -- the world's last place where drug companies can kill people, with abandon, in the name of saving them from AIDS. One country, Botswana, is predicted to become extinct if the AIDS problem is not "solved." But, the solution being sought is more drugs -- these will kill the people who take them. These drugs are created based on a concept that you can "kill a stone" -- and that is what Dr. Wundt's "science" has gotten us into.
Man came from the mud and a virus can be cause -- two very false beliefs that have taken over in the world just now -- it can be reversed -- this foolishness. But, it will take you and more like you to come to know this truth, in detail. That is the mission I lay on you -- spread the word -- get others to visit these pages.
There is more -- much more!
Psychobabble has another entire dimension. Psychobabble, remember, is the use of a word, deliberately, that has no logical meaning in the context -- but it can have an EMOTIONAL meaning.
Thus, soap is not particularly a substance that depends on lemon juice, or lemon smell for its usefulness, yet TIDE now uses "lemon" very prominently in its ads -- you do NOT understand why "lemon" is there, so in the absence of understanding the word, you skip that part of the essential process of reading, and make a judgment, based on emotion, not logic, not on the basis of the dictionary definition for "lemon."
Tide is very famous for this. Back in 1949 our American society was far more openly religious than we are today. Back in 1949 the word "miracle" would have some relationship to Jesus Christ, or some other event related to God. I'm sure there were some people, in 1949, who thought that when Tide used the word "miracle" connected with its soap that the Tide people were blasphemers! But, that is how Tide took over the market for their soap -- called "detergent."
On one of the commercials from PERRY MASON, Dixon described Tide as a "Mid-Century Miracle." It most certainly was an accurate statement, because this one product alone completely changed how the laundry was washed. The competition eventually came out with their own brands of detergent, but not one of them could surpass or even equal Tide in popularity. (Source)
So, when you read this ad, back more than 50 years ago, you could not understand the word "miracle" in any usage other than the Bible, or some way that hardly seemed relative to SOAP. To say that some new soap was a miracle would be to use psychobabble -- deliberate use of a word where the ordinary meaning of that word did NOT fit in that context. So, you get into the habit of ignoring dictionary definitions. You get into the habit of "just putting something there" that fits -- and you skip over the word that is truly not understood, in this context, and make a judgment that it is "GOOD."
In other words, "miracle" is good, and "Tide" is a miracle, so Tide must be good. The judgment does not follow logic -- it follows the emotional feeling from the word "miracle." This is so common today that we have virtually everyone in society who sees nothing wrong with such advertising.
At the time of this writing, March 2003, there is nothing more serious in the news than the war in Iraq. Not many years ago the Democrats were calling for handling Iraq. They say the opposite now. People who have never learned to read, or to skip over meanings and jump to judgments can easily hear the Democrats of today and think they speak the truth.
"I believe the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction presents the greatest threat that the world has ever known. We are finding more and more countries who are acquiring technology -- not only missile technology -- and are developing chemical weapons and biological weapons capabilities to be used in theater and also on a long-range basis. So I think that is perhaps the greatest threat that any of us will face in the coming years."
Who said that? Donald Rumsfeld? Dick Cheney? Richard Perle? Rush Limbaugh?
No, this Cassandra was Bill Cohen, the moderate par excellence, at his 1997 confirmation hearings to be Bill Clinton's defense secretary. (Source)
War is a serious matter. In our country the people have opinions on this matter. Our educational technology has led us to be a nation that cannot use logic, or reason, so many of us cannot see the duplicity of President Clinton in this Iraq matter. In other countries where the education has been even worse, or the dictators are in charge of the media, popular opinion is even more uneducated.
The president asks the nation to consider this question: What if Saddam Hussein "fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction."
The president's warnings are firm. "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." The stakes, he says, could not be higher. "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."
These are the words not of President George W. Bush in September 2002 but of President Bill Clinton on February 18, 1998. Clinton was speaking at the Pentagon, after the Joint Chiefs and other top national security advisers had briefed him on U.S. military readiness. The televised speech followed a month-long build-up of U.S. troops and equipment in the Persian Gulf. And it won applause from leading Democrats on Capitol Hill.
But just five days later, Kofi Annan struck yet another "deal" with the Iraqi dictator--which once more gave U.N. inspectors permission to inspect--and Saddam won again. (source)
Psychobabble and emotion rule the world today.
Why should I, Karl Loren, ask you so often to read about this? Because my oral chelation formula could be saving the lives of millions of people who die needlessly from heart disease and cancer. These millions are the victims of a terrible education -- an education that deliberately taught them to read in such a way that they cannot read, but substitute the emotions caused by clever manipulators. Far too many people read and do not understand. These would be called "literate" but they are truly not. They lack the reading basics -- whole language technology has taken over.
The damage to health from the Rockefeller/Wundt duo is far greater than the "mere" destruction of Africa or American Education.
If you have read this report carefully you should realize that it presents one of the most fundamental revolutions in education that has ever been written. If you follow all the links you will find that this is one of the best-researched concepts ever done. If you follow the link on “truth” you will find an “entrance” into the ultimate of existence. These are not small claims.
The story goes on as to how this same evil duo went further to also destroy the American Health System.
The Leipzig Connection: Sabotage of the US Educational System --Introduction
The Leipzig Connection: Sabotage of the US Educational System -- Chapter 3
The Leipzig Connection: Sabotage of the US Educational System -- Chapter 4
The Leipzig Connection: Sabotage of the US Educational System -- Chapter 5
The Leipzig Connection: Sabotage of the US Educational System -- Chapter 6
The Leipzig Connection: Sabotage of the US Educational System -- Chapter 7
The Leipzig Connection: Sabotage of the US Educational System -- Chapter 8
The Leipzig Connection: Sabotage of the US Educational System -- Chapter 9
The Leipzig Connection: Sabotage of the US Educational System -- Chapter 10
The Leipzig Connection: Sabotage of the US Educational System -- Research Notes
WUNDT: Classics in the History of Psychology
WUNDT: Principles of Physiological Psychology -- Introduction
Part I. The Bodily Substrate of the Mental Life
WUNDT: Principles of Physiological Psychology -- Chapter 1
WUNDT: Principles of Physiological Psychology -- Chapter 2
Chapter 3. Physiological Mechanics of Nerve Substance
Chapter 4. Morphological Development of the Central Organs
Chapter 5. Course of the Paths of Nervous Conduction
Chapter 6. Physiological Function of the Central Parts
Skull & Bones Society: How The Order Controls Education - The Look-Say Reading Method
Man, The Animal, Needs LAWS For His Own Good -- Immanuel Kant
|Special Pages On The Various of 19 Web Sites Authored by Karl Loren|
|OC History||Oral Chelation||Testimonials|
|Family Of Three Oral Chelation Formulas||Life Glow Basic||Life Glow Basic Ingredient List|
|Life Glow Plus||Life Glow Plus
|American Heart Association -- Lies|
|Super Life Glow||Super Life Glow
|All Products||Shopping Cart Order Section||Research|
|Taheebo Life Tea||Witch Doctors Versus Harvard||MSM Sulfur|
|Calcium||How Bones Grow||Colloidal Minerals|
|Jean Ross||Philosophy||The Wednesday Letter|
|Arthritis & James Coburn's Use Of MSM||Karl Loren Viewpoints||News And Announcements|
|Dr. Flanagan's Microhydrin||500 Page Book On Heart Disease||Colostrum & Transfer Factor|
|Germanium||Ultrasound Technology||Bulk MSM|
|Cancer & Biopsy||Diabetes||Heart Disease & Bypass Surgery|
|Karl Loren's Diet||Guarantee||High Cholesterol Risk?|
|The Links Below Jump To Pages On Whatever Web You Are In|
|Table Of Contents||Search This Web||Navigation Help Page|
|Write To Karl Loren -- He Pledges To Answer EVERY Personal Message, Personally. Click here or on his name in the box below.|
|The Links Below Are To Various Web Sites Published By Karl Loren|
|Karl Loren Web||Vibrant Life Web||Karl Loren's Book|
|Super Colostrum||Bulk MSM||Heart Disease|
|Instead Of||Chelation Therapy||Super Colostrum (2)|
|Immune Egg||Central Page For All 19 Webs!|
SUBSCRIBE: The Vibrant Life Magazine is a free electronic weekly newsletter written and published by Vibrant life. You can view more than 50 back issues of this publication by clicking here. The newsletter subscription list is maintained on a secure server, no name is ever given or sold to anyone, and it is never used except for this Newsletter. The letter has been changed to product and information news which is sent out regularly each week.
REMOVAL: You can remove yourself from the subscription list in several different ways. Click here to read about this entire newsletter system. Every edition of Product and Information Letter is delivered to your address with YOUR name and address in view on the letter, with a link that allows you to remove THAT name from the subscription list. If you try to send this removal message from an address different from the one you used to send in your original confirmation, then you will get a warning notice first, sent to the subscription address, asking you to confirm that you want to be removed from the list -- by replying to THAT request for confirmation, you will then be automatically removed. Thus, no one else can unsubscribe you, from some other computer, without your knowledge. But, if you send in the unsubscribe notice from the same machine used to receive the Letter, then the removal from the subscription list is automatic.
Personal Message: When you send a personal message to Karl Loren, you will receive a personal reply as per his instructions. Karl pledges that every personal message will get a personal answer. When you provide your mail address, we will send you free information including our free catalog and a cassette tape lecture by Karl Loren about heart disease, no charge, by mail, even if outside the US. You can select particular information you would like to receive, along with the free cassette tape and catalog.
You can reach Vibrant Life in many ways, including by mail to Vibrant Life, PO Box 10666, Burbank, CA 91510-0666. Within the US and Canada, use the toll free number: (800) 523-4521, the local number: (818) 558-7099, eMail to email@example.com or any one of the hundreds of message forms throughout the 60 web sites. Vibrant Life normally ships the same day we get an order. There are message forms on each of the 100,000+ pages on this and other sites where you can communicate with Vibrant Life. Check out our companion site, at: http://www.oralchelation.net where Karl's 2000 page book is published. Karl Loren is the author and webmaster for this BOOK, as well as for another web site about ORAL CHELATION. His personal philosophical articles are at PHILOSOPHY.
Copyright © May 23, 2012 4:51 PM by Karl Loren on behalf of Vibrant Life, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Permission is granted for non-commercial downloading, copying, distribution or redistribution on two conditions: One, that some form of copyright notice is included in every copy distributed or copied, showing the copyright belonging to Vibrant Life, Burbank, CA, at www.oralchelation.com . The second condition is that the material is not to be used for any purpose contrary to the purposes and objectives of this site. This permission does not extend to materials on this site which are copyrighted by others.