The Human Condition
A Look Ahead for USA
Defending the Faith
Essence of Koran
Evil of Ordinary
Fall of Man
Garden, Fall, Restore
A Pertinent Discussion
Saturn in Human History
Solutions to Disunity
State of Academia
State of Philosophy
The Third Story
The Twilight Zone
Aspects of Jesus
5 Gospels Canon
Philosophers of Note
Misc Ancient Myth Material
1994 Velikovsky Symposium
Book Critiques Links
Misc Biology Links
Poetry & Fun Material
PDF Download Files
Lecture & Video Links
Site Features Links
Spiritual Products online store
“A great majority of the so-called educated
people do not think logically and scientifically. Even the press, the
classroom, the platform, and the pulpit in many instances do not give us
objective and unbiased truths. To save man from the morass of propaganda, in
my opinion, is one of the chief aims of education. Education must enable one
to sift and weigh evidence, to discern the true from the false, the real
from the unreal, and the facts from the fiction. The function of education,
therefore, is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically.”
- Martin Luther King Jr.,
Education....has produced a vast population able to read but
unable to distinguish what is worth reading. - George Trevelyan
The State of Western Academia
President Eisenhower rightfully warned us about the military-industrial
complex. Someone of equal stature should have warned us about the
educational-union complex, which is far more insidious in its affect on
Don’t think that I have been a follower of Rush Limbaugh or that I have
even listened to him except incidentally when he was being interviewed on another serious talk show program.
But he agrees with me on this issue without even having half of the rationale that I do. I quote:
“Western academia is broken."
If you’ve been following the planetary catastrophe/Electric Universe
movement, then you probably agree that the American, and
indeed the Western system of higher education has been broken for quite some time.
Rogue feminist Camille Paglia has spoken at great length about the false and
deceptive path that colleges have gone down since the 1960s. She explains that,
breaking from the largely honest and truly rebellious spirit of freedom which won
the day in the 60s, the movement more or less drugged itself out of existence. Her peers slowly
ruined their minds by abusing LSD or other psychedelics, and all of the meaningful intellectuals washed out.
This, she says, created the power vacuum that a kind of corporate class of academics
needed to move in and take administrative positions in colleges.”
These institutions are imponderable bastions for all
–power, orthodoxy, status, political influence. security, economic comfort–
and yet they are aflame with fashionable, liberal social causes.
I have news for Rush: It's worse than broken,. it's turned into an
existential intellectual threat, at least for America, because it is sucking the
lifeblood out of each new generation by sending them deeply into debt, and
for a pitifully poor quality, inadequate mis-education. Just like De Beers, when with the
help of Hollywood they convinced each young woman that she needed a diamond
ring to seal the love deal–"A Diamond is forever"–"higher education" has
convinced America that you need to go to college in order to be "finished"– educated cultured and successful.
But America is waking up to the debt problem at least, if not the poor
quality of the product.
What Rush doesn’t get and few others do is that these institutions–EXCEPT
for the more mundane technical, business, management, literary, clerical,
etc., TRAINING–have been corrupted at a deeper level down to their
FUNDAMENTAL/soul, not just their politically
correct soul, nor even their science soul. They have been taken over by people that have a strong bias for truth
being transitory and relative. In their mind it’s all relative, and you can’t
well and sort it out very meaningfully. And what does it matter anyway? This attitude indicates a loss of the
philosophical and spiritual soul!
One of the developments is an almost complete fragmentation of learning into
discrete compartments that overlap only a little. There is no vision nor
desire to produce men that can INTEGRATE things very much, especially into a
big picture. Why would you even TRY to do that? It is presumed that that is
now NOT possible, and
presumptuous to try.
I learned most, not from those who taught me but
from those who talked with me.
- Saint Augustine
Psychological Violation of Require
Why is it not more widely understood that human beings are designed to
live under inspiration, not demand backed up by punishment or failure? Ask
any competent psychologist or philosopher! The prevailing mentality in the
industry from top to bottom is designed to "require" instead of "inspire".
This is nothing short of arcane and medieval. Where is the administrative
approach to select teachers PRIMARILY on their ability to inspire the
students, who NATURALLY WANT TO LEARN because it is obviously in their own
best interest? This is NOT rocket science!
Every teacher, professor, or tutor should address his pupils by claiming
to be a servant, a guide present to HELP the student learn but not to demand
or require. If the student is not available to be inspired, he should be
removed and put into a different environment. Grading should be a two-way
street for both the teacher and the student, and should be done
independently of the teacher, and based on results. Currently, MANY students
are moved along inn secondary or high scchool all the way to graduation WITHOUT having achieved
competency. THIS IS NOT WORKING!
Abandonment of Philosophy
Modern academia has not structured its education and
curriculum around philosophy AS IT SHOULD, but rather has featured or focused
more narrowlyon technical
education and career preparation. Today, many feel that formal philosophy is
unnecessary, and more than one leading influential figure like Stephen
Hawking has denounced it as irrelevant, ostensibly because science is thought
to be "real" and pragmatic, and philosophy theoretical and
Thus they have all but abandoned real philosophy that produces sterling,
humanity expanding principles in epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics; real
philosophy that produces wisdom that one
can be sure of, and relegated it to being a somewhat interesting but arcane
realm of academic study, mostly a left-over from earlier, less advanced days.
Unfortunately, the day of the philosopher in Western society has passed
and no single group today serves the function of surveying the totality of
knowledge and trying to bring it into a coherent and simple explanation.
- Vine Deloria, Red Earth, White Lies: Native Americans and the Myth of
They have also done a Dracula job on history, drained the drama and philosophical life-blood out
of it, and made it into a mere uninspiring academic requirement of learning
facts and information. If you don't understand and reveal the philosophy or mindset
behind the social and political movements of the past, how can you ever
learn lessons from history? I have to admit that when I was in my college
years, I had no appreciation for nor interest in learning history. No one
set the study of it in a context that transcended mere academic achievement
and stimulated my interest, which they
easily COULD have done.
On the compromise between real education and schooling:
"This is a nightmare world we've backed ourselves into here, and it does
produce a high degree of state revenue and state stability. So if you want
to trade liberty, free will, and human variety for safety and comfort–that's
what the trade is". - John Taylor Gatto
The ignorant and ignrore'ant theological seminaries teach various traditions and let the real
understanding of ancient times and the ultimate issues lie fallow. They no
longer have the stomach for conflict with "Science", and generally accept
its pronouncements and circumspectly keep their
teaching within these limits. They are
overly concerned with "academic" accreditation, when the only real sign of a valid
form of it is producing men that can think critically, integrate their
knowledge and make a positive spiritual impact, and hence
bestir society into reform leading to greater nobility and unity.
Academic Science Influence
Astronomy, the queen of the sciences, is still largely associated with the
universities and has significant influence on societal thinking, but it is a
wasteland because it has gone almost completely into "scientific" mysticism.
It has clung to the gravity-centric paradigm, and has rejected the Electric
Universe paradigm. It has had to fabricate exotic, esoteric constructs, and is now mostly concerned with
the sensational: a Big Bang, black holes, dark matter, dark energy,
and thus keeping itself funded. It has left the real world behind, so much so, that one
wonders why they use telescopes anymore. Why don't astrophysicists just
eliminate looking at natural reality altogether and emulate
their great hero, Stephen Hawking, and just use their imagination supported
by computers to model reality? Why don't they just completely abandon truly
scientif reality checks and focus on developing more
algorithms to generate the necessary information to fill in the gaps?
Sir Fred Hoyle has commented that academics
generally will not read papers they disagree with.
People with real vision that even have the potential to actually see how bad it is
in academe have been winnowed out in a dozen effective ways. There is not a
chance that any reformer could get through the micro-pore filter in place today and make an impact! And, not a chance that any significant
world changing truth could get through either. These institutions are
imponderable bastions for all that matters to them–power, orthodoxy,
status, political influence. security, economic comfort–and yet they are aflame with fashionable, liberal social causes.
Spiritually and/or intellectually, academia has long since transferred its faith to
the new religion of scientism. They legitimately stopped listening to sacred-text-authority-based
theologians and only illegitimately transitioned over to the “revolutionaries” in science, Darwin, Einstein,
Bohr, etc. They have overwhelmingly settled into a world view of gradualism, uniformitarianism,
materialism, evolutionism, and scientifically acceptable mysticism where
mere randomness and chance play a major role in how the universe unfolds.
It should be noted that there is little if any meaningful difference between
randomness and chance versus the purpose and control of a “Who-can-know-thy-ways"
Creator or God. .
A university is a
place where men of principle
outnumber men of honor. - Ernest May
If they are not passionate scientism believers, these are the kinds of
administrators and department heads that you can invite to an Electric
Universe Conference. They will come and listen for what all the fuss is
about. But what they conclude is that it is just another not very well
supported take, just another possibility fostered by fervent enthusiasts.
This one is out there with a myriad of others; always with the possibility that one of these “fringe
hypotheses” that haven’t
been fleshed out, verbalized and promoted well, or "accepted", may exceed the plethora of the ones that have already
But nothing to get too excited about, one way or another. These kinds of things
come and go.
EU theory? It makes some good points, is mildly interesting and maybe even
remotely possible, but nothing to risk a career over. Saturnian Reconstruction? That’s
hardly even remotely possible, and not worth talking about, taking
seriously, or especially risking departmental cohesiveness nor academic
political approval. Meanwhile, that’s just the Physics Department’s problem.
Take any serious responsibility for fostering a relevant truth? You’ve got to be kidding!
Why would you DO that? Introduce a culture and material that stimulates
students to think? Why would you do THAT? The modern zeitgeist doesn't need
revolutionaries but rather functioning, cooperating sycophants!
What they DO take seriously is their careers and professional acceptability. They may mildly
disapprove of the heavy influence of and emphasis on sports for their institution, but these are little
more than comfortable bureaucrats or academic apparatchiks. They are politically astute and carry around an
acceptable socio/political/religious posture. They may not be entirely
uncaring and may even have fashionably a minor cause that they espouse and
foster to show they are socially concerned. If something like the EU ever
does tend to prevail, they can always say, “Oh yes, I looked into that years ago and found it to be quite interesting, but didn’t have the time to really pursue it.”
Government replacing God
Not the least of the underlying problems that may rival the worst is
something that afflicts society in general. Fewer and fewer people actually
believe in the active or direct involvement of God anymore, and have either
put their faith in institutions that He is supposedly using, or
they have lost any "faith" all together. In the USA the most powerful institution is
the federal government, and increasingly citizens are transferring their
faith from religions, the private sector and themselves to it. The federal
government has become the de facto "God" of last resort for many. It's not as if the current
"God" need not be replaced, but government by professional
politicians is a VERY poor substitute.
Government is not reason,
it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire,
a troublesome servant and a
fearful master. Never for a moment
should it be left to irresponsible action. - George Washington
Setting aside the fact that the terms "conservative" and Liberal have
changed over time as governments have transitioned to being more secular, from one angle it simply comes down to this: If you understand what
Washington is saying above, then you will be "conservative", wanting to
limit the involvement of government to the basics, and you will be on guard
against its unwarranted growth and the spread of its involvement. If you
think government is benevolent or benign, then you will be "liberal",
wanting to have government manage more and more of the business of public
life with greater encroachment into private life. It must be said that
universally, probably all governments THINK of themselves as benevolent, but
the evidence is clearly against this. The conundrum is that the more
effective the government is, the greater the temptation to want to get it
more involved. That is one of the many "no-win" situations that we face in
the human condition.
Of course there are other factors and elements such as loss of basic
principles like personal sovereignty, equality and responsibility, but
Liberalism leads inexorably to socialism, communism, and fascism. Government
is now heavily involved in academe, which has become HEAVILY slanted to
liberalism. This growth of government involvement with the world of academia
is like cancer; once it metastasizes, it is only a matter of time before it
kills the host.
Yet, maybe I am mistaken in my perspective. Maybe it’s been like this much
longer than Rush, Camille, and I realize!