Dumbing Down US Education: Part II – Wundtian Psychology & Rockefeller Finance
Wilhelm Wundt created the modern version of so-called scientific psychology by drawing together earlier thinking but his real achievement was in establishing his laboratory at Leipzig University in 1875 and attracting students who would subsequently spread his theories all over the US and Europe.
Wundt’s theories had great appeal for the Rothschilds and would have suited their plans for humanity perfectly. Wundt asserted that humans are devoid of spirit and self-determinism (and hence free will) and that man is just the sum of his experiences. This atheistic, materialist philosophy dominated his approach to study of the human psyche. Indeed in practical terms he virtually denied the existence of the psyche and this enabled him to reduce the study of "man" to an external, physiological examination of stimulus and response. He said:
`The situation-response formula is adequate to cover learning of any sort, and the really influential factors in learning are readiness of the neurones, sequence in time, belongingness and satisfying consequences.'
[Pintner, Rudolph.et al., An Outlineof Educational Psychology, rev.ed.(New York: Barnes & Noble,1934), 79.
If one assumes (as did Wundt) that there is nothing there to begin with but a physical body, brain and 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. The child is not, for example, thought capable of volitional control over his actions, or of deciding whether he will act or not act in a certain way: His actions are thought to be preconditioned and beyond his control, because he is a stimulus-response mechanism. According to this thinking, the child IS his/her reactions. Wundt's thesis laid the philosophical basis for the principals of physical conditioning later developed by Pavlov (who studied physiology in Leipzig, in 1884, five years after Wundt had inaugurated his laboratory there). It also provided the basis upon which American behavioural psychologists like Watson and Skinner justified lobotomies and electroconvulsive therapy; as well as for schools oriented away from the development of intellect; and the emergence of a society more and more blatantly devoted to the gratification of sensory desires at the expense of responsibility and achievement. (See Paolo Lionni’s PDF book "The Leipzig Connection" pp 9 – p16)
Wundt's Ph.D. students were numerous and they flooded the US towards the end of the 19th century finding little difficulty in securing positions of influence at major American universities. Many became successful to a marked degree; often training scores, and even hundreds of Ph.D. students in psychology; and contributing to new associations and publications in this new field of study (psychology) and almost without exception all of them became involved in another field which lay open to the advance of German psychology – the field of education. (Lionni, op cit.pp 12 – 20)
Sooo, why did such success attend upon ALL of these budding psychologists? Chance you say? Happenstance? Synchronicity, the coincidence of just having the good fortune of being in the right place at the right time? Well, my take is different. I say that the money, influence and publicity needed to launch Wundt's wonderful new atheistic oriented materialistic theories upon the unsuspecting world was the secret Rothschild bankster cabal in combination with its Khazar Zionist and Bolshevik revolutionary cadres. That money and influence was not just active in Germany, the early centre of Rothschild power, but by 1875 it had already extended to the US via 'The London Connection' (the city of London bankers) and to the rest of the Anglo-European world (ie almost globally) via the British and Dutch Empires. The Rothschilds also assisted the Khazarian Rockefeller in his meteoric rise to wealth and power in the US in the latter half of the 19th Century.
So it would have been no great stretch for 'The London Connection' and Rockefeller to secretly support Wundt's first US protégé, G Stanley Hall, in the establishment of the (AJP) in 1887. Piece of cake mate! And guess what? The AJP gave American Journal of Psychology"adherents of the new psychology not only a storehouse for contributions both experimental and theoretical, but a sense of solidarity and independence" [Murphy& Kovach, p 175 – Quoted by Lionni, Ibid. pp15 – 21] Would not all would-be benefactors of humanity like to get such support? For instance wouldn't Nicola Tesla, Royal Raymond Rife and Wilhelm Reich and their disciples have been grateful for even a small portion of the support and influence lavished on Wundtian psychologists in the late 19th and early 20th centuries? You betcha they would! But what did they get? Two of them were incarcerated as lunatics, effectively on the say-so of Wundtian psychology practitioners and the third was reduced to penury by J P Morgan and his associates.
In effect nascent Wundtian psychology adherents were being cosseted and nurtured so that they might form part of the new priesthood that would man the 20th century materialist Khazarian Crusade and Corporatist Inquisition designed to crucify all heretics and destroy all heresies that sought to improve humanity's consciousness and quality of life against the wishes of the Rothschild and Rockefeller led global bankster cabal.
But I digress.
Hall went on to help found the and in 1904 published American Psychological Association`Adolescence: Its Psychology and Its Relations to Physiology, Anthropology, Sociology, Sex, Crime, Religion, and Education'. I think the title says it all. Was there nothing Hall and his "psychology" did not know? Anyway, John Dewey studied under Hall for a year and got his doctorate from John Hopkins University in 1884. Dewey published "Psychology", the first American text book on the revised subject in 1886. In 1895 Dewey joined the faculty of the Rockefeller-endowed University of Chicago as head of the departments of philosophy, psychology and pedagogy (teaching).
In the 19th century, in parallel with the rise of Wundtian psychological ideas and practices, Rockefeller was greatly assisted towards achievement of his monopolistic railroad, oil and financial empire by the Rothschilds. Presumably the reason Dewey received Rockefeller preferment was his attitude to the new psychology and education of the young. He reckoned that `to put the child in possession of his fullest talents, education should be active rather than passive; that to prepare the child for a democratic society, the school should be social rather than individualist …'
In effect Dewey wanted schools to feed experiential data to young brains and nervous systems, rather than teaching mental skills. Clearly his aims have been realised in Amerikka and to a large degree in many other countries. To achieve this, "schools" no longer seek to have teachers facilitate education in reading, writing, arithmetic, history, geography etc but rather they are required to guide in the socialisation of the child – a role previously undertaken by parents, siblings, extended family, neighbours, the local community, church congregations et al. Teachers' functions today revolve around leading children to adapt to the specific behaviour required in order to get along in the group and thence society.
In `My Pedagogic Creed' John Dewey states:
The school is primarily a social institution. Education being a social process, the school is simply that form of community life in which all those agencies are concentrated that will be most effective in bringing the child to share in the inherited resources of the race, and to use his own powers for social ends.
Moreover public schools must `take an active part in determining the social order of the future … according as the teachers align themselves with the newer forces [?!] making for social control of economic forces.'
[Quoted in Allen, Gary, "Hands off our Children," American Opinion, XVIII,No, 9 (October, 1975), 3.]
So, teachers MUST align themselves to the "new" forces making for social control of economic forces. Righttt! Gotcha! No worries mate. She'll be apples. And WHAT, exactly, are the "inherited resources of the race" that schools are to BRING the child to share? Free range slavery? Excessive, Pavlovian eating and habits of social intercourse? consumerism? Using "own powers" to ensure (compete for) a place at the "social" feeding trough?
For Dewey, as for Wundt, man was an animal, alone with his reactions, and entirely dependent upon experiential data. He believed that teachers were not instructors, but designers of learning experiences on the Pavlovian model. Dewey promoted and implemented the inter-changeability of psychology and education and is regarded as the Father of the abomination that is American Education today. BUT he had help. James McKeen, Francis Galton, James Mark Baldwin, Andrew C Armstrong, Charles Judd, James Earl Russell, Frank & Charles McMurray, and Edward Lee Thorndike (who reckoned that:`psychology was the science of the intellect, character and behaviour of animals, including man' and who spent 30 years at Columbia Teachers College “teaching” that philosophy to huge numbers of "teachers") and others.
Thorndike equated children with the rats, monkeys, fish, cats and chickens upon which he experimented in his laboratory and was prepared to apply what he found there to learning in the classroom. He extrapolated "laws" from his research into animal behaviour which he then applied to the training of teachers; who then took what they had learned to every corner of the US and ran their classrooms, curricula, and schools on the basis of this new "educational" psychology.
In his book `The Principles of Teaching based on Psychology' (1906), Thorndike defines the art of teaching thus:
`… 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 aim of the teacher is to produce desirable and prevent undesirable changes in human beings by producing and preventing certain responses…'
Thorndike based social conditioning of individuals on what he called the "law of effect". This thinking favours a society that operates more on the basis of fear and gratification than on the basis of reason or responsibility. Apparently this "schooling" has led children to expect to receive what is pleasurable, and what they desire, because they have learned in school that what is pleasurable is good, and what isn't pleasurable, isn't good. This is the legacy of the stimulus-response teaching developed by Thorndike and transmitted to hundreds of thousands of teachers through the medium of "educational" psychology inculcated at the Columbia Teachers’ College in New York.
Before "educational" psychology swamped the field, good behaviour was considered its own reward; and the idea of rewarding a child for behaving like a human being would only occur to someone who supposed that a child is essentially (ie only) an animal and would have seemed like an open invitation to blackmail to any sensible 19th century parent.
Thorndike, like Dewey and other Wundtians, thought that man is just a social animal that must learn to adapt to his environment, instead of learning how to ethically adapt the environment to suit his needs and those of society. Individual evolvement and development of individual abilities has to give way to social conformity and adaptation under today's Wundtian inspired education systems. Modern education systems have thus largely become factories for the production of "well-adjusted" (ie psychically conditioned, socially engineered) children and citizens.
The real agenda of the Wundtians and their hidden bankster and corporatist sponsors was revealed by Thorndike:
`Subjects such as arithmetic, language, and history include content that is intrinsically of little value. Nearly every subject is enlarged unwisely to satisfy the academic ideal of thoroughness. That the typical school overemphasises instruction in these formal, academic skills as a means of fostering intellectual resources … is a justifiable criticism. …Elimination of unessentials by scientific study, then, is one step in improving the curriculum.'
Thorndike, Edward L., and Arthur Gates, ‘Elementary Principles of Education’ (New York: Macmillan, 1929), 308.[quoted by Lionni op cit p36 – p45].
Thorndike stated the three main functions of the elementary school as follows:
(1) to provide for each child six years of experience designed to enable him to make at each step in the period adjustments to the most essential phases of life … To adjust this general education to each child requires a considerable degree of specialisation in accordance with individual differences. Consequently the elementary school has a second function, namely:
(2) to determine as accurately as possible the native intellectual capacities, the physical, emotional, temperamental, recreational, aesthetic, and other aptitudes of children. Since some pupils will find it necessary or advisable to enter a vocation in the middle teens, a third function is essential in some degree, namely:
(3) to explore the vocational interests and aptitudes of pupils and to provide some measure of vocational adjustment for those who will leave school at the earliest legal age. (Ibid. 310) [See also Lionni, Ibid. p 37-46]
Phew! That's a lot of work for elementary school teachers to perform, especially as most of it used to be done by each individual with assistance from his family, relatives and local community. So why the heavy work load? What's the point, apart from confining the average child to a supervised and controlled institution for most of his days until society allows him to go to work?
Well, the base reason is to condition the child to authority and the need to "fit in" to society – item (1). Item (2) is where society decides each child's future ie s/he will be a drone essentially sitting on top of the mass of workers in society or be one of the workers. This is to be determined by each child's reaction to schooling reinforced by psychological testing (ie more work for the psychological priesthood). As the assumption is that all humans are essentially mere animals, a child's response to the "stimulus" of "education" is the determining factor. As the teaching "stimulus" was assumed to be the same for all in any class (an obvious fallacy) then it followed that those who did not respond well – those experiencing lesser so-called learning rates and other difficulties were intellectually inferior – because Thorndike's premise was that intelligence is permanently set before the student enters school (Ibid, chapters X, XIII, passim.). This easy conclusion absolves teachers and schools from any responsibility for students not learning. Why? Well, if half the class learns and the other half does not the problem must lie with the students who do not learn because they (allegedly) received the same stimuli. Psychological testing with its cultural and other biases helped to reinforce such conclusions.
Thorndike's point (3) provided for the system to condition those destined to do society's dirty and unpleasant work to their destiny and to stream them into it.
Thorndike concluded that some students just won’t make it, and that it’s better to determine through educational testing who they will be, early enough so they can be shunted into useful vocational training. His rationale for vocational discrimination and selection through testing was to provide the theoretical basis for yet another kind of discrimination. From 1913 on, psychologist H.H.Gooddard (who invented the term “moron”) used psychological testing to allegedly “prove’ the feeble-mindedness of great numbers of Jews, Italians, Hungarians, Russians and other Eastern Europeans attempting to emigrate to America through Ellis Island. The result was that they were forced to leave the US, the country they had sacrificed so much to reach, and return to Europe in time to experience WWI. In the years before the US stopped accepting large numbers of emigrants in 1921, Louis Terman and Robert Yerkes and others used psychological testing to fuel xenophobia by allegedly “proving” the racial dullness” of the Spanish-Indians and Mexican families of the Southwest and the alleged general “feeblemindedness” of the “colored race”. The social effects of the false racial ideas, massive sterilization campaigns, and other brutal eugenics measures spawned by the psychological testing movement have yet to dissipate.(Thorndike and Gates, op, cit, 320).
The Creation and Funding of the US Educational Debacle
To create the compulsory formal US education system would cost an absolute fortune. Who had the money? Well, as it turns out, the new Wundtian behavioural psychologists who sought to exercise their ideas in the US educational field found themselves swamped with money from John D Rockefeller Sr. and his so-called philanthropic trusts.
In the 1880s Rockefeller Sr. hired Frederick Taylor Gates, a Baptist minister as his financial adviser and to manage his wealth-concealing philanthropic trusts. Gates had worked to distribute George A. Pillsbury's last philanthropies before his death. Thus the great monopolist Rockefeller solved what he called
"the difficult art of giving": 'If a combination to do business is effective in saving waste and in getting better results, why is not combination far more important in philanthropic work?'
[ Rockefeller, John D., Random Reminiscences of Men and Events
(Toronto: McClannand & Goodchild, 1909),165.]
The game plan was simple: Funnel large sums of Rockefeller money into setting up a philanthropic monopoly (with some moneys also contributed by other industrial barons) then distribute the money in a way guaranteed to ensure Mr. Rockefeller the respect and admiration of those portions of society that had criticized his excessive wealth and the manner in which he gained it. In effect Gates found a way to launder Rockefeller money.
But to do this Gates and Rockefeller’s son John D. Rockefeller Jr., had to undermine the existing indigenous American educational system which was deeply rooted in the beliefs and practices of the Puritan Fathers, the Quakers, and early American patriots and philosophers. Jefferson had maintained that in order to preserve liberty in the new nation, it was essential that its citizenry be educated, whatever their income. Throughout the country, schools were established almost immediately after the colonization of new areas. Fine school systems were established by the Quakers in Pennsylvania and the Midwest.
The free school movement in New York, under the aegis of DeWitt Clinton and Horace Mann, was also flourishing. Moreover, at this time a large number of "normal schools" (so-called due to their role in setting the norms and standards of education) were turning out thousands of well-trained teachers each year. Major universities had been established early in the country's history, and annually graduated intensely literate and well-educated people who were to be the leaders of the nation.2
The result was that, except in the rural South, high school graduates in 1900 were truly educated, fluent in English language, history, and culture, and possessing the skills needed to succeed in life. But the South was devastated by the Civil War, and during the reconstruction period traditional values and institutions were greatly disrupted. Rural areas had few schools, even for the white children, and fewer still for the children of parents recently freed from slavery. The confusion and disruption in the rural South gave Gates the right circumstances for implementation of his plans for Rockefeller’s philanthropy.
In 1902 Gates gained the approval of Rockefeller Sr. and his son and a group of noted Southern educators to charter the General Education Board, for "the promotion of education within the United States without distinction of race, sex, or creed." It was to be a philanthropic monopoly. In the words of Gates:
'The object of this Association is to provide a vehicle through which capitalists of the North who sincerely desire to assist in the great work of Southern education may act with assurance that their money will be wisely used.'
Starting with a $1 million Rockefeller donation the General Education Board soon absorbed the smaller existing Slater and Peabody philantrophic education Funds. Gates stated the Education Board’s aims in its Occasional Letter No 1:
'In our dreams, we have limitless resources and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present education conventions fade from their minds, and unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive rural folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning, or men of science. We have not to raise up from among them authors, editors, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we have an ample supply. The task we set before ourselves is very simple as well as a very beautiful one, to train these people as we find them to a perfectly ideal life just where they are. So we will organize our children and teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way, in the homes, in the shops and on the farm.'
A similar view of the power of philanthropy was expressed by Board trustee Waiter Hines Page who later became editor of the Atlantic Monthly, ambassador to Great Britain, and early advocate of America's entry into World War I) when he told the first executive secretary of the Board, Wallace Buttrick:
'...the world lies before us. It'll not be the same world when we get done with it that it was: before: bet your last penny on that will you!'
John D. Rockefeller, Jr., and Gates sought more effective ways of investing the Rockefeller fortune towards, in Fosdick’s words “this goal of social control”. ‘These men … conspired to control American education while buttressing the Rockefeller fortune against all attacks, ensuring that their autocratic views would prevail. With the General Education Board, Rockefeller's "education trust," a virtually unlimited source of funds was to be made available to the Wundtian psychologists' ambitious designs on American education.’
The prime mechanism of the Rockefeller social control education strategy was its funding of the New York Teachers College on 120th street. Receiving multiple massive donations from the Rockefellers this College grew rapidly, covering an entire city block crammed with seven buildings. It operated from early morning to ten o'clock at night, for ten months of the year...Its enrollment was greater than all but 19 US universities and only Columbia, Harvard, and Chicago had more students seeking advanced education in 1912. In fact, Teachers College became the fourth largest graduate school in the US.
Thus Teachers College was able to expand at a time critical to its success and immediately following a massive population increase among US school-age children. US public school enrolments rose from 9,900,000 in 1880 to 12,700,000 in 1890 and continued to rise rapidly thereafter. The number of colleges increased from 350 in 1880 to nearly 500 in 1900, with college enrollment doubling over the same period, and continuing to expand into the early years of the new century.
Teachers College was well established and ready to fill that need for teachers with a methodology most schools of education didn't have— the Wundtian "educational" psychology. The year after Rockefeller's General Education Board had set Teachers College financially on its feet, Thorndike published the first volume of his masterwork, Educational Psychology. By 1904, he was entrenched as full professor and head of the new department of educational psychology at Teachers College. That same year, after a decade in Chicago experimenting with children, John Dewey joined the faculty of Columbia University as a member of the departments of philosophy and education, in a unique position to influence advanced students in Teachers College. With Russell, Cattell, Thorndike, and the other Wundtians, Dewey created an amalgam of "educational" psychology and socialism that became known as "Progressive Education." This education system was pumped out by Columbia's Teachers College for the next half-century and slowly but surely became typical in schools all over the US.
Dewey and Thorndike treated the schoolroom as a "great laboratory" in which to do their research and refine "the modification of instincts and capabilities into habits and powers." But 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 until 1917 when an offer to establish such a laboratory school came from Abraham Flexner of the General Education Board.
Abraham Flexner, an effective fund-raiser, experienced educator and organizer, felt he had the solution to both the supposed failure of
American education and to the need of the General Education Board to disburse the Rockefeller millions. Educated at Johns Hopkins University and the University of Berlin, he apparently had little contact with the Wundtian psychologists at those institutions. His experience in education consisted of 15 years of running his own preparatory school in
Louisville, Kentucky, and from his studies in German and American education while a researcher at The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, in New York City.
In 1913, Flexner left the Carnegie Foundation and went to work for the General Education Board, first as assistant secretary for four years, then as secretary (principal executive officer) running the operations of the Board for eight years in partnership with its president, Wallace Buttrick. As the resident intellectual and educator on the Board, Flexner specialized in education and saw more clearly than anyone else just how the Rockefeller money could be used to further his aims.
Flexner also attacked American medical education and caused the number of medical schools in the United States to drop from 147 to 95.
Naturopathic medicine declined because it was proving particularly unsusceptible to Rockefeller funding. Over the years (until 1960), the General Education Board would give a total of over $96 million 9 to medical schools which, like Johns Hopkins, disregarded naturopathy, homeopathy, and chiropractic in favor of medicine based on the use of surgery and chemical drugs. The Board's sponsorship of chemical medicine on the one hand and psychology on the other would culminate in 1963 when a group of researchers at Johns Hopkins developed the use of Ritalin to "treat" children who were regarded as "troubled" or too active.
The effects of this merger of chemical medicine and Wundtian psychology upon American education are thoroughly documented in The Myth of the Hyperactive Child, and Other Means of Child Control, by Divoky and Schrag. [ Peter, and Diane Divoky, The Myth of the Hyperactive Child & Other Means of Child Control (New York: Random House, 1975)]
Flexner’s other major contribution to the transformation of American education and society came in 1916, with his plan to create an experimental laboratory school, backed by Rockefeller money, which would be a showplace for the Progressive Education practices of Dewey and Thorndike. Flexner wrote a short tract called "A Modern School." [ Flexner, Abraham, "A Modern School," Occasional Papers, No. 3
(New York: General Education Board, 1916)]. In it, Flexner attacked traditional American education and proposed a sharp break with workable educational practices. His experimental school would eliminate the study of Latin and Greek. Literature and history would not be completely abolished, but new methods would be instituted for teaching these subjects, classical literature would be ignored, and formal English grammar would be dropped. Lionni says: ‘Flexner wasn't just throwing out the baby with the bath water; he was blowing up the tub.' For a deeper account of the broad general effects of this type of merger, see Schrag's devastating Mind Control (New York: Pantheon, 1978).
Flexner’s proposals had the full weight of the Rockefeller millions behind them and despite spirited opposition in an editorial in The New York Times followed by other journals and debates in the Senate they prevailed. After 1917 the takeover was rapid and thorough. Even before the opposition began to die down, Flexner and Teachers College went ahead with their plans for a laboratory school. Flexner had wanted to call it "The Modern School" (from the title of his booklet), but the phrase was so disliked that he decided to name it the Lincoln School.
The General Education Board funded the Lincoln School in midtown Manhattan and in 1920 built a new school near Teachers College. In 1926 Teachers College received massive endowment funding to run the Lincoln School.
Wundtian psychology and Rockefeller money were thus combined in an institution whose goal "was the construction of new curricula and the development of new methods." Textbooks were created; standard
teaching practices revised, and a course of study organized on the principles developed at Teachers College by Thorndike and Dewey. More than a thousand educators visited this fully fledged prototype school during year 1923-1924. John D. Rockefeller, Jr., sent four of his five sons to study at the Lincoln School, with results that were predictable had he read the works of Thorndike and Dewey:
...Laurance [Rockefeller] gives startling confirmation as to 'Why Johnnie [sic] Can't Read.' He says that the Lincoln School did not teach him to read and write as he wishes he now could. Nelson, today, admits that reading for him is a 'slow and tortuous process' that he does not enjoy doing but compells himself to do. This is significant evidence in the debate that has raged about modern educational techniques.
The Lincoln School was really a failure (though in the context of the Khazarian banksters' secret intention to destroy US education it was probably a success) and it was closed in 1946, and replaced by the Institute of School Experimentation, which carried on the task of remodelling American education.
Today, Wilhelm Wundt is remembered only by psychologists. Gates, Flexner, Cattell, Russell, even Thorndike, are found only in texts written by their disciples. Pick up a US freshman college psychology text and you may well find no mention of Wundt, or even Cattell. Because they are not mentioned they may seem irrelevant to today's critical educational problems: drug abuse, illiteracy, criminality, lowered standards, lack of motivation and self-discipline, and all the rest; but they are not. They set in place the doctrines needed to dumb down and 'switch off' each new generation of children and taught their teachers how to enforce those doctrines. Their omission from the educational lexicon is of course no accident. The Rockefeller cabal, and the Zionist matrix controllers globally, control the academic world along with text book publishing and almost everything else, so evidence of what the Rockefellers’ Wundtian puppets have done to US education and how they did it, has disappeared down the rabbit hole and is difficult to recover.
Wilhelm Wundt, a German experimental psychologist, thought that men are unsouled animals who can be understood by analysing what they experience. His conclusions and methods were imported into a nascent US formal education system and comprehensively disseminated throughout that system to teachers, counsellors and administrators. The result was that within 50 years juvenile delinquency and illiteracy became rampant, teachers no longer learned how to teach, and succeeding generations of adults were increasingly cheated out of a good education and hence were unable to perceive let alone find solutions for the exponentially growing problems created by the US education system. And of course that adult educational deficit has flowed on into every facet of US social, political, economic and spiritual life.
Rockefeller support of Wundtian psychology with its bestial basis and precepts continued throughout the 20th century in US education and molded not only the US education system but through it, virtually all aspects of Amerikkan life.
To understand the US today one has to take into account psychology's covert hegemony over the thought processes of the body politic, the body economic, and the body social. Institutionalized as "education," Wundtian psychology and in particular its central tenet that “Man” is a stimulus-response animal, together with the methods that implies, has played a critical role in transforming “The American Dream” into a national nightmare. The idea that “Man” is an exclusively physiological entity has dumbed down Amerikkans and dehumanized US culture to the detriment not only of Amerikkans, but the whole world.
Those USans willing to decide on the basis of their own experience and observations whether they (and their children and everyone else) are irrational animals or not, and who choose not to be, need to begin to openly repudiate psychology's stranglehold on US education and their children’s future, and to awaken their neighbors from the nightmare also.
Compulsory universal government psychotherapy is not education it is mind control.