It has become increasingly clear to me that a liberal education only performs its upper and upper middle class adult function as part of a triumvirate of the church’s youth and lower class teachings in myth and idealism, and the military’s middle class teenage training in duty, truth and testimony.
We practice a hierarchy of religious systems in the west, none of which alone can produce the uniqueness of western man.
Western mans differentiation from the rest is caused by our treatment of the beauty of nature as sacred, our martial universalism, heroism, and truthful testimony before the jury, later improved dramatically by chivalry, piety, and idealism by the church, further improved by the prosperity produced by commercial servicing of others under the Saxon North Sea and river trading civilization that we mistakenly call by one of its effects: Germanic Protestantism above the Hanjal line.
The church was a contributor but not a cause. So far the academy post Darwin and post separation from the church, seems to have been a net detriment to western civilization.
And the principle means by which the academy has been a net negative has been the adoption of the Cosmopolitan Pseudosciences which the 21st century is rapidly overthrowing: Boazian social science, Freudian psychology, Marxist economics, cantorian mathematics, Frankfurt school politics. And the puritanical offshoots of feminist ethics, postmodern propaganda, and philosophy.
If Christianity if not monotheism was the first really great lie perpetuated by propagandizing then pseudoscience from the lectern replaced mysticism from the pulpit.
First we learn myths, then reason then science. And those who cannot climb that ladder remain at the prior rung.
And how can a classical liberal education exist without grammar, rhetoric, philosophy, history, and debate?
At present it appears that the empirical science saves us from the liberal reason just as reason saves us from the Christian/Jewish:Egyptian/Babylonian mysticism of the great lie.
So, pray tell, what is a liberal education? Because at present the evidence is quite clear that it is a device for teaching pseudoscience largely to women, absent the test of it by the logic of debate under logical laws of grammar and rhetoric that survive comparison with history, for the sole purpose of profiting from the process of selling them pseudoscience?
This criticism.damns the academy, damns the incentives of professors and the academy, damns the content they profess, and damns the vast consequences of their teachings: the use of women voters to systematically dismantle rule of law, the great compromise that is the nuclear family, the inter-generational transfer of knowledge using savings and interest, and the second conquest of the west by pseudoscience women, slaves and immigrants – for profit. So completely similar to the first conquest of the west with the first great lie of monotheism by women, slaves, and immigrants.
If anything we must damn the academy and the liberal education as nothing more than profiteering from the systematic destruction of western civilization.
And I come to this conclusion from the data. Not from introspection, wishful thinking, and the stated ambitions of the academy – that would require rhetorical fallacy contrary to the evidence.
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute.