H. L. Mencken Quote

"The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all; it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States, whatever the pretensions of politicians, pedagogues, and other such mountebanks, and that is its aim everywhere else...Their purpose, in brief, is to make docile and patriotic citizens, to pile up majorities, and to make John Doe and Richard Doe as nearly alike, in their everyday reactions and ways of thinking, as possible."

by:	H. L. Mencken (1880-1956) American Journalist, Editor, Essayist, Linguist, Lexicographer, and Critic
Rating:
Categories:	Apathy, Conformity, Education, Government, Obedience, Propaganda, Psycho-politics
	Tweet

accurate assessment  -- Mike, Norwalk      2
Everything the government says is a lie and everything it does is theft. Teach your children well...  -- J Carlton, Calgary      4
J Carlton summed it up in one short sentence. Well done J.  -- jim k, Austin,Tx      1
-- Anonymous, Reston, VA, US
These are the three best quotations you've sent since I've signed on, and mainly because they are exactly accurate in the context of time, but also because they stand today as they did when Mill and Mencken breathed. They answer the question as to why so many Americans today believe the state must fix everything, even though the state has caused most of our problems in the first place.  -- Anonymous, st. petersburg, fl      2
Egalitarianism in all its glory. You are the same as that other slave.  -- Justin, Elkland      2
We are born into a system of predation. Those who have had the will to seek truth dulled out of them with nearly 20 years of spoon feeding become willing slaves and pass on the same to everyone else. To say, "Enough!" is to get sent to detention, the principal, or the 'guidance counselor' to be 'handled.' I hated school, but I loved the library.  -- E Archer, NYC      4 1
I am glad I live in a country where most people can read and write. I doubt it would be so without compulsory education laws. If We The People are going to require it then We The People should provide a means to accomplish our will. And lo and behold We do, life in these united states is wonderful is it not. Mencken is a misanthrope. Furthermore any class room or group learning situation is going to create a degree of standarization. After all what are tests and standards for.  -- Waffler, Smith      1
As with all things any government does, our educational system is a total failure. But, as long as people adhere to the belief that some form of government is necessary, a free market society, the only truly free system there is that can provide freedom to mankind, will sit on a shelf while the world rots around it from government intervention. Someone please name one thing any form of government is needed for. Can you? Can anyone?  -- James Madison, Colorado      1
Though Mencken is probably correct with regards to the strategy of the GOP which is exacerbated by the GOP's continued fight to reduce the education budget and in contrast the Liberals effort to increase the educational budget. The last thing the GOP wants is an educated electorate that questions authority and can sit at the dinner table and hold a conversation. It is without doubt, the most intelligent beings on this earth are liberals - and yes, there are exceptions, because many Libertarians are well intentioned, but I am afraid misguided by their predisposition for total freedom with regards to their sovereignty and that is not reality. It makes a lot of sense to centralize things like public transport, healthcare (as the private section has made a total mess up of it), highways, etc, etc,. If you want priave schools fine but don't ask for tax dollars. I read today that the GOP filibustered the dems initiative to reduce taxes on those earning less than $250k now you tell me who are the Liberals and who are the GOP - now I ma totally confused. This country no longer has a democracy, a republic, a responsible government or an electorate; it no longer can claim "we are the best". We need to totally collapse the current political system - Dickens was right! My god what a prophet...  -- RBESRQ      1
Mr. Madison if they are not needed then why do you thinbk they exist. How about pure drinking water. Can you get into that?  -- Waffler, Smith
(-: Robert, pretty funny, I laughed ;-) Waffler, by what lawful nexus do you, 'A' from Reston, or Robert have personally (individually or in concert) to mandate what or how much my child should learn? Before you answer, I do not accept the herd / mob mentality as a lawful or moral causation of might making right. Lawfully, can my representative represent something greater than me his/her sovereign employer? The answer, ABSOLUTELY NOT ! ! !  -- Mike, Norwalk      1
Yes Mike he can also represent me, Robert and A from Reston. Now if he does that fairly it appear that your views, opinions and will are nullified. On the other hand a representative is suppose to also you his own mind and make his own decisons without regard to you or me. We can then recall or vote him out. Do you ever allow YOUR child to be corrected or taught anything by another adult?  -- Waffler, Smith
Waffler, ok, I guess thats a nice statement relating to something somewhere, define fairly; now would you answer my question -- by what lawful nexus? Waffler, on what other hand? It is true, a representative is supposed to use his own mind but, how does that change what he is representing? He is hired to be an extension of you and me. If you or I can't do it personally, our representative(s) can't do it either. If yours and my representative(s) makes decisions without regard to you or me, then he's not representing you or me - wow, that's really simple, its amazing how that doesn't compute to the statist theocracy's dummied down patrons.  -- Mike, Norwalk
Waffler, I have allowed certain adults to correct my children. As my representatives, I personally set the parameters at which they could act for what and while correcting my children, with a further understanding that I be told later of the occurrence, so I could ultimately correct the situation. Other adults have taught my children, by way of example, at church. I had read the lesson they were to receive and then talked to my children later. By your question, it appears that you took the beaten and obedient slave route, inclusive of non- personal responsibility (passing the buck with rationalizations / justifications) to let your child be corrected by whom ever - how ever they wanted and let anybody indoctrinate your child with anything they wanted.  -- Mike, Norwalk
Mike, we don't give two hoots what you teach your child just don't be so arrogant that your law applies to all human beings. It's quite ironic really that most home-schooled children have Liberal parents.  -- RBESRQ
Robert, your last post is completely incorrect all around. You and Waffler have both indicated you would choose statist government schools (and you are particularly favorable to license when it serves your purpose). Such mandated schools would / do teach contrary to freedom, liberty and what I teach. That qualifies as two hoots. Second, I have no law. There is a natural law that applies to all people (science, math, certain affairs of men, etc.) Which law specifically are you attributing to me that would apply to all human beings? (or is your statement in reference to the super, most intelligent / liberal catch-all false flag that you would like to drape over me?)  -- Mike, Norwalk      1
Mike we all have a right to care and know about what are children are taught even though most of us are not qualified. We do however elect and support school boards, go to meetings etc. Most parents have jobs that don't enable them to pursue the complex job of teaching their kids, maybe that is why we have schools, ever think of that. When every one is "indoctrinating" your child he/she is getting a balanced education and will grow up to think for themselves. Your child obviously is going to me a Mike from Norwalk automaton and that is what we all are afraid of. Mike can you declare WAR on an other nation. Your Representative can vote on such a measure even if you don't agree. Now Congress and the President can do that even if the entire population does not agree. We can then vote them out at the next election. What the f$%^ is your problem about always saying your representative cannot do anything that you cannot do?  -- Waffler, Smith
Waffler, I have no problem and I understand your fear. If my children get their way (Mike from Norwalk automation) there will be far less despotism, tyranny, socialism, and government and; a lot more freedom, liberty, economic prosperity, and principled living (I know that scares you to death because you wouldn't be able to make a living out or terrorizing the helpless anymore). If I can not do it, neither can anyone that represents me. I am capable and, have an unalienable right to defend against any threats foreign or domestic. If I (my person, land, nation, etc.) am attacked, my representative is automatically authorized to declare war because I can do it personally. The scale of defense is nothing contrary to my individual sovereignty. If congress declares an offensive, preemptive or otherwise war, it is representing someone other than me and We The People (it is unlawful).  -- Mike, Norwalk      1
Oh, and Waffler, I still don't see your answer to: "by what lawful nexus?  -- Mike, Norwalk
The lawful nexus is the mere fact that your child is not yours. He is a free and independent human organism and rightful belongs to God and not to you. Now you and I are finite and will some day cease to meander upon this planet. But God's creation in man and our children will go on and on. So creation and society has a right beyond yours to insure that your kid is up speed. So sorry you missed the boat or many boats. Society is not perfect.  -- Waffler, Smith      1
Waffler, what a bunch of twisted, commie claptrap. If each life belongs to God, then by what 'lawful nexus' do YOU or any of the neighbors have in rights to others children? Society is not anonymous -- it consists of real people, some of whom attempt to play God (like you). One moment you say the individual is free and independent, the next you say 'society' has a 'right' to 'insure your kid is up to speed' -- up to what speed? Decided by whom? Society is NOT perfect, therefore, it should back off of trying to usurp the RESPONSIBILITY of parents to care for and raise THEIR children. We parents may not 'own' our children, but we are responsible for bringing them into this world and have a moral obligation to raise them -- and you have no right to them whatsoever. I am defending the rights of my children -- you are trying to trick them to be obedient to 'society' which you attempt to control in other ways. You don't give a damn about free and independent people -- quite the opposite, as you have well said above.  -- E Archer, NYC      1
Archer, yep ! Waffler, WHAT ? ? ? I do not own my child, that is correct, I do have a moral imperative stewardship - that has nothing to do with the subject nexus. Can you show me specifically where my child belongs to God? If my child belongs to God and, He can help get my kid up to speed, how is an anti-god society going to harmonize with their creator in getting my kid up to speed? You threw in the terms 'creation' and 'society' and said they are the nexus, WHAT? ? ? How and why is that the subject nexus? If I ask you what your favorite color was, would you answer society? By what lawful nexus does society co-own my child with God? WHAT ? ? ?  -- Mike, Norwalk
Waffler, you continue to attribute society to an equal station with God or, as a god. That is one sick perversion and lies at the core of what is wrong with this country.  -- Mike, Norwalk      1
Waffler and RBE demonstrate collectivist thinking in which they identify themselves with the group. Thus, since we follow the group, if I want to go somewhere else, I have to get the group to go, so let's figure out how to lead the group. But we have to follow the leader, that's for sure, they are the authority, they are the 'educated' ones, they speak for society. If I don't like it, I can vote for my own leader, but whoever wins is the leader. That is populist democracy. Individualists, however, are not group-thinkers. Their participation in a group is by consent not compulsory. They do not seek to follow or lead but to act in accordance with one's own conscience, in harmony with natural law and to figure out as best as one can what that is. As an individual, I do seek out other like-minded folks to team up with, and our association is by mutual agreement each respecting the rights and honor of the other. That's a much better formula for success. Consider that the American founders were among the smartest men ever to represent the American people -- none of their education was compulsory. Collectivists and group-thinkers talk about 'education' without defining it -- they all want everyone to be educated by law, but not defining what that compulsory education will be. The Jesuit education was one of the best in the world -- try putting that in a government school. Mencken has definitely defined MY compulsory education experience.  -- E Archer, NYC      1
The purpose of social education is to create a well rounded, wholesome, diverse, mannerly, creative, moral human being, hence the Socialist provides social education.  -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown
A few thoughts when considering the whole. There is ecclesiastical seminaries (government schools), carnal god law givers (government being the priesthood thereof), missionaries of the accepted / enforced dogma (MSM); AND, as Samuel Adams prophetic utterance so illuminates the patrons thereof: "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." How many of today's students can accurately describe what "the laws of nature and of nature's God" is? How many can describe the difference between Hebrew and Greek natural law? How many can describe the tyranny of legal positivism's will of the carnal man? How many can describe maritime jurisdiction as is arbitrarily based on safety? How many can describe "law" (the absolutes thereof, such as — physics / science, gravity, math, life, liberty, etc.) from the philosophies of law? How many can explain how the carnal philosophies of men have mingled with scripture (altering beyond recognition the meaning of words) to remove the most base concepts of inalienable rights and liberty? The quotes observation is finitely spot on ! ! !   -- Mike, Norwalk      1
Sillik, it is obvious you lean closer to Stalin's version of socialism than Mussolini's application. It is also obvious that in that vain, your canned rhetoric tends to follow your god Lenin: "A lie told often enough becomes the truth." History has proven, a socialist's "social education" is a destructive perversion while, an individual sovereign's instruction in reading, writing, history, math, physics / science, etc. is far superior for the personal character, mind and advancement of the noble specie.  -- Mike, Norwalk

Tweet  Rate this quote! How many stars? 0 1 2 3 4 5	What do YOU think?
Your name:	Your town:     CLICK JUST ONCE!

Get a Quote-A-Day! Free!
Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box.
Email: