Sheep-Bot Class Schooling

By Atom Bergstrom

Atom’s Blog

Educationalists Andrew Bell (1753-1832) and Joseph Lancaster (1778-1838) separately developed the Monitorial System (Madras System / Lancasterian System).

It was modeled after India’s schooling of their lowest caste system — the “hereditary laboring class.”

<>

According to John Taylor Gatto …

“The entire purpose of Hindu schooling was to preserve the caste system. Only the lucky 5 percent received an education which gave perspective on the whole, a key to understanding. In actual practice, warriors, administrators, and most of the other leaders were given much diluted insight into the driving engines of the culture, so that policy could be kept in the hands of Brahmins. But what of the others, the ‘masses’ as Western socialist tradition would come to call them in an echoing tribute to the Hindu class idea? The answer to that vital question launched factory schooling in the West.”

<>

And the “common man” in America — and ultimately worldwide due to the sinister machinations the so-called Harvard Kennedy School — is destined to share the same fate as India’s “hereditary laboring class.”

It’s never too early to DROP OUT OF SCHOOL.

<>

Henry Thomas Buckle (History of Civilization in England, Vol. 1, 1857) wrote …

“To the great body of the Indian people the name of Sudras is given, and the native laws respecting them contain some minute and curious provisions. If a member of this despised class presumed to occupy the same seat as his superiors, he was either to be exiled or to suffer a painful and ignominious punishment. If he spoke of them with contempt, his mouth was to be burned; if he actually insulted them, his tongue was to be slit; if he molested a Brahmin, he was to be put to death; if he sat on the same carpet as a Brahmin, he was to be maimed for life; if, moved by the desire of instruction, he even listened to the reading of the sacred books, burning oil was to be poured into his ears; if, however, he committed them to memory, he was to be killed; if he were guilty of a crime, the punishment for it was greater than that inflicted on his superiors; but if he himself were murdered, the penalty was the same as for killing a dog, a cat, or a crow. Should he marry his daughter to a Brahmin, no retribution that could be exacted in this world was sufficient; it was therefore announced that the Brahmin must go to hell, for having suffered contamination from a woman immeasurably his inferior. Indeed, it was ordered that the mere name of a labourer should be expressive of contempt, so that his proper standing might be immediately known. And lest this should not be enough to maintain the subordination of society, a law was actually made forbidding any labourer to accumulate wealth; while another clause declared, that even though his master should give him freedom, he would in reality still be a slave; ‘for,’ says the lawgiver, — ‘for of a state which is natural to him, by whom can he be divested?'”

<>