Home / Education

Education

“Education must also train one for quick, resolute and effective thinking. To think incisively and to think for one’s self is very difficult. We are prone to let our mental life become invaded by legions of half-truths, prejudices, and propaganda. At this point, I often wonder whether education is fulfilling its purpose.

A great majority of the so called educated people do not think logically or scientifically. Even the press, the classroom, the platform, and the pulpit in many instances do not give us the 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. But education which stops with efficiency may prove the greatest menace to society.

The most dangerous criminal may be the man gifted with reason, but with no morals.”  –Martin Luther King Jr.

While parents, schools, provinces and states across North America bicker about the democratic process of running public schools, forces are manipulating education from behind the scenes. Major international players are reshaping public education to suit their own self-serving agendas, without regard for the wants of parents and the welfare of their children. This video lecture by Peg Luksik documents how today’s educational system dumb down kids deliberately, making zombie-like people who don’t ask any questions but just follow orders.

Compared to 34 other modernized countries, the United States currently ranks 20th in literacy, 30th in math, 23rd in science out of 34 industrialized nations according to the recent report put out by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). (Source) The United States has fallen to rank 49th in life expectancy of 120 countries while maintaining the dubious rank of being number one in incarcerations, military spending, childhood obesity, hours of television watched, student debt and the highest national debt any country has ever incurred in history.

These continual poor performance rankings persist despite spending more on education than any other country with the exception of Switzerland, who ranks in the top five in education.

Currently, only 64% of students who begin college graduate within six years. Those who do graduate have collectively amassed over one trillion dollars in long term student debt. It is of no surprise that over 72% of students who have finished college in the past three years have moved back in with their parents. Additionally, young adults between the ages of 18-26 also have the highest unemployment rate in this country putting further strain on middle class families.

The U.S. tops the world list in 2010 in spending $860 Billion dollars on public education which is a 30% increase from the $660.5 Billion spent in 2000. All of this increase has come from the Federal level while in the same period state and local government spending has been relatively flat, between $28-29 Billion per year. So if hundreds of billions has been spent on public education over the past decade by our Federal government then why are schools so desperately in need of more funds and we are seeing staff size being reduced across the country in our public schools?Read More...

*****

Much of the blame for the failure in our public schools has been unfairly placed on local staff and educators. What few outside the public school system realize is that more and more of what material the educators can teach and how they must instruct to achieve standardized national test scoring is tied to the schools receiving critical funding each and every year.

School administrators spend copious amounts of time and energies applying for grants and reviewing, comprehending and complying with yearly changes in federal and state codes and regulations while annually having to pink slip staff each Spring not knowing how much funding will be cut the following school year.

Since 2004, federally directed programs like President Bush Jr.’s “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB) and President Obama’s “Race to the Top” (RTTT) have married critical public school funding to school average test score performances. The governments stated goals of these programs was to get a national standardized education performance system in place set to a standard benchmark as well as to develop a one-size-fits all nationalized education system so that if a family relocated to another state the curriculum and testing would be equalized and consistent.

Teachers and administrators across the nation who fall below this federally mandated benchmark and then fail to show significant improvement in their schools annual yearly performance are threatened with the loss of their jobs and reduced school funding. The benchmark set by NCLB was determined by a formula known as Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).  By 2010 the national failure rate was over 50% with Florida ranking the worst at 89% and California towards the low end at a 26% failure rate.  Principals and teachers were put on notice that if the numbers did not come up to benchmark standard, their jobs could be in jeopardy.

While public media hails each new Presidential educational initiative, over the past few years our public schools are quietly being foisted with a new business global educational “product” called Common Core (CC). Common Core is a subsidiary of Core International, a publicly traded (only on the India Stock Exchange) IT tech company based out of India. Over the past five years CORE International has been the fastest growing company in India with an amazing annualized 52% growth rate in net income.

For years, liberals have imposed their revisionist history on our nation’s public school students, expunging important facts and historic figures while loading the textbooks with liberal propaganda, distortions and clichés. It’s easy to get a quick lesson in the virulent leftwing bias by checking the index and noting how textbooks unfairly describe President Ronald Reagan and Senator Joseph McCarthy.

When parents object to leftwing inclusions and omissions, claiming they should have something to say about what their own children are being taught and how their taxpayers’ money is spent, they are usually vilified as “book burners” and belittled as uneducated primitives who ought to allow the “experts” to make all curriculum decisions. The self-identified “experts” are alumni of liberal teachers colleges and/or members of a leftwing teachers union.

In most states, the liberal education establishment enjoys total control over the state’s board of education, department of education, and curriculum committees.

The most widely used history textbook in U.S. public schools is A People’s History of the United States by the late Howard Zinn. It has sold millions of copies since it was published in 1980. It is required reading in many high schools and colleges. This history textbook by Howard Zinn is a very leftwing version of U.S. history, full of multicultural, feminist, and class-war propaganda. It is based on the thesis that America is not a republic but an empire controlled by a few white men. Its heroes are anti-establishment protestors. The book debunks traditional heroes, such as Christopher Columbus and Andrew Jackson, and doesn’t even mention great Americans such as Thomas Edison.

Zinn’s textbook deprives young readers of the opportunity to learn that they are part of the great story of American exceptionalism. His book inspires guilt and the belief that success comes only through exploitation. He belittles patriotism, never allowing pride in America. Zinn told one interviewer that his goal in writing this textbook was to start a “quiet revolution” of people taking power from within the institutions.

After several decades of use in schools and colleges, new information emerged about the author. In 2010, the FBI released 400 pages of files on Howard Zinn, and it turns out that he was an active member of the Communist Party. He was vice president of a group in Brooklyn, New York run by the Communists and attended Communist Party meetings in Brooklyn five nights a week. He was so important in the Communist Party that he taught a class to his comrades on “basic Marxism.”

The FBI interviewed many fellow Communists who confirmed Howard Zinn’s longtime Communist Party membership. Publicly, Howard Zinn lied and denied his Communist Party membership, which was the common practice of Communist Party members in those years. Howard Zinn’s textbook is worse than anything he ever did as a member of the Communist Party. His textbook was specifically written to present a Marxist version of U.S. history based on the Communist strategy of the “class war.”

Greta van Susteren of Fox News interviewed a former Tucson high school teacher, John A. Ward, who was removed from teaching the Mexican-American Studies class and reassigned because he questioned this Raza curriculum. Because he raised concerns, Ward was called a racist and, since he himself is of Mexican heritage, he was also called vendido (Spanish for sellout). The state of Arizona requires students to take a course in American history in order to graduate, but Ward said this course is actually not about American history at all. He said it focuses solely on the history of the Aztec people, which is the group to which Mexican-American activists ascribe their lineage.

Others who have looked at the books used in these courses say they refer to Americans as “Anglos” or “Euroamericans” rather than as “Americans.” The books do not recognize the United States as a country, but claim Arizona is part of “Aztlan, Mexico” (even though the Aztecs never lived in what is now the United States).

*****

The Devil is behind the public school system… “The Masons/Communists/Humanists/Illuminists all want the government to train the children of the nation in government run schools.

Adam Weishaupt, the founder of the Illuminati, wrote:

‘They [the Illuminati] contrived to place their Members as tutors to the youth of distinction.’ (Proofs Of A Conspiracy, pg. 75)”

‘We must acquire the direction of education — of church — management — of the professorial chair, and of the pulpit.’ (Proofs Of A Conspiracy, pg. 109)

‘We must win the common people in every corner.  This will be obtained chiefly by means of the schools.’ (Proofs Of A Conspiracy, pg. 111)

The indispensable key to using the educational system to dumb down the US populace was compulsory school attendance for as long as possible and from the earliest age possible, If children are free to attend non-state schools or to avoid formal schooling altogether, the state’s control efforts could be thwarted. The state’s seemingly benevolent goal of universal education is actually an insidious effort to capture and propagandize all children in its social engineering  matrix. Accordingly the indispensable key to using the educational system to create a compliant and ignorant citizenry is compulsory attendance.

The aim of compulsory state education in Prussia and in the US from its inception at the macro or social level was the creation of a homogeneous, national, Protestant culture: the Protestantization of all citizens. In the US this was also aimed at the Americanization of the disparate ethnic and religious elements (especially Catholics) and disparate groups that populated the US. At the micro, or individual, level the aim was the creation of conformist citizens, people who trust and defer to government in any areas it chooses to claim. In this context Americanization presupposes the remaking of the individuals who comprise population.

The actual means for achieving this national dumbing down of the US population from its place at the pinnacle of global educational achievement at the turn of the 20th century to the current situation in which Americans must rank among the least educated people in any economically advanced country at the beginning of the 21st century is the story of the rise of Wundtian psychology and Rockefeller finance in the intervening century.

Very few have any idea how our modern public educational system was born as to who drafted, funded and designed our current education system and what their stated plans and goals were for public education. Many feel that given the amount of money we spend on public schools that we should be producing much higher quality students that are equal to, or superior to, education in other countries. Yet that was never the intention of the original framers of our education system, as you will read below. In fact the system is working exactly as these few men of enormous wealth had planned it all out more than a century ago.

“In our dreams, people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present education conventions of intellectual and character education fade from their minds and unhampered by tradition we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into men of learning or philosophers, or men of science. We have not to raise up from them authors, educators, poets or men of letters, great artists, painters, musicians, nor lawyers, doctors, statesmen, politicians, creatures of whom we have ample supply. The task is simple. We will organize children and teach them in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way.

~ First mission statement of the J.D. Rockefeller-endowed General Education Board in 1906

The first state education system (the Gymnasium high-school system) was set up by King Frederick William I of Prussia in 1717. His son, Frederick the Great, following in his father’s footsteps, said: “The prince is to the nation he governs what the head is to the man; it is his duty to see, think and act for the whole community.” But the compulsory state system wasn’t fully implemented until later.

In 1755, Schlabrendorff took over the Prussian region of Silesia (now part Germany, part Poland). In January, 1756, he toured the region he was now responsible for, and discovered poverty and discontent which he considered dangerous. Among other things, in 1756, Schlabrendorff suggested to Prussian King Frederick II that a system of state-run, compulsory schools be established. He said that extraordinary benefits could come from it.

Schlabrendorff reckoned that:

  • By molding young minds, it would be possible to create the belief that work was a necessary and moral imperative. Work was Good, even if the fruits of it ended up with a corporate or royal dynasty, even if it meant five or six days of toil a week just to provide basic essentials for the family.
  • Schools could inculcate proper political opinions in children: there would never again be a generation who would grow up to revolt against their government.
  • Children would learn not to question authority or authority figures, be they governmental or corporate. (The practice of forcing pupils to raise their hand to ask a question, essentially asking permission to ask, was pioneered by Johann Hecker in 1740 in Prussia.)
  • Children would learn to accept their lot in life and to limit their aspirations: the needs of the factories for workers and the army for soldiers would be met with compliant recruits.
  • Children’s primary loyalty and fear would be shifted from their mother and father to the king and the state. This would be ensured by the children learning very early that if they didn’t attend school, special truant police would come after them, a force their parents were powerless to stop.

Initially Schlabrendorff ideas were not implemented, but in 1763, at the end of the Seven Year War, King Frederick II was willing to try them. Many of the early schools were educational facilities in the morning, factories for making wool or silk in the afternoon. They were known as Spinnschulen. Prussian Minister von Schlabrendorff issued an edict in late 1763 that every Silesian town must provide such compulsory instruction to all children ages seven to fifteen (with the exception, of course, of the children of the landholding royal families). In 1765, Queen Maria Theresa of Austria passed an identical law in Austria.

The use of compulsory, state-controlled education as a replacement for the gallows, the rack, the whip, and the prison cell as a way to keep the peasantry in line was suddenly popular across Germany and Austria. A leading German, Chrisian Frchtegott Gellert, believed this would not only lead to a more docile populace, but a more moral one as well. A student of his, philosopher Karl Heinrich Seibt, wrote in 1771: “If laws are to be faithfully observed, the subject of the state must obey them freely and willingly. The enlightened state which educates each subject in the duties of his profession, a state whose subjects fulfill their duties willingly and out of love this is a powerful, invincible, and blessed state.”

The Prussian and Austrian authorities were proud of the fact that their public compulsory education was designed to create a compliant citizenry. In 1774 when the Gymnasium high-school system was reformed in Prussia, its main architect, Mathes Inaz von Hess, suggested that class, and not ability, should determine the quality of a child’s education. This would assure stability, he said: ‘If bright children of low social class were only to learn to be compliant labourers, it would be “no loss to society.”‘ The Prussian Education Edict of 1776 demanded that children of high social class be admitted to higher education even if they were of “only mediocre talent and little proficiency,” keeping the “children from the lower orders” in the state-run compulsory system. Children of wealth could attend private schools: the overt goal of the compulsory public educational system, wrote Johann Ignaz von Felbiger, was to make lower-class students “content with the station into which they are born.”

As the Industrial Revolution gathered pace after 1800 due to increased manufacturing stimulated by imported gold from South America, and money made in the rum, tobacco and slave-trading between the Americas and Africa, adults in Europe began to resent the competition of children for jobs. By 1805, fewer than half of all employed skilled workers in Berlin were members of guilds. Concern began to arise about “child labor.” As a consequence, and no doubt stimulated by the defeat of the professional Prussian army by Napolean’s army of volunteer farmers in 1807, King Fredrick William III replaced The Spinnschulen with full-day educational programs.

To strengthen the state’s hold on society King Frederick William III decided, among other things, to revamp Prussia’s school system to improve its ability to indoctrinate children to become obedient soldiers and workers. He instituted certification of teachers and abolished semi-religious private schools. High-school graduation examinations were necessary to enter the learned professions and the civil service. Children aged 7 to 14 had to attend school. Parents could be fined or have their children taken away if the children did not attend. Private schools could exist only as long as they kept to the standards of the government’s schools. An official language was imposed through the schools, to the prejudice of ethnic groups living in Prussia.”

This Prussian compulsory schooling model became praised and echoed by German and Austrian philosophers, leaders, and educators (such as Fichte, Raab, Hitler, and others) for the next 150 years. In 1910 Ernst Troeltsch pointed out the obvious: “The school organization parallels that of the army, the public school corresponds to the popular army.” The German philosopher Johann Fichte was a key contributor to the formation of the German school system. It was Fichte who said that the schools “must fashion the person, and fashion him in such a way that he simply cannot will otherwise than what you wish him to will.”

Around 1850, the legislature of the State of Massachusetts was grappling with a problem that had an explosive potential similar to that faced by King Frederick and Queen Maria Theresa a century earlier. Millions of Irish Catholics had poured into Boston largely as a result of the Irish Potato Famine, and their numbers were threatening the Protestant power structure in the state legislature. At that time, there was no compulsory or state-controlled education in the US and yet (unsurprisingly) USans were regarded even by the Germans as the most well-educated and well-read people in the world.

To break the back of the growing Catholic power base in the Boston area, in 1852 the Massachusetts legislature, encouraged by Horace Mann,  enacted the first compulsory US education law. Over the next six years many parents were jailed and thousands of children marched off to school by the state militia, as entire “revolting” towns were militarized when they refused to take their children out of their locally-run schools or home-schools and place them in the state-run, state-controlled institutions. The last town to fall, Barnstable, Massachusetts, capitulated in 1858 after a massive invasion by police and the state militia: compulsory public state-run education had begun in America.

By 1900, nearly every state had government schools and compulsory attendance. At first, only elementary education was provided by the state. Later, the government system was extended to high school. These days, the many advocates of public schooling want the state to provide day care beginning at an early age and year-round schooling. The trend is unmistakable.

Sheldon Richman says of US education in 1900:

‘At the time schooling was plentiful, innovative, and well within the reach of the common people in the US. Jack High and Jerome Ellig say that 80 percent of New Yorkers leaving wills could sign their names. Other data show that from 1650 to 1795, male literacy climbed from 60 to 90 percent and female literacy went from 30 to 45 percent. Between 1800 and 1840, literacy in the North rose from 75 percent to between 91 and 97 percent. And in the South during the same span, the rate grew from 50-60 percent to 81 percent. Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s office issued a paper stating that the literacy rate in Massachusetts has never been as high as it was before compulsory schooling was instituted. Before 1850, when Massachusetts became the first state in the United States to force children to go to school, literacy was at 98 percent. When Kennedy’s office released the paper, it was 91 percent.

According to Carl F. Kaestle, “Literacy was quite general in the middle reaches of society and above. The best generalization possible is that New York, like other American towns of the Revolutionary period, had a high literacy rate relative to other places in the world, and that literacy did not depend primarily upon the schools.” Another indication of the high rate of literacy is book sales. Thomas Paine’s pamphlet Common Sense sold 120,000 copies in a colonial population of 3 million (counting the 20 percent who were slaves)the equivalent of 10 million copies today. In 1818, when the United States had a population of under 20 million, Noah Webster’s Spelling Book sold over 5 million copies. Walter Scott’s novels sold that many copies between 1813 and 1823, which would be the equivalent of selling 60 million copies in the United States today. The Last of the Mohicans by James Fenimore Cooper sold millions of copies. John Taylor Gatto notes that Scott’s and Cooper’s books were not easy reading. European visitors to early nineteenth-century America – such as Alexis de Tocqueville and Pierre du Pont de Nemours marveled at how well educated the people were.’

So what happened to change this happy state of educational affairs in the US?

In truth the highly educated US population in 1900 was a tribute to the vitality and drive of ordinary USans rather than their leaders. For instance it is not generally understood that the libertarian streak in the US was not endorsed by many key figures in the Revolutionary period and later community leaders. For instance Benjamin Rush, a physician and signer of the Declaration of Independence. was an early proponent of state control of education.” In 1786, Rush devised a plan for public schools in Pennsylvania. He wrote:

‘It is necessary to impose upon them [children] the doctrines and discipline of a particular church. Man is naturally an ungovernable animal, and observations on particular societies and countries will teach us that when we add the restraints of ecclesiastical to those of domestic and civil government, we produce in him the highest degrees of order and virtue.’

Sheldon Richman says of Rush:

‘Rush saw the schools as the means to “convert men into republican machines. This must be done if we expect them to perform their parts properly in the great machine of the government of the state.” He also saw the schools as essential for making up for the failings of the deteriorating family. As he put it, “Society owes a great deal of its order and happiness to the deficiencies of parental government being supplied by those habits of obedience and subordination which are contracted at schools.” He was clear about the role of schools. “The authority of our masters [should] be as absolute as possible,” he said. “By this mode of education, we prepare our youth for the subordination of laws and thereby qualify them for becoming good citizens of the republic.” He took that position because he believed that useful citizens were manufactured from children who “have never known or felt their own wills till they were one and twenty years of age.”

… What should the state schools teach the student? “He must be taught to amass wealth, but it must be only to increase his power of contribution to the wants and needs of the state.” Furthermore, this signer of the Declaration said, “Let our pupil be taught that he does not belong to himself, but that he is public property. Let him be taught to love his family, but let him be taught at the same time that he must forsake and even forget them when the welfare of his country requires it.”

Similarly, Richman quotes Archibald D. Murphey, founder of the North Carolina public schools, writing in 1816: 

‘In these schools the precepts of morality and religion should be inculcated, and habits of subordination and obedience be formed …. Their parents know not how to instruct them…. The state, in the warmth of her affection and solicitude for their welfare, must take charge of those children and place them in school where their minds can be enlightened and their hearts trained to virtue.’

Horace Mann, a former Calvinist, and many other US educators and sociologists in the 19th century were enamoured of similar anti-personal, anti-social  and anti-freedom ideas.

For instance in Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling John Taylor Gatto tells us:

‘A small number of very passionate American ideological leaders visited Prussia in the first half of the 19th century; fell in love with the order, obedience, and efficiency of its education system; and campaigned relentlessly thereafter to bring the Prussian vision to these shores. Prussia’s ultimate goal was to unify Germany; the Americans’ was to mold hordes of immigrant Catholics to a national consensus based on a northern European cultural model. To do that, children would have to be removed from their parents and from inappropriate cultural influences.’

Sheldon Richman says:

Gatto emphasizes how the Prussian model set the standard for educational systems right up to the present. “The whole system was built on the premise that isolation from first-hand information and fragmentation of the abstract information presented by teachers would result in obedient and subordinate graduates, properly respectful of arbitrary orders,” he writes. He says the American educationists imported three major ideas from Prussia. The first was that the purpose of state schooling was not intellectual training but the conditioning of children “to obedience, subordination, and collective life.” Thus, memorization outranked thinking. Second, whole ideas were broken into fragmented “subjects” and school days were divided into fixed periods “so that self-motivation to learn would be muted by ceaseless interruptions.” Third, the state was posited as the true parent of children. All of this was done in the name of a scientific approach to education, although, Gatto says, “no body of theory exists to accurately define the way children learn, or what learning is of most worth.”

Gatto’s reference to the so-called ‘scientific approach to education’ refers to Wundtian psychology and the absurd behaviorist theories that emerged from it and insinuated themselves into US education in the 20th century.

Richman quotes Horace Mann and other movers and shakers in US education in the 19th century at some length but the above references give you the picture. Clearly the dumbing down of USans did not emerge from left field. It was always in the minds of the planners well before 1900.

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

In 1904, Hall 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, John D. 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 realized in America 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 socialization of the child – a role previously undertaken by parents, siblings, extended family, neighbors, the local community, church congregations et al. Teachers’ functions today revolve around leading children to adapt to the specific behavior 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).

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.

No one amassed more wealth more quickly than J.D. Rockeller through his oil interests. In the early 1900’s he amassed the equivalent of $663 billion in today’s dollars. Other emergent industrialists created great wealth for themselves with legendary names like J.P. Morgan, Carnegie, Mellon, Guggenheim, Vanderbilt, Peabody and Ford. Today we know them by the foundations they created, totaling over $550 Billion in todays dollars, and by their vast corporate holdings and businesses (Chase Bank, Ford Motor Company, J.P. Morgan Bank, Rockefeller Center, Carnegie Hall, etc.).

With their incredible sudden wealth also came enormous tax bills. Their solution was to create for themselves, with the help of bought politicians, tax-exempt non-profit organizations or NGO’s. In 1900, there were 21 corporate NGO’s and by 1990, some 50,000 had spawned. Through the creation of the NGO’s not only could they shelter wealth but were also able develop a new science called “Scientific-Social Engineering” to influence federal, state and local politicians and the public at large for their own wishes, desires and needs.

Through newly created social propaganda campaigns, created by the likes of Walter Lipmann and Edward Bernays, the Fathers of Marketing and Propaganda respectively, they were able to regularly sell the public at will on the idea that their NGO’s were solely philanthropic and for the good of all.

In his book, “PR! A Social History of Spin”, Stewart Ewen writes:

“Novel strategies of social management and the conviction that a technical elite might be able to engineer social order were becoming attractive…Accompanying a democratic current of social analysis that sought to educate the public at large, another – more cabalistic – tradition of social-scientific thought was emerging, one that saw the study of society as a tool by which a technocratic elite could help serve the interests of vested power.”

These ‘Titans of Industry’, as the PR men dubbed them, were at the top and the planned to stay at the top for generations to come. Their strategy was to keep the working middle class from ever rising to power through controlling of the public education systems in the United States. When you are at the top you spend a lot of time and money making sure you stay at the top and the last things these Robber Barons would allow is for the uprising of the middle class into their hierarchy.

With such large controlling wealth through their foundations came a resilient web of many useful ‘friends’ in the political arena and in business. With connections in banking, Wall Street, law firms, media executives and proprietors along with behind the scenes PR firms they could ensure any type publicity and financial backing they wished including the masking of their true agendas. Through the largess of their foundations the Rockefellers, Carnegie, Mellon, Vanderbilt, Morgan and Guggenheim Foundations colluded to begin the process of designing our current public education system.

****

“The ability to deal with people is as purchasable a commodity as sugar or coffee and I will pay more for that ability than for any other under the sun”.  John D. Rockefeller

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!’

J.D. Rockefeller added another $10 million in 1907, and a later a further sum of $32 million. Through subsequent decades Rockefeller granted some $7.5 billion. With significant money buys significant influence and loyalty.

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 enrollments 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)]

In 1913, the Sixty-Second Congress created a commission to investigate the role of these newly created NGO foundations. The commission after a year of testimony concluded:

“The domination of men in whose hands the final control of a large part of American industry rests is not limited to their employees, but is being rapidly extended to control the education and social services of the nation. The giant foundation exercises enormous power through direct use of its funds, free of any statutory entanglements so they can be directed precisely to the levers of a situation; this power, however, is substantially increased by building collateral alliances which insulate it from criticism and scrutiny.”

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 compels 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 remodeling American education.

The Guggenheim Foundation agreed to award fellowships to historians recommended by the Carnegie Endowment. Gradually, through the 1920′s, they assembled a group of twenty promising young academics, and took them to London. There they briefed them on what was expected of them when they became professors of American history. That twenty were the nucleus of what was eventually to become the American Historical Association. The Guggenheim Foundation also endowed the American Historical Association with $400,000 at that time.

By 1950 the Rockefeller Foundation endowed Columbia Teachers College in New York City, formerly named the Russell’s Teacher College, produced one-third of all presidents of teacher-training institutions, one-fifth of all American public school teachers, and one-quarter of all superintendents.

J.D Rockefeller and family additionally funded and founded the University of Chicago, Rockefeller University (which focused on offering only postgraduate and postdoctoral education), the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Harvard School of Public Health as well as the Rockefeller University Press.

They also controlled, and continue to maintain ownership control in, school textbook companies and scholastic literature copy rights used in the public school systems thus being able to direct the historical narrative used in schools through Guggenheims American Historical Society. 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 American life.

Today, the textbook industry is divided into two sectors of roughly equal size: K-12 and higher education. Three publishers, Pearson, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, and McGraw-Hill Education, control the majority of the K-12 market. Pearson, McGraw-Hill Education, Cengage, and Wiley dominate the higher education market.

Additionally, through use of political favors and influence as well as the structuring of public educational taxes through property ownership, these few NGO Foundations were able to mold educational policy and control the flow of funds to school districts and community colleges at the Federal levels.

*****

“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure–one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.“    – David Rockefeller from his autobiography entitled “Memoirs” pgs. 404 & 405.

At the same time as Henry Ford was developing the assembly line for mass quantity automobile production, J.D. Rockefeller was extracting and selling ever greater quantities of oil to be used in automobiles. It is a little known fact, possibly due to Rockefeller’s influence as to our U.S. history, that the first Model A’s and T’s that came off the Ford assembly lines had a simple switch where the autos could run on either alcohol or gasoline. This was because at the time, in the early 1900′s, we were and Agrarian Society, with few gas stations across the country. Ford’s cars allowed drivers to be able to get alcohol fuel from farms across the country.

When J.D. Rockefeller could not convince Mr. Ford to produce his cars to run only on oil, he along with Joseph Kennedy, (JFK and RFK’s Father) manufactured the era of Prohibition in the 1920′s so that every new car would be forced to run on his oil and he used his newly created PR firms to sell the country that Prohibition was solely a social issue.

In 1936, Rockefeller’s Standard Oil of California, Firestone Tires, General Motors and Mack Trucks created the fictitious ”United Cities Motor Transport Company” which succeeded in buying up most electric trains in cities from Seattle to Philadelphia so that everyone would then have to use personal automobiles for transportation.  (A good documentary of this revisionist history can be found in the movie “Taken For A Ride”.)

*****

“The power of the individual large foundation is enormous. Its various forms of patronage carry with them elements of thought control. It exerts immense influence on educator, educational processes, and educational institutions. It is capable of invisible coercion. It can materially predetermine the development of social and political concepts, academic opinion, thought leadership, public opinion.

The power to influence national policy is amplified tremendously when foundations act in concert. There is such a concentration of foundation power in the United States, operating in education and the social sciences, with a gigantic aggregate of capital and income. This Interlock has some of the characteristics of an intellectual cartel. It operates in part through certain intermediary organizations supported by the foundations. It has ramifications in almost every phase of education.”  -John Taylor Gatto, author of “The Underground History of Education” and Thrice NY Teacher of the Year

In 1954, a special Congressional Committee investigated the interlocking web of tax-exempt foundations to see what impact their grants were having on the American people. The Reece Committee, as it became known, stumbled onto the fact that some of these foundations had embarked upon a gigantic project to rewrite American history and incorporate it into new school text books.

Norman Dodd, the Reece committee’s research director, found, in the archives of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the following remarkable statement of purpose:

“The only way to maintain control of the population was to obtain control of the education in the U.S. They realized this was a prodigious task so they approached the Rockefeller Foundation with the suggestion that they go in tandem so the portion of education which could be considered domestically oriented would be taken over by the Rockefeller Foundation, and the portion which was oriented to international matters be taken over by the Carnegie Endowment.”

Dodd proceeded to show that the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, and Carnegie Endowment were using funds excessively on projects at Columbia, Harvard, Chicago University and the University of California, in order to enable oligarchical collectivism.

Dodd further stated:

“The purported deterioration in scholarship and in the techniques of teaching which, lately, has attracted the attention of the American public, has apparently been caused primarily by a premature effort to reduce our meager knowledge of social phenomena to the level of an applied science.”

Mr. Dodd’s research staff had discovered that in 1933-1936, a change took place which was so drastic as to constitute a revolution.”

The Reece Commission also indicated conclusively that:

  • The responsibility for the economic welfare of the American people had been transferred heavily to the Executive Branch of the Federal Government.
  • That a corresponding change in education had taken place from an impetus outside the local community.
  • That this “revolution” had occurred without violence and with the full consent of an overwhelming majority of the electorate.

Mr. Dodd stated that this revolution “could not have occurred peacefully or with the consent of the majority, unless education in the United States had been prepared in advance to endorse it.”

According to Mr. Dodd, grants given to these Foundations had been used for:

 –  Training individuals and servicing agencies to render advice to the Executive branch of the Federal Government.

 –  Directing education in the United States toward an international view-point and discrediting the traditions to which it (formerly) had been dedicated.

 – Decreasing the dependency of education upon the resources of the local community and freeing it from many of the natural safeguards inherent in this American tradition.

  – Changing both school and college curricula to the point where they sometimes denied the principles underlying the American way of life.

  – Financing experiments designed to determine the most effective means by which education could be pressed into service of a political nature.”

Mr. Dodd cited a book called “The Turning of the Tides”, which documented the literature from various tax-exempt foundations and organizations like UNESCO, showing that they wished to install a centralized World Government.

The Reece Commission quickly ran into a buzzsaw of opposition from influential centers of American corporate life. Major national newspapers hurled scathing criticisms, which, together with pressure from other potent political adversaries, forced the committee to disband prematurely without action.

****
Additionally, in 1951, Hon. John T. Wood (Idaho), House of Representatives, added these remarks in the Congressional record on the Report to the American People on UNESCO (United Nations for Education, Science and Culture Organization). From the Congressional Record, Proceedings and Debates of the 82nd Congress, First Session on Thursday, October 18, 1951:

“UNESCO’s scheme to pervert public education appears in a series of nine volumes, titled ‘Toward Understanding’ which presume to instruct kindergarten and elementary grade teachers in the fine art of preparing our youngsters for the day when their first loyalty will be to a world government, of which the United States will form but an administrative part…

The program is quite specific. The teacher is to begin by eliminating any and all words, phrases, descriptions, pictures, maps, classroom material or teaching methods of a sort causing his pupils to feel or express a particular love for, or loyalty to, the United States of America. Children exhibiting such prejudice as a result of prior home influence – UNESCO calls it outgrowth of the narrow family spirit – are to be dealt an abundant measure of counter propaganda at the earliest possible age. Booklet V, on page 9, advises the teacher that:

‘The kindergarten or infant school has a significant part to play in the child’s education. Not only can it correct many of the errors of home training, but it can also prepare the child for membership, at about the age of seven, in a group of his own age and habits – the first of many such social identifications that he must achieve on his way to membership in the world society.’”  

*****

“Schools were designed by Horace Mann and others to be instruments of the scientific management of a mass population.”   John Taylor Gatto author of “Weapons of Mass Education

The advent of compulsory education in the United States originated out of Prussia, which was within the area of modern Germany today. The Prussian Monarchy divided the education system into three groups: those who were to make policy: those who would assist the policy makers, the engineers, doctors, lawyers and architects; and the rest would be the common laborers.

Using the basic philosophy prescribing the “duties of the state,” combined with John Locke’s view (1690) that “children are a blank slate” and lessons from Rousseau on how to “write on the slate,” Prussia established a three-tiered educational system that was considered “scientific” in nature. Work began in 1807 and the system was in place by 1819. An important component of the Prussian system was how it defined for the child what was to be learned, what was to be thought, how long to think about it and when a child was to be allowed to think of something else. (This is where the Pavlovian bell-ringing each hour of class time comes from in our current school system.)

In 1814, Edward Everett was the first American to go to Prussia for Doctorate in Philosophy or PhD. He eventually became governor of Massachusetts. During the next 30 years or so, a line of American dignitaries went to Germany to earn degrees (a German invention). Horace Mann, instrumental in the development of educational systems in America, was among them. Those who earned degrees in Germany came back to the United States and staffed all the major universities. In 1850, Massachusetts and New York utilized the Prussian system, as well as promoted the concept that “the state is the father of children.”

Horace Mann’s sister, Elizabeth Peabody (Peabody Foundation) saw to it that, after the Civil War, the Prussian system (taught in the Northern states) was integrated into the conquered South between 1865 and 1918. Most of the “compulsory schooling” laws designed to implement the system were passed by 1900. By 1900, all the PhD’s in the United States were trained in Prussia. This project also meant that one-room schoolhouses had to go, for it fostered independence. They were eventually wiped out.

In 1890, Carnegie wrote a series of essays called “The Gospel of Wrath”, in which he claimed that the capitalistic free-enterprise system was dead in the United States by the Carnegie, Rockefeller and Morgans. It was about 1917 that the great “Red Scare” was instituted in the U.S. in part to set up a reactionary movement intended to get the public to accept the idea of compulsory schooling – Prussian compulsory schooling!

The implementation of the German educational nightmare in the United States met some initial resistance. In Carnegie’s home town of Gary, Indiana, the system was implemented between 1910 and 1916, mostly through the efforts of William Wirt, the school superintendent. It involved no academic endeavor whatsoever. It worked so well in supplying willing workers for the steel mills that it was decided by Carnegie to bring the system to New York City. In 1917, they initiated a program in New York in 12 schools, with the objective of enlarging the program to encompass 100 schools and eventually all the schools in New York. William Wirt came to supervise the transition.

Unfortunately for Carnegie, the population of the 12 schools was predominantly composed of Jewish immigrants, who innately recognized what was being done and the nature of the new “educational system.” Three weeks of riots followed, and editorials in the New York Times were very critical of the plan. Over 200 Jewish school children were thrown in jail. The whole political structure of New York that had tried this scheme were then thrown out of office during the next election. A book describing this scenario, “The Great School Wars,” was written by Diane Ravitch. Curiously, William Wirt was committed to an insane asylum around 1930, after making public speeches about his part in a large conspiracy to bring about a controlled state in the hands of certain people. He died two years later.

*****

“We view with alarm the activity of the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations—agencies not in any way responsible to the people—in their efforts to control the policies of our State educational institutions, to fashion after their conception and to standardize our courses of study, and to surround the institutions with conditions which menace true academic freedom and defeat the primary purpose of democracy as heretofore preserved inviolate in our common schools, normal schools, and universities.”  National Education Association meeting, 1913

Another great influence on how public education would be directed was John Dewey (1859-1952), known as the “Father of the progressive education movement” and a great influence with the powerful National Education Association (NEA).   Mr. Dewey’s progressive model of active learning or pragmatism promoted a revolt against abstract learning and attempted to make education an effective tool for integrating culture and vocation. Dewey was responsible for developing a philosophical approach to education called “experimentalism” which saw education as the basis for democracy. His goal was to turn public schools into indoctrination centers to develop a socialized population that could adapt to an egalitarian state operated by the intellectual elite.

Thinking for Dewey was a collective phenomenon. Disavowing the role of the individual mind in achieving technological and social progress, Dewey promoted the group, rather than the teacher, as the main source of social control in the schools. Denying the ideas of universal principles, natural law, and natural rights, Dewey emphasized social values and taught that life adjustment is more important than academic skills.

In his book, The Great Technology (1933), Harold Rugg elucidated the grand vision:

“A new public mind is to be created. How? Only by creating tens of millions of individual minds and welding them into a new social mind. Old stereotypes must be broken up and ‘new climates of opinion’ formed in the neighborhoods of America.

Through the schools of the world we shall disseminate a new conception of government—one that will embrace all the activities of men, one that will postulate the need of scientific control… in the interest of all people.”

The Rockefeller-endowed Lincoln Experimental School at Columbia Teachers College was the testing ground for Harold Rugg’s series of textbooks, which moved 5 million copies by 1940 and millions more after that. In these books Mr. Rugg advanced this theory:

“Education must be used to condition the people to accept social change… The chief function of schools is to plan the future of society.” Like many of his activities over three vital decades on the school front, the notions he had put forth in The Great Technology (1933), were eventually translated into practice in urban centers. He advocated that the major task of schools be seen as “indoctrinating” youth, using social “science” as the “core of the school curriculum” to bring about the desired climate of public opinion. Some attitudes Rugg advocated teaching were reconstruction of the national economic system to provide for central controls and an implantation of the attitude that educators as a group were “vastly superior to a priesthood” and to “create swiftly a compact body of minority opinion for the scientific reconstruction of our social order”.

Money for Rugg’s six textbooks came from Rockefeller Foundation grants to the Lincoln School. He was paid two salaries by the foundation, one as an educational psychologist for Lincoln, the other as a professor of education at Teachers College, in addition to salaries for secretarial and research services. The General Education Board provided funds (equivalent to $500,000 in year 2000 purchasing power) to produce three books, which were then distributed by the National Education Association.

*****

In 1960, “UNESCO Convention Against Discrimination” was signed in Paris. This convention laid the groundwork for control of American education, both public and private, by UN agencies and agents disguised to halt discrimination and segregation.  In 1960, “Soviet Education Programs: Foundations, Curriculums, Teacher Preparation” was published under the auspices of the US Department of Health, Education and Welfare. It was the blueprint for the US school-to-work restructuring that would take place, and it would rely on the “Pavlovian conditioned reflex theory” developed by Dr. B.F. Skinner,  the father of Behavioral Psychology.

Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, former Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) in the U.S. Department of Education during the Reagan Administration recited in her excellent book, “The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America” a speech Congressmen John M. Ashbrook delivered before Congress on July 18, 1961 entitled, “The Myth of Federal Aid to Education without Control” (Congressional Record: pp. 11868-11880):

“That there was any doubt of the Federal bureaucrats’ intentions in this matter was laid to rest with the discovery of a Health, Education, and Welfare publication, “A Federal Education Agency for the Future”, which is a report of the Office of Education, dated April 1961… I feel that its pronouncements are a blueprint for complete domination and direction of our schools from Washington. The publication was not popularly distributed, and there was some difficulty obtaining a copy.

Fifty-six pages of findings contain recommendations which call for more and more Federal participation and control and repeatedly stress the need for Federal activity in formulating educational policies. It recommends a review of teacher preparation, curriculum and textbooks. It calls for an implementation of international educational projects in cooperation with UNESCO in the United Nations and ministries of education abroad”. (page 62)

*****

Between the years of 1967-1974, teacher training was covertly revamped through these original foundations created in the early 1900’s. Working with other private foundations, for-profit global corporations, certain universities, state education departments and the U.S. Department of Education, three critical multi-volume documents were produced. They were called the “Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Designing Education for the Future and the Behavioral Teacher Education Project” and totaled over 3,000 pages.  John Taylor Gatto outlines these three areas of focus:

1) DESIGNING EDUCATION FOR THE FUTURE. They were the collusion with the federal education department and the presumably independent state agencies. They redefined education after the 19th century Germanic fashion (quoting now from the document) “as a means to achieve important economic and social goals for the national character,” — and I would hasten to add that none of those goals included the maximum development of your son or daughter. State agencies would henceforth “act as Federal enforcers insuring compliance of local schools with Federal directives”. The document proclaimed that (I’m quoting again), “each state education department must be an agent of change” and proclaimed further: “change must be institutionalized”. I doubt if an account of this appeared in any newspaper in the state of Vermont or for that matter any newspaper in the country (U.S.). Education departments were (I am quoting a third time) “to lose their identity as well as their authority in order to form a partnership with the Federal Government”.

2) The BEHAVIORAL TEACHER EDUCATIONAL PROJECT outlines specific teaching reforms to be forced on the country, unwillingly of course, after 1967. It also sets out, in clear language, the outlook and intent of its invisible creators. Nothing less than quoting again “the impersonal manipulation through schooling of a future America in which few will be able to maintain control over their own opinions”, an America in which (quoting again) “each individual receives at birth, a multipurpose identification number which enables employers and other controllers to keep track of their [underlings]“, (underlings is my interpretation, everything else came out of the document), “and to expose them to the directors subliminal influence of the state education department and the federal department acting through those whenever necessary”.

3) TAXONOMY OF EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES, which has, since its publication, spawned a number of descendant forms, like “mastery learning”, “outcome based education” and “school to work” business-government-economic projects. Dr. Bloom’s compilation was a tool, (I’m quoting from Dr. Bloom), “a tool to classify the ways individuals are to act, think or feel as the result of participating in some unit of instruction”. I would be dubious if any parent in the U.S. would send their children to schools under these auspices if they were thinking people. In this fashion, children would learn proper attitudes and have their improper attitudes (brought from home) remediated. In all stages of the school manipulations testing would be essential to locate the child’s mind on an official continuum.

*****

In 1972, Dr. Chester M. Pierce, M.D. of Harvard University wrote an article entitled “Becoming Planetary Citizens: A Quest for Meaning,” in the November 1972 issue of Childhood Education. Excerpts follow:

“Creative Altruism;  In the past forty years social science experimentation has shown that by age five children already have a lot of political attitudes. Regardless of economic or social background, almost every kindergartner has a tenacious loyalty to his country and its leaders. This phenomenon is understandable in the psychological terms of loyalty to a strong father-figure and of the need for security. But a child can enter kindergarten with the same kind of loyalty to the earth as his homeland…”

In 1980, “Schooling for a Global Age” was authored by James Becker. In the preface to Mr. Becker’s book, Professor John Goodlad, who has been at the forefront of implementing a global education system with funding from tax-exempt foundations and federal grants, writes:

“Parents and the general public must be reached also [taught a global perspective]. Otherwise, children and youth enrolled in globally-oriented programs may find themselves in conflict with values assumed in the home. And then the educational institution frequently comes under scrutiny and must pull back.”

*****

In 2006, in an interview with Aaron Russo (producer and director of movies like “The Rose”, “Trading Places” and “Wise Guys”) relates in his documentary “Freedom to Fascim”, how he was courted by the Rockefeller family when he ran for Governor of Nevada in 1998. After a friendship developed he was recruited to join the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR), a private non-profit organization created by the Rockefeller’s in 1921. (Caroll Quigley, Professor of History at Georgetown University and favorite mentor of President Clinton has stated, “The CFR is the American Branch of a society originated in England and believes national boundaries should be obliterated and a one-world rule established.” Other members of the CFR have included Presidents Hoover, Truman, Eisenhower, George and G.W. Bush, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton to date).

Mr. Russo retells in his documentary the story, as told to him directly by Nick Rockefeller, that the Feminist movement in the 1960′s was manufactured so that women would have to enter the workforce and so that more taxes could be collected with women working, thus having to pay taxes. Additionally, children would then have to be put into day care and pre-schools where indoctrination could begin at a much earlier age. The State could then be seen to the children as part of the family.  Interestingly, it was also reported in an article in the Village Voice on May 21, 1979 that Ms. Steinem’s M.S. Magazine was funded by the Ford Foundation and the CIA, to which the article claims she also a CIA asset.

*****

In 1998, Rep. Bob Schaffer placed in the Congressional Record an 18-page letter that has become known as Mr. Marc Tucker’s “’Dear Hillary” letter.  Mr. Tucker is President of the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE) and in this letter he lays out a plan to:

  1. Remold the entire American system into a seamless web that literally extends from cradle to grave.
  2. Is the same for everyone and is the same system for everyone coordinated by a system of labor market boards at the local, state and federal levels where curriculum and job matching will be handled by counselors accessing the integrated computer-based program.”

Mr. Tucker’s ambitious plan was implemented in three laws passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1994: the Goals 2000 Act, the School-to-work Act and the reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act. These laws establish the following mechanisms to restructure the public schools:

  1. Bypass all elected officials on school boards and in state legislatures by making federal funds flow to the Governor and his appointees on workforce development boards.
  2. Use a computer database, a.k.a. “a labor market information system,” into which school personnel would scan all information about every schoolchild and his family, identified by the child’s social security number: academic, medical, mental, psychological, behavioral, and interrogations by counselors. The computerized data would be available to the school, the government, and future employers.
  3. Use “national standards” and “national testing” to cement national control of tests, assessments, school honors and rewards, financial aid, and the Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM), which is designed to replace the high school diploma.

Designed on the German system, the Tucker plans objectives are to train children in specific jobs to serve the workforce and the global economy instead of to educate them so they can make their own life choices.

*****

We see the actions of our Federal Government continue along this path of taking over the duties of caring and managing children at younger and younger ages. A  recently created private public partnership with federal government called “ZERO TO THREE” wants to reach out to children from “cradle to three years of age”. On its website the organization describes itself as:

“A national nonprofit organization that provides parents, professionals and policymakers the knowledge and the know-how to nurture early development. Neuroscientists have documented that our earliest days, weeks and months of life are a period of unparalleled growth when trillions of brain cell connections are made. Research and clinical experience also demonstrate that health and development are directly influenced by the quality of care and experiences a child has with his parents and other adults.”

“School Readiness Interactive Birth to 3”– “A web-based, interactive learning tool designed to help parents and caregivers support their young child’s early learning. You’ll find age-based information on how children develop the four key skills—language and literacy skills, thinking skills, self-confidence and self-control—that are critical to later school success.”

Also, the Center for American Progress (CAP) is receiving a doubling of funding from the Obama Administration. The reason for more funding according to the CAP website is so that:

“All children ages 3 and 4 should be able to voluntarily attend a full-day public preschool program,” CAP states. “Preschool should be free for children from families at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty line ($46,100 for a family of four). Children from families above 200 percent of the poverty line should be charged a sliding tuition co-pay, ranging from about 30 percent of the cost to 95 percent of the cost (for families above 400 percent of the poverty line).”

This private public program is being funded extensively by the Soros Foundation and is necessary because, according to Arnie Duncan, Secretary of Education, “the parents will have to be working 2-3 jobs in the future to support their families” (Charlie Rose show interview, March 10, 2009). His vision is that every public school will soon become the hub of every community that he wants to be open 24/7/365 where after school programs are managed by NGO’s and open until 9 p.m.

Additionally he would like to see these ‘hubs of the community’ provide three meals a day to children and offer full care health services. Already we are seeing the implementation of his visions where school enforcement programs like state mandated vaccinations and the providing of fluoridation pills to children are being carried out where profits go to the corporate medical industry as costs are socialized to the people.

*****

”We are creating the most meaningful reform of school education in a generation designed to fundamentally transform America’s education system”  President Barack Obama

Now, as we enter the “Computer Evolution of Education”, we see a mass coordinated roll-out of a global effort to uniform education and mono-mind our children through an internet-based education called “Common Core.” Funding from Obama’s “Race to the Top” program require schools to accept the Common Core curriculums.

These products being rolled out globally and nationwide have been designed, written and implemented by the largest technology companies in the world (Google, Apple, Cisco, Texas Instruments, McGraw Hill, Scholastic, Pearson, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, etc.) through newly created PPP’s just as Obamacare was directed and overseen by Ms. Liz Fowler who is an Executive VP at Wellpoint Inc., the largest HMO in the country.

The largest foundations are also involved with the technological transformation of the public schools globally. Like the behemoth Gates Foundation ($ 65 Billion), Joyce and the omnipresent Rockefeller Foundation. NGO lobby groups like the National Governors Association ( NGA), and the  Common Core State Standards Organization (CCSSO), also helped establish the curriculum standards for academic criteria and evaluation to the Common Core Initiative. The NGA and CCSSO, also enjoy sole copyrights to Common Core and retain legal rights to any changes to the CC material.

The build out of Common Core is breathtaking as the business end is being implemented by CORE International. CI’s technology, staffing and security services are already being used in 47 of 50 States as well as the Commonwealth of Great Britain, India, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Chile, China, Germany, El Salvador, Kenya, Japan, Israel, Mexico, and many other countries. Its own financial website states that its business plans are to be in every country “with a global education plan that reaches children from the cradle through post graduate school”.

Here is CORE INT’L’s description of their program directly from the company’s website:

“CORE is a global end-to-end, best-of-breed education solutions provider that aims to transform the education spectrum encompassing Pre-K, K-12, Higher Education and Technical Career Education. CORE strives to improve the quality of human capital as well as the global learning ecosystem through innovation in order to produce better educational outcomes. CORE’s operations span multiple geographies globally, with its primary focus being the United States, the United Kingdom and India, and with additional operations in Asia Pacific, Africa, the Caribbean and the Middle East.”

Aside from referring to our children as “human capital”, their businesses models include the control in the hiring and evaluating of teachers and administrators, designing and creating computer-based education, evaluating academic testing and scoring, the providing of a program known as “Secure Schools” as well subcontracting to provide  school healthcare services.

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.

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 Americans and dehumanized US culture to the detriment not only of America, but the whole world. Compulsory universal government psychotherapy is not education it is mind control.

Sources:

Dumbing Down  Indoctrination   Public Schools

Sex Education  University / College

Chronological History of the Education Takeover

 

Wikileaks Begins Publishing Podesta Emails. Who Leaked Them? Russia or a Disgruntled Clinton Staffer?

On 7 October 2016, WikiLeaks began publishing thousands of emails that it said were from Podesta's Gmail account. The first batch of emails were released less than one hour after The Washington Post published a controversial video of Donald Trump making lewd comments about women. Throughout October, WikiLeaks released installments of the Podesta emails on a daily basis. On 18 December 2016, John Podesta stated in Meet the Press that the FBI had contacted him about the leaked emails on 9 October 2016, but had not contacted him since. MostDamagingWikileaks.com Covers the Top 100 wilileaks from the Podesta email hack ...
Read More

Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta Email (via Wikileaks): “We’ve all… Conspire(d) to Produce an Unaware and Compliant Citizenry”

An email was sent to Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta by former Clinton administration official Bill Ivy on March 13, 2016. The Clinton campaign email, released as part of the Wikileaks data dump on October 10, 2016, talks about the need to maintain political power by producing “an unaware and compliant citizenry”. Ivy was appointed Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts during Bill Clinton’s second term. According to his bio, Ivy “is a trustee of the Center for American Progress (a Clinton campaign front), and was a Team Leader in the Barack Obama presidential transition.” In the email, ...
Read More

Dr. John Lott Releases a New Book: ‘Dumbing Down the Courts: How Politics Keeps the Smartest Judges Off the Bench’

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wN4yJ9Wq43s Judges have enormous power. They determine whom we can marry, whether we can own firearms, whether the government can mandate that we buy certain products, and how we define ''personhood.'' But who gets to occupy these powerful positions? Up until now, there has been little systematic study of what type of judges get confirmed. In his rigorous yet readable style, John Lott analyzes both historical accounts and large amounts of data to see how the confirmation process has changed over time. Most importantly, Dumbing Down the Courts shows that intelligence has now become a liability for judicial nominees ...
Read More

Harvard Study: Fluoride Lowers Children’s Intelligence By 7 IQ Points

The study [click for abstract] was published online in Environmental Health Perspectives on July 20, 2012. Environmental Health Perspectives is a publication of the United States National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. In a meta-analysis, researchers from Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and China Medical University in Shenyang [funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH)] for the first time combined 27 studies and found strong indications that fluoride adversely affects cognitive development in children. The average loss in IQ was reported as a standardized weighted mean difference of 0.45, which would be approximately equivalent to seven IQ points ...
Read More

Final Version of Common Core Standards Unveiled: The Latest Dumb-Down Agenda by the Illuminati

The Final Version of Common Core Standards Unveiled on June 2, 2010. The latest dumb down agenda funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, drafted by lobbyist and businessmen, was never voted on by Congress, state or local governments, or the department of education, but passed in 49 States bribed with billions in funding. States who rejected the Orwellian standards were refused millions in funding. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDkyeYUUSyM In Part One, Chapter Seven of George Orwell's book Nineteen Eighty-Four; therein, 2+2=5 is used as an example of an obviously false dogma one may be required to believe, similar to other obviously false ...
Read More

Newly Released 450pg Report of Fluoride Toxicity Shows ‘Safe Drinking Water Standard’ Causes Damage to Teeth, Bones, Joints, Brain, and Glands

The prestigious National Research Council of the National Academies of Science released a 450-page review of fluoride toxicity. The report concluded that the safe drinking water standard for fluoride (4 ppm) causes significant damage to teeth, and places consumers at elevated risk for bone damage, including bone fracture and joint pain. Because of this, the NRC recommended that the fluoride safety standard be reduced. In addition to its concerns about tooth and bone damage, the NRC identified a range of other health effects that may be associated with fluoride exposure, including damage to the brain, disruption of the endocrine system (thyroid gland, pineal gland, ...
Read More

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is Signed into Law by President Bush. Was it the Latest UN Dumb-Down Agenda?

According to Charlotte Iserbyt, "This is basically the United Nations Lifelong Learning-Brainwashing Agenda under the umbrella of what will eventually be "unelected" school and community councils (council is defined as "soviet" in many dictionaries) which will make all decisions for us at the local level." Charlotte Iserbyt (Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education, during the first Reagan Administration, where she first blew the whistle on a major technology initiative which would control curriculum in America's classrooms. NCLB lowers standards to the lowest common denominator (slowest learner in the class), ...
Read More

Dr. Hirzy, Senior Scientist for Risk Assessment for the EPA, Testified to Senate Subcommittee on “Why EPA’s Union of Professionals Opposes Fluoridation.”

On June 29th, 2000, Dr. William Hirzy was invited to give testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water on behalf of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) Chapter 280 - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Headquarters. At the time, Dr. Hirzy was serving his sixth term as the Senior Vice-President of the Union. His presentation that day was, "Why EPA's Union of Professionals Opposes Fluoridation." This is a video that documents the presentation along with interviews with Dr. Hirzy where he describes the reasoning behind the professional and official ...
Read More

Lee v. Weisman: Supreme Court Ruled 5-4 that Prayers During School Graduation Violate the Establishment Clause

In the case of Lee vs. Weisman, The Supreme Court ruled that for an adult to mention the word God at a public graduation constituted both psychological and religious coercion against his students. Yet, consider the actions of William Samuel Johnson, a signer of the Constitution and one of America’s leading educators who served as the first president of Columbia College. At his graduation exercises William Samuel Johnson declared to the students, “You, this day, have received a public education. The purpose whereof had been to qualify you better to serve your Creator and your country. Your first great duties, ...
Read More

Whistleblower Dr. William Marcus, the EPA’s Senior Science Advisor & Its Only Board Certified Toxicologist, Bullied and Fired after Questioning Fluoride Safety

In 1990, Dr. William Marcus, senior toxicologist in the Office of Drinking Water at EPA, was fired for publicly questioning the honesty of a long-awaited government animal study designed to determine if fluoride causes cancer. Upon examining the raw data of the experiment, Dr. Marcus found clear evidence that fluoride causes cancer, and suggested that a review panel set up by the government to review the data had deliberately downgraded the results. Before Dr. Marcus was fired, EPA Inspector General John Martin issued a report on him “which contained slanderous, false and derogatory information,” said Mr. Reich. The report’s charges were ...
Read More

Robert Carton, a Sr. EPA Scientist, Summarized His Conclusions on Fluoridation to the Drinking Water Subcommittee that Involved Fraud & Political Interference

In November of 1991, Dr. Bob Carton, Vice-President of the union representing all 1200 scientists, engineers, and lawyers at EPA headquarters, presented the Drinking Water Subcommittee of the Science Advisory Board of EPA with evidence of scientific fraud in the preparation of EPA's fluoride in drinking water standard. (reference) No follow up to verify these accusations was ever made. Six years earlier, Dr. Carton became aware of a coverup, when the person responsible for writing the justification for the fluoride in drinking water regulation confided in him that he didn't believe a thing he was writing. In other words, the ...
Read More

Three Time NY Teacher of the Year, John Taylor Gatto, Quits Teaching Because Modern Education is ‘Hurting Children’

John Taylor Gatto (born December 15, 1935) is an American author and former school teacher who taught in the classroom for nearly 30 years. He was named New York City Teacher of the Year in 1989, 1990, and 1991, and New York State Teacher of the Year in 1991. He devoted much of his energy to his teaching career, then, following his resignation, authored several books on modern education, criticizing its ideology, history, and consequences. He is best known for his books Dumbing Us Down: the Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling, and The Underground History of American Education: A ...
Read More

Top Secret Document, ‘Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars’, is Found in an Old Copier. It Details the Cold War Plan of Manipulation of Industry, People, Education, & Politics

Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars, An Introduction Programming Manual was uncovered quite by accident this date when an employee of Boeing Aircraft Co. purchased a surplus IBM copier for scrap parts at a sale, and discovered inside details of a plan, hatched in the embryonic days of the "Cold War" which called for control of the masses through manipulation of industry, peoples' pastimes, education and political leanings. It called for a quiet revolution, putting brother against brother, and diverting the public's attention from what is really going on. The truth is at once simpler and more incredible than anyone could ...
Read More

‘The Humanist’ Published an Essay by John Dunphy Entitled ‘A Religion for A New Age’ with the Public School Classroom as its Battlefield vs. “the Rotting Corpse of Christianity”

The Secular Humanist Bulletin has given writer John Dunphy another platform from which to present his views about how the humanists plan to use the public school classroom to proselytize for their ideology. The Humanist magazine published an essay by John Dunphy in its January/February 1983 issue entitled "A Religion for A New Age." This essay has been widely quoted ever since as evidence of the humanists' plan to impose their values on public school children. Now, the Secular Humanist Bulletin of Summer 1994 (described on its masthead as "The Associate Members' Newsletter of the Council for Democratic and ...
Read More

Charlotte Iserbyt, former Sr Policy Advisor in the U.S. Dept of Education, Blows the Whistle on a Major Technology Initiative to Control Curriculum in America’s Classrooms.

Charlotte Iserbyt | written June 15, 2004 Although Ronald Reagan had made abolishing the unconstitutional U.S. Dept. of Education one of his most important campaign promises while running for President in 1979-1980, once elected he made a very strange choice for his Secretary of Education, T. H. Bell from Utah, who had not only been a former state superintendent of schools and United States Commissioner of Education under President Ford, but who also had lobbied hard for the creation of the U.S. Department of Education, the very Department President Reagan would require him to abolish. Fox in hen house ...
Read More

Chester Pierce Speech at the Assoc. for Childhood Education Int’l: “Every Child Entering School at the Age of Five is Insane Because He Comes to School with Certain Allegiances…”

April 1972 – In his keynote address to the Association for Childhood Education International, Chester M. Pierce, Professor of Education and Psychiatry in the Faculty of Medicine at Harvard University, proclaims: “Every child in America entering school at the age of five is insane because he comes to school with certain allegiances toward our founding fathers, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being. It's up to you, teachers, to make all of these sick children well by creating the international child of the future.” ...
Read More

Secret Society Insider, Dr. Richard Day, National Medical Director of Planned Parenthood, Reveals the Global Elite’s Evil Plan for Humanity

There was a meeting of pediatricians and students which took place at the Pittsburgh Pediatric Society and one of the speakers was Dr. Richard Day, an eminent professor and physician as well as well as Director of Planned Parenthood. He asked that no notes or recordings be made of the meeting due to possible danger and/or consequences. He then revealed not just what is planned for the entire world's people but also how this evil cabal intend to carry out this plan. For, those who understand such things will recognize that Day's remarks are merely reiteration of the secret agenda ...
Read More

Epperson v. Arkansas: The U.S. Supreme Court Ruled that a Law Prohibiting the Teaching of Evolution in Tax-Supported Schools is Unconstitutional

The evolution controversy did not come before the U.S. Supreme Court until Epperson v. Arkansas,[39] a 1968 challenge to the constitutionality of an Arkansas statute prohibiting the teaching of evolution.[40] By this time, the nonestablishment clause had been applied to the states, and in this case the Jeffersonian and Madisonian view of that clause carried the day. In other words, the challenge to the Arkansas law was successful because the case was seen as a dispute between religion and science. An amicus brief in Epperson demonstrated to the Court that science was in fact at stake by including a ...
Read More

SIECUS is Founded by Former Planned Parenthood Director with Seed Money from Playboy Founder Hugh Hefner

In 1964, May 14, an organization was started in the State of New York called the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States, called SIECUS. It reached its full bloom on July 1, 1965. It broke in at 1855 Broadway in New York City. It is this organization that is influencing school systems all across America in sex education. Anybody knows that. It is either directly or indirectly responsible for the battle that is going on in almost every city of any size all across this great country concerning sex education in our school system. We call ...
Read More

Abington Township School District v. Schempp “Bible Reading in School” Ruled Unconstitutional by Supreme Court

The Pennsylvania school system complied with a state law requiring that ten verses of scripture be read every day. The readings were without interpretation, comment or questions asked, and any student could request to be excused. It was voluntary without coercion, and the Schempp girl never asked to be excused and even volunteered to read the Bible on occasions. (This point was not brought up when the case was before the Supreme Court.)  Yet the parents brought the case to court on grounds that it was coercion.   This case came to the Supreme Court at the same time as the ...
Read More

Congress Begins Reviewing a Document Entitled ‘Communist Goals for Taking Over America’

The House of Representative and later the Senate began reviewing a document entitled "Communist Goals for Taking Over America." It contained an agenda of 45 separate issues that, in hindsight was quite shocking back then and equally shocking today. Here, in part, are some key points listed in that document. 1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war. 2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war. 3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the US would be a demonstration of moral strength. 4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless ...
Read More

Engel v. Vitale: Supreme Court Rules School Prayer Unconstitutional

The New York school system had adopted a prayer to be said before the start of each day's classes. This prayer was to help promote good moral character of the students, spiritual training and help combat juvenile delinquency. The regents wrote a prayer for the schools which had to be non-sectarian or denominational. It was so bland that it became known to some religious leaders as the "to whom it may concern prayer." Here is the Regents prayer. Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our ...
Read More

Congressman John Ashbrook of Ohio Delivered a Speech to the House Entitled “The Myth of Federal Aid to Education without Control.”

Congressman John M. Ashbrook of Ohio expressed his concern over the radical shift in the direction of education before the U.S. House of Representatives in a speech he delivered entitled “The Myth of Federal Aid to Education without Control.” With extraordinary foresight, John Ashbrook warned that: 'In the report A Federal Education Agency for the Future we find the vehicle for Federal domination of our schools. It is a real and present danger.… The battle lines are now being drawn between those who seek control and uniformity of our local schools and those who oppose this further bureaucratic centralization ...
Read More

FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover on Communists: “They have infiltrated every conceivable sphere of activity: …T.V. and motion picture; church, …educational…; the press…”

FBI Director, J. Edgar Hoover, gave this testimony on 6 March 1961 before the House Committee on Appropriations regarding the communist conspiracy: “They have infiltrated every conceivable sphere of activity: youth groups; radio, T.V. and motion picture industries; church, school, educational and cultural groups; the press; nationality minority groups and civil and political units.”  ...
Read More

John O’Donnell on the Education System: “It is Simply to Reduce as Many Individuals as Possible to the Same Safe Level, to Breed and Train a Standardized Citizenry”

John O’Donnell, “Capitol Stuff,” From an article in the Daily News, May 12, 1954: 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 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 ...
Read More
Loading...