The Trillion-Dollar Conspiracy (30 page)

As recent as 1973, psychiatrist Dr. Chester M. Pierce, speaking at a Childhood International Education Seminar, echoed Gates’s condescending arrogance but went even further by proclaiming, “Every child in America entering school at the age of five is insane because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our founding fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity…. It’s up to you teachers to make all these sick children well by creating the international children of the future.”

Of Gates’s letter, Lionni stated that while “it would be false to say John D. Rockefeller was a mastermind of international intrigue and deception, it would not be false to say that Rockefeller money has been used in various ways to forward social and global control through economics, foundations, the United Nations, universities, banking, industry, medicine, and of course, education, psychology and psychiatry.

“That’s a tremendous amount of control and involvement for one group!” noted Lionni, who then asked, “What if the theories and practices they funded and continue to fund are fundamentally flawed and don’t lead to the best possible situations in the various fields mentioned? Well, the views in most of those areas
are
fundamentally flawed and they
don’t
lead to the best solutions in ‘mental health’, education, medicine, sanity and happiness [original emphasis]. But, most likely, despite all ‘humanitarian’ posturing, they were never intended to.”

Other Rockefeller-connected entities that still shape society in the United States include the Brookings Institution, the National Bureau of Economic Research, the Public Administration Clearing House, the Council of State Governments, and the Institute of Pacific Relations. Paul Volcker, a former Rockefeller assistant, was named chairman of the U.S. central bank, the Federal Reserve System, during the Carter administration and served there until 1987.

Norman Dodd (now deceased), who was the director of research in 1953–54 for the House Select Committee to Investigate Foundations and Comparable Organizations, reported that in 1952, the president of the Ford Foundation—part of the globalist syndicate working for financial, educational, and political control—told him bluntly that “operating under directive from the White House” his foundation was to “use our grant-making power so as to alter our life in the United States that we can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union.” Now, with the collapse of communism and the advent of the United Nations, NATO, and other economic treaties, it seems like this globalist goal is close to becoming realized.

Dodd also stated that the congressional investigation found that the Guggenheim, Ford, and Rockefeller foundations and the Carnegie Endowment were “working in harmony to control education in the United States,” adding that these entities had been subverted from the original goals of their creators by subsequent directors, either working for or indoctrinated by the globalists. This is yet another example of wealth taking control of existing organizations.

Some of the past and current organizations and foundations that have had an impact on American education and that are linked by membership or funding to the globalist plutocracy include: the Agency of International Development; American Civil Liberties Union; American Council of Race Relations; American Press Institute; Anti-Defamation League; Arab Bureau; Aspen Institute; Association of Humanistic Psychology; Battelle Memorial Institute; Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences; Center for Constitutional Rights; Center for Cuban Studies; Center for Democratic Institutions; Christian Socialist League; Communist League; Environmental Fund; Fabian Society; Ford Foundation; Foundation for National Progress; German Marshall Fund; Hudson Institute; Institute for Pacific Relations; Institute on Drugs, Crime and Justice; International Institute for Strategic Studies; Mellon Institute; Metaphysical Society; Milner Group; Mont Pelerin Society; National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; National Council of Churches; New World Foundation; Ayn Rand Institute; Stanford Research Institute; Tavistock Institute of Human Relations; Union of Concerned Scientists; International Red Cross; and the YMCA.

According to Beverly Eakman, a former educator, government speech-writer, and author of
Walking Targets: How Our Psychologized Classrooms Are Producing a Nation of Sitting Ducks,
foundation-subsidized educators like G. Stanley Hall, Abraham Flexner, John Gardiner, Theodore Sizer, Ronald Havelock, John Goodlad, Benjamin Bloom, and Ralph Tyler brought to the classroom the psychology principles of the World Federation of Mental Health: “For openers, they worked to ensure that school curriculum and testing ditched the traditional focus on excellence and academics to concentrate on a subjective socialization (i.e., socialist) agenda that targeted the child’s ‘belief system.’ To illustrate the radical nature of this step, one need only quote from the ‘father of modern education,’ John Dewey. In his acclaimed book
School and Society
he wrote: ‘There is no obvious social motive for the acquiring of learning [and]…no clear social gain at success thereat.’ Fast-forward to 1981 and to the ‘father of outcome-based education,’ Benjamin Bloom. In
All Our Children Learning,
Bloom averred that ‘the purpose of education is to change the thoughts, feelings and actions of students…by [challenging] the student’s fixed beliefs.’”

Eakman pointed to one example of how perceptions can be changed. “…[R]ugged individualism is an expression nobody hears much anymore, but folks used to hear with regularity,” she noted. “Rugged individualism encompassed a range of characteristics—independence, self-sufficiency, thinking for oneself. In the 1970s, the axe was laid to all three. Negative terminologies like ‘loner’ and ‘misfit’ redefined the individualist. ‘Independence’ was scrapped for
interdependency,
self-sufficiency for
redistribution,
and ‘thinking for oneself’ was equated with
intolerance
. Today, any close reading of the newspaper reminds us daily that the ‘loner’ requires psychiatric intervention, and maybe drugs as well….

“By 1989, the much-ballyhooed ‘paradigm shift,’ as it was dubbed by behaviorist educrats, occurred in American schools, and the free world was hurled into ‘free fall’: clandestine censorship counselors in university dorms, encounter-style techniques masquerading as ‘class discussions’ in high schools, massive invasions of privacy under the cover of ‘academic testing,’ ‘value-neutral’ courses in ethics, and world history that bestowed upon even the most heinous regimes the moral equivalence of Jeffersonian democracy. Little wonder that by the 1990s battalions of psychiatrists were being dispatched to every school district to help contain the new brand of war games: a tsunami of school shootings and mass murders perpetrated by kids raised on a diet of behavior modification and psychiatric drugs.”

The changing of a student’s beliefs, or “behavior modification,” is a technique long studied by the CIA and other agencies seeking methods of mind control. It should be obvious that to modify anyone’s behavior, first one must find out what people—preferably children—are thinking and then set about changing any “offending” attitudes.

It has been well documented in a number of books and articles that the U.S. intelligence community has heavily influenced the American education system to propagate its views and philosophies. David N. Gibbs, an associate professor of political science at the University of Arizona, believes that influence is always supported by the distribution of money. He wrote, “While pundits never tire of the cliché that American universities are dominated by leftist faculty, who are hostile toward the objectives of established foreign policies, the reality is altogether different: The CIA has become ‘a growing force on campus,’ according to a recent article in the
Wall Street Journal
. The ‘Agency finds it needs experts from academia, and colleges pressed for cash like the revenue.’ Longstanding academic inhibitions about being publicly associated with the CIA have largely disappeared: In 2002, former CIA Director Robert Gates became president of Texas A & M University, while the new president of Arizona State University, Michael Crow, was vice-chairman of the Agency’s venture capital arm, In-Q-Tel Inc…. The CIA has created a special scholarship program, for graduate students able and willing to obtain security clearances. According to the London
Guardian,
‘the primary purpose of the program is to promote disciplines that would be of use to intelligence agencies.’ And throughout the country, academics in several disciplines are undertaking research (often secret) for the CIA.”

The Constitution never states that the federal government should control education. Education should never be the responsibility of the federal government but that of parents and local educators. Many people see government as a means to control education by selecting what to teach and what alternative theories to suppress. Many parents fear brainwashing in public or private schools. They look to schools to teach their children to be open-minded, to be able to read and write, and to fully understand the Constitution.

Yet schools have often fallen short of what parents want and, rather, have seemed to embrace what John D. Rockefeller Sr. wanted; he is often quoted as saying, “I don’t want a nation of thinkers, I want a nation of workers.” A 2006 report by the Federation of American Scientists seemed to echo Rockefeller’s request for workers over thinkers by arguing for increased use of video games in the classroom. The report stated, “Workforce globalization is rapidly expanding…. The United States cannot compete in this highly-connected system of global commerce on the basis of low wages, commodity products and standardized services. It must compete by taking the lead in the next generation of knowledge creation, technologies, products and services, business models, and dynamic management systems…. When individuals play modern video and computer games, they experience environments in which they often must master the kinds of higher-order thinking and decision-making skills employers seek today.” Others, such as author Beverly Eakman, contest the idea that such games can truly prepare young persons for the workplace.

Given the men behind America’s education history and the mind-numbing curriculum they produced that is now used by teachers, it becomes understandable why our entire educational system merely churns out young people prepared for either wage slavery or to become teachers.

The late author and media critic Neil Postman wrote, “In order to understand what kind of behaviors classrooms promote, one must become accustomed to observing what, in fact, students actually
do
in them. What students do in a classroom is what they learn (as [John] Dewey would say), and what they learn to do is the classroom’s message (as [media commentator Marshall] McLuhan would say). Now, what is it that students
do
in the classroom? Well, mostly they sit and listen to the teacher. Mostly, they are required to believe in authorities, or at least pretend to such belief when they take tests. Mostly they are required to
remember
[original emphasis]. They are almost never required to make observations, formulate definitions, or perform any intellectual operations that go beyond repeating what someone else says is true. They are rarely encouraged to ask substantive questions, although they are permitted to ask about administrative and technical details. (How long should the paper be? Does spelling count? When is the assignment due?) It is practically unheard of for students to play any role in determining what problems are worth studying or what procedures of inquiry ought to be used. Examine the types of questions teachers ask in classrooms, and you will find that most of them are what might technically be called ‘convergent questions,’ but what might more simply be called ‘Guess what I am thinking’ questions.”

Postman and his coauthor Charles Weingartner concluded in their book
Teaching as a Subversive Activity
that contemporary curriculums are designed as a distraction to prevent students from knowing themselves and the world about them.

And the deficiencies of a weakened education system are passed along to future teachers. “It starts almost immediately,” noted the two authors, “because the [teachers] have been victims—in this case for almost 16 years—of the kind of schooling we have described…as producing intellectual paraplegics. The college students [future teachers] we are now talking about are the ones who were most ‘successful’ in conventional school terms. That is, they are the ones who learned best what they were required to do: to sit quietly, to accept without question whatever nonsense was inflicted on them, to ventriloquize on demand with a high degree of fidelity, to go down only on the down staircase, to speak only on signal from the teacher and so on. All during these 16 years, they learned not to think, not to ask questions, not to figure things out for themselves. They learned to become totally dependent on teacher authority, and they learned it with dedication.”

TWIXTERS

B
UT IS TIME CONSUMED
with DVD movies and video games or merely regurgitating facts back to a teacher truly preparing youth for gainful employment? Not if you pay attention to those who are called “Twixters,” a new word for single, middle-class twenty-to-thirty-plus somethings who work in low-paying jobs (usually service), engage in serial dating, maintain old school friendships, and generally live with their parents or room with other Twixters.

Bob Schoeni, a professor of economics and public policy at the University of Michigan, has reported that the percentage of twenty-six-year-olds living with their parents has nearly doubled from 11 percent to 20 percent since 1970. According to Schoeni, youngsters between the ages twenty-five and twenty-six garner an average of $2,323 a year in financial support from their parents.