Forced Government Indoctrination Centers

“Plans are underway to replace community, family, and church with propaganda, education, and mass media….the State shakes loose from Church, reaches out to School … People are only little plastic lumps of human dough.” -Edward A. Ross, “Social Control,” 1901

“Each year the child is coming to belong more to the State and less and less to the parent.” -Ellwood Cubberley, “Conceptions of Education” 1909

Before 1852 American education consisted of one-room school houses, independent teachers, and students of all ages attending of their own free will. Curriculums and funding came directly from local communities without a federalized bureaucracy ruling over every facet like today. From 1852-1918 things changed as the government began pushing to enforce compulsory schooling laws all across America. These were coupled with new “child labor laws” in an effort to take children off the farms from under their family’s tutelage and force them into indoctrination camps under the government’s tutelage. These laws were met with strenuous opposition at every turn by the US population and unless there was an incredibly well-backed agenda to make sure such laws passed, they would not have. If it was simply a matter of what the people in individual states really wanted, child labor and compulsory schooling issues would have been dropped as soon as they were raised.

At first the laws were optionallater the law was made state-wide but the compulsory period was short (ten to twelve weeks) and the age limits low, nine to twelve years. After this, struggle came to extend the time, often little by little…to extend the age limits downward to eight and seven and upwards to fourteen, fifteen or sixteen; to make the law apply to children attending private and parochial schools, and to require cooperation from such schools for the proper handling of cases; to institute state supervision of local enforcement; to connect school attendance enforcement with the child-labor legislation of the State through a system of working permits.” -Ellwood Cubberley, “Public Education in the United States” 1934

Once federalized mandatory schooling was employed countrywide, the compulsory attendance of 9-12 year olds, 10-12 weeks a year, was incrementally lengthened to the point that nowadays 4 year olds are entering pre-schools and 26 year old doctors are still being indoctrinated almost the whole year long. Ironically the longer students remain in their respective institutions, the more respect they are generally given in their field. Thus our “experts” in Medicine, Science, Technology, Philosophy, Economics, Politics etc. are generally those who have received the most government indoctrination.

“Since 1900, and due more to the activity of persons concerned with social legislation and those interested in improving the moral welfare of children than to educators themselves, there has been a general revision of the compulsory education laws of our States and the enactment of much new child-welfare … and anti-child-labor legislation … These laws have brought into the schools not only the truant and the incorrigible, who under former conditions either left early or were expelled, but also many children … who have no aptitude for book learning and many children of inferior mental qualities who do not profit by ordinary classroom procedures …Our schools have come to contain many children who … become a nuisance in the school and tend to demoralize school procedure.” -Ellwood Cubberley, “Public Education in the United States” 1934

At the turn of the 20th century Cubberley spoke of how children mechanically minded, without aptitude for book learning, or of inferior mental capacities, “become a nuisance in the school and tend to demoralize school procedure.” At the turn of the 21st century, Bush continues pushing the idea of “No Child Left Behind,” the complete opposite, which expands special-ed at the expense of gifted and talented programs, promotes “outcome-based education” (an atrocious educational philosophy now being promoted), and furthers state control of your children. If you believe in the myth of a benevolent nanny-state that looks out for your best interests from cradle to grave, “No Child Left Behind” might fit well into your philosophy, but for independent individuals, lovers of freedom, this is the final step in government mind-control.

“In 1909 a factory inspector did an informal survey of 500 working children in 20 factories. She found that 412 of them would rather work in the terrible conditions of the factories than return to school.” -Helen Todd, “Why Children Work,” McClure’s Magazine, April, 1913

“In one experiment in Milwaukee, for example, 8,000 youth …were asked if they would return full-time to school if they were paid about the same wages as they earned at work; only 16 said they would.” David Tyack, “Managers of Virtue,” 1982

California Education Administrator Ellwood Cubberley was the main anti-establishment voice speaking out against the standardizing and enforcement of our schooling. The leading pro-establishment voice was (1889-1906) US Commissioner of Education William Torrey Harris. Listen to Harris’ words from his 1906, “The Philosophy of Education”: “Ninety-nine [students] out of a hundred are automata, careful to walk in prescribed paths, careful to follow the prescribed custom. This is not an accident but the result of substantial education, which, scientifically defined, is the subsumption of the individual.” Is this a sane “Philosophy of Education” by anyone’s standards? This is the man who gave America scientifically age-graded classrooms to replace the long successful practice of mixed-age school houses. In “The Philosophy of Education,” Harris wrote his vision of the perfect classroom: “The great purpose of school can be realized better in dark, airless, ugly places … It is to master the physical self, to transcend the beauty of nature. School should develop the power to withdraw from the external world.

The first federalized education board was the 1870 founded NEA (National Education Administration) which quickly announced that country-wide school science courses must be restructured to teach “evolution” as fact, not theory.  Having gained a fair amount of pull in the NEA, in 1903, John. D. Rockefeller created the GEB (General Education Board) in an effort toward “this goal of social control.”  Later, in 1923 he would also create the International Education Board providing over $20 million to promote education abroad.  The Rockefeller, Carnegie and Ford groups have often funded (and thus steered) American education more so even than the government.

“Reading through the papers of the Rockefeller Foundation’s General Education Board – an endowment rivaled in school policy influence in the first half of the twentieth century only by Andrew Carnegie’s various philanthropies – seven curious elements force themselves on the careful reader: 1) There appears a clear intention to mold people through schooling. 2) There is a clear intention to eliminate tradition and scholarship. 3) The net effect of various projects is to create a strong class system verging on caste. 4) There is a clear intention to reduce mass critical intelligence while supporting infinite specialization. 5) There is clear intention to weaken parental influence. 6) There is clear intention to overthrow accepted custom. 7) There is striking congruency between the cumulative purposes of GEB projects and the utopian precepts of the oddball religious sect, once known as Perfectionism, a secular religion aimed at making the perfection of human nature, not salvation or happiness, the purpose of existence. The agenda of philanthropy, which had so much to do with the schools we got, turns out to contain an intensely political component.”  -John Taylor Gatto, “The Underground History of American Education” (201)

“One would assume that, since the Rockefellers are thought of as capitalists, they would have used their fortune to foster the philosophy of individual liberty.  But, just the opposite is true.  We have been unable to find a single project in the history of the Rockefeller foundations which promotes free enterprise … almost all of the Rockefeller grants have been used directly or indirectly to promote economic and social collectivism, i.e., Socialism-Fascism.”  -Gary Allen, “The Rockefeller File

“Philanthropy is the essential element in the making of Rockefeller power.  It gives the Rockefellers a priceless reputation as public benefactors which the public values so highly that power over public affairs is placed in the Rockefellers’ hands.  Philanthropy generates more power than wealth alone can provide.”  –Myer Kutz, “Rockefeller Power”

Rockefeller charity and philanthropy influences many sectors of society from education to politics to religion.  Here’s an abridged list of Rockefeller funded organizations: American Assembly, American Association for the United Nations, American Friends Service Committee, Atlantic Union, Center for Advanced Study in Behavioral Science, Center of Diplomacy and Foreign Policy, Citizens Committee for International Development, Committees on Foreign Relations, Committee for Economic Development, Council on Foreign Relations, Federation of World Governments, Foreign Policy Association, Institute of International Education, Institute for World Order, National Planning Association US National Commission, The Trilateral Commission World Affairs Council, and United World Federalists.  Notice any trends?  Any doubt regarding the Rockefeller’s intent in starting the GEB should be clarified in John D’s own mission statement:

“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 philosophers, or men of science. We have not to raise up from them authors, educators, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for great artists, painters, musicians nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen – of whom we have an 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.”  -John D. Rockefeller, General Education Board (1906)

This is not a man looking out for the best interest of students.  You can get a good sense of his demeanor from statements like “yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands” and talking about creating a “perfect system” of state education better than imperfect parental education.  Martin Luther King Jr., for one, disagrees with John. D. Rockefeller saying: “The group consisting of mother, father and child is the main educational agency of mankind.”  Who do you agree with?

Prior to WWI, in a speech to American businessmen, President Woodrow Wilson admitted similar goals as the Rockefellers: “We want one class to have a liberal education. We want another class, a very much larger class of necessity, to forgo the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks.”  In 1931, Paul Mantoux, in his foreword to “International Understanding” wrote, “And the builder of this new world must be education…. Plainly, the first step in the case of each country is to train an elite to think, feel, and act internationally.”

In 1932, continuing their effort to change the philosophical goals of American education, the Rockefeller/Carnegie dominated NEA created the EPC (Educational Policies Commission).  Years later the EPC put together its book “Education for All American Youth” which outlined federal programs for health, education and welfare to be combined under one giant bureaucracy.  It outlined pre-school programs, sex education classes, and the removal of local control over educational issues “without seeming to do so.”  A 1934 NEA report advised, “A dying laissez-faire must be completely destroyed and all of us, including the ‘owners’, must be subjected to a large degree of social control.”  So these education “experts” actually speak of themselves as “owners” and worry about falling under “a large degree of (the) social control” which they themselves implement.

The thesis I venture to submit to you is as follows: That during the past forty or fifty years those who are responsible for education have progressively removed from the curriculum of studies the Western culture which produced the modern democratic state; That the schools and colleges have, therefore, been sending out into the world men who no longer understand the creative principle of the society in which they must live; That deprived of their cultural tradition, the newly educated Western men no longer possess in the form and substance of their own minds and spirits and ideas, the premises, the rationale, the logic, the method, the values of the deposited wisdom which are the genius of the development of Western civilization; That the prevailing education is destined, if it continues, to destroy Western civilization and is in fact destroying it. I realize quite well that this thesis constitutes a sweeping indictment of modern education. But I believe the indictment is justified and here is a prima facie case for entering this indictment.”  -Walter Lippmann, at the Association for the Advancement of Science, December 29th, 1940

In 1942, the Institute  of Pacific Relations published “Post War Worlds.”  In it P.E. Corbett wrote, “World government is the ultimate aim … It must be recognized  that the law of nations takes precedence over national law …The process will have to be assisted by the deletion of the nationalistic material employed in educational textbooks and its replacement by material explaining the  benefits of wiser association.”  In 1946, former editor of the NEA Journal, Joy Elmer, published, “The Teacher and World Government” saying things like, “In the struggle to establish an adequate world government, the teacher… can do much to prepare the hearts and minds of children for global understanding and cooperation… At the very heart of all the agencies which will assure the coming of world government must stand the school, the teacher, and the organized profession.”  The next year in 1947 The American Education Fellowship, organized by establishment minion John Dewey (of the “Dewey decimal system”) called for the, “establishment of a genuine world order, an order in which national sovereignty is subordinate to world authority.”  In October, 1947, NEA Associate Secretary William Carr wrote in the NEA Journal that teachers should, “teach about the various proposals that have been made for the strengthening of the United Nations and the establishment of a world citizenship and world government.

“It was natural businessmen should devote themselves to something besides business; that they should seek to influence the enactment and administration of laws, national and international, and that they should try to control education.”  -Max Otto, “Science and the Moral Life,” 1949

Elitist Committee of 300 philosopher, Bertrand Russell, in his 1951 book “The Impact of Science on Society,” wrote, “Education should aim at destroying free will so that after pupils are thus schooled they will be incapable throughout the rest of their lives of thinking or acting otherwise than as their school masters would have wished…. Influences of the home are obstructive; and in order to condition students, verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective … It is for a future scientist to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for more than one generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.”

In 1953, Carroll Reece, Tennessee Congressman and Chairman of the RNC (Republican National Committee) along with research director Norman Dodd, and lawyer Rene Wormser, performed the first and only in-depth investigation into the activities of the Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford foundations and their effect on American education.  Rene Wormser wrote that the Reece investigation, “leads one to the conclusion that there was, indeed, something in the nature of an actual conspiracy among certain leading educators in the United States to bring about socialism through the use of our school systems.”  They discovered that the Rockefeller foundation was the primary culprit behind the NEA’s rapidly changing policies and the teaching of socialism in America’s schools / universities.  Wormser continued, “A very powerful complex of foundations and allied organizations has developed over the years to exercise a high degree of control over education. Part of this complex, and ultimately responsible for it, are the Rockefeller and Carnegie groups.

During a personal meeting, President Rowan Gaither of the Ford Foundation told Reece Committee research director Norman Dodd that, “all of us here at the policy making level of the foundation have at one time or another served in the OSS [pre-cursor to the CIA] or the European Economic Administration, operating under directives from the White House. We operate under those same directives … The substance under which we operate is that we shall use our grant making power to so alter life in the United States that we can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union.”  As their meeting turned from civil to threatening, Gaither warned Dodd, “If you proceed with the investigation as you have outlined, you will be killed.”

“This was the situation in the 1950s when the Reece Committee briefly investigated. The Rockefeller-Carnegie groups have continued basically unopposed for the next 40 years in controlling education. One of the educational book producers is Grolier, Inc. Avery Rockefeller, Jr. sits on Grolier, Inc. board meetings. Another interesting board member is Theodore WaIler who is the director of Grolier, Inc. He was a member of the International Book Committee of UNESCO.”  –Fritz Springmeier, “Bloodlines of the Illuminati

In the mid-sixties the Education Department produced a document called “Designing Education” which advised each state to “lose its independent identity as well as its authority,” in order to “form a partnership with the federal government.”  Another important document at the time was Benjamin Bloom’s “Taxonomy of Educational Objectives” which was used as “a tool to classify the ways individuals are to act, think, or feel as the result of some unit of instruction.”  Using B.F. Skinner’s operant conditioning and other new behavioral psychology models, American education shifted focus toward emotional/outcome-based learning, so-called “values clarification” and “sensitivity training.” As noted by Ph.D. Superintendent of South St.   Paul, Minnesota schools, Ray I. Powell, in 1975, “It’s all brainwashing!”

In 1981, the NEA published the Special Committee on Instructional Technology Report, which as usual, addressed the public/children as lumps of clay to be molded to suit their will: “In its coming involvement with a technology of instruction, the profession will be faced again with the challenge of leadership – by example and by effective communication – the challenge of convincing the public that education is much more than treating students like so many Pavlovian dogs, to be conditioned and programmed into docile acceptance of a do-it-yourself blueprint of the Good Life.”

Through “outcome-based” learning and other sophisticated standardized mind-control methods which continue being refined to present day, our government schools are perpetually preparing a new workforce for job specialization.

“Outcome-based education, because it concentrates on the ‘end product’ of its process, can be said to restrict the student’s mental functioning … Success in an outcome-based environment is restricted to performing prescribed tasks to the point of automaticity. The functions of memory and creativity are not used, nor are they considered necessary to succeed in an OBE program or any program that uses Skinnerian mastery learning or direct instruction. Predictability is the bottom line for OBE, limiting the student to only those responses which are prescribed.  When trained by OBE methodology, the student cannot fail unless he employs creativity and produces an unpredicted response. In an OBE environment, he can believe only that which is acceptable. The most predictable outcome, over time, is frustration – and ultimately, low achievement and behavior problems.”  -Charlotte Iserbyt, “Deliberate Dumbing Down of America” (322)

“Schools at present are the occupation of children; children have become employees, pensioners of the government at an early age. But government jobs are frequently not really jobs at all—that certainly is the case in the matter of being a schoolchild. There is nothing or very little to do in school, but one thing is demanded—that children must attend, condemned to hours of desperation, pretending to do a job that doesn’t exist. At the end of the day, tired, fed up, full of aggression, their families feel the accumulated tedium of their pinched lives. Government jobs for children have broken the spirit of our people.”-John Taylor Gatto, “The Underground History of American Education” (298)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s