Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Do You Have The Right To Life?

Most people think of that phrase in connection to the abortion issue, but I am not talking about that. I am talking about the right not to be killed by another human being or group of human beings.

If you believe that you have the right not to be killed, what do you have the right to do to prevent being killed?

In 1776The Declaration of Independence says that you have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly declared in article three:
“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

In 1950, the European Convention on Human Rights was adopted by the Council of Europe, declaring a protected human right to life in Article 2. There are exceptions for lawful executions and self-defense, arresting a fleeing suspect, and suppressing riots and insurrections. Since then Protocol 6 of the Convention has called for nations to outlaw capital punishment except in time of war or national emergency, and at present this pertains in all countries of the Council. Protocol 13 provides for the total abolition of capital punishment, and has been implemented in most member countries of the Council.

In 1966, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly.
“Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”—Article 6.1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

In 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms enshrined that
“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”
—Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

In 1989, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

The Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany holds the principle of human dignity paramount, even above the right to life.

The Catholic Church has issued a Charter of the Rights of the Family in which it states that the right to life is directly implied by human dignity.

There are many tangents that you can get off on from this subject, abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, etc. But where these things tend to divide people, there are several things that people tend to agree are more or less universal truths. Once you are born, you are definitely alive, if you take a breath. If your brain is functioning, you are alive. People who believe in a creator, believe that whatever it takes to sustain that life, is not just a right but a responsibility, because your body is God's temple.

But there are some people who believe that it would be more appropriate to defend an animal, like a whale, than to defend a human life. If a cathedral were being desecrated, some people believe that it would be mandatory to protect it. But what about the human body/temple?

Legally, you have the right to self-defense. But it is sad that we have strayed so far from morality, to need laws to say so. Morality should be a higher standard than the legal system.

Why does morality matter? Because inherent in the right to live, is the value of your life. If something has a value, then there will always be something that has a higher value or a lesser value. If you live your life in an immoral manner, and given the chance to redeem yourself, rehabilitate yourself, or whatever term you find appropriate, then I don't feel that your life is as valuable as someone who is moral. Morality has within it certain things that seem to be universal, regardless of religious beliefs.

Generally, if you infringe on my rights, you have exceeded yours. This brings us to the idea that rights come with responsibility. You have the responsibility not to infringe on my rights, and if I have the right to live, I have the responsibility to stay alive to the best of my ability. We both have the responsibility to protect the lives of others, and that requires us to make decisions on who to protect and who to protect them from. In other words, we have to have the morality to decide who is the bad guy and who is the good guy to decide who has priority.

I do not think that anyone has the right to take that responsibility away from me. I am not saying just that they can't take away my right to live, but that they cannot take away my responsibility to others.

The US Government has within it certain factions who think they can and will and they are being influenced by people in other countries and members of the United Nations. They are not doing this on any moral basis. If they were, how could they say, "Give me your sons and daughters, so that they can go to another country, to kill people in order to protect the innocent. They may die in the process, but because we belong to the UN, we have the right and responsibility to do this." And then turn around and tell you that you do not have the right to have a gun in your home in order to protect your family, who you would rightly consider to be innocent and a priority, when a man in a ski mask comes through your door with a gun or knife or crow bar?

The government is telling us that they have the right to decide our sons and daughters are expendable, in order to protect innocents, that they have the right to require our children to kill in order to protect the innocent, but you and I who were considered intelligent enough to elect them, do not have the right to do that.

It does not really matter whether or not you believe that it is o.k. for ordinary citizens to own guns. What the real issue is here, is whether or not we want to allow people we elected to have that right if we do not.

The politicians have muddied up the water on this issue so much that people either believe that every life, no matter how worthless it is, should be saved, or they believe that everybody else but them is less valuable. Neither is morally right. Many people believe that the only reason human life is superior to say, a cow, is that we are better at killing than cows are and that rights don't factor into it. This devalues the cow and the man. Man has a greater value than the cow, but he has the responsibility to only kill the cow if necessary, and the right to decide for himself when it is necessary, based on those universal truths I spoke of previously. You can't find many people who will tell you that the desire to see blood and inflict pain on the cow are necessary. So, it could be easily said that it was a universal truth that it is not necessary to kill a cow under those circumstances.

At some point, mankind needs to determine, once and for all whether or not abortion is murder, because if it is, then those who kill abortion doctors to prevent murder, are not much different than a US soldier killing the enemy to prevent their government from committing atrocities against their own people. The only difference is that we have been programmed to believe that our government is much wiser than we are and they alone can make such decisions, But if they are elected by ignorant incapable men and women, are they not a defective system? Rather than teaching that in order to be a good citizen, you have to obey your government, we need to teach our children, that if you seek public offices, you are accountable to your electorate just as much as they are to you.

The very reason we have multiple branches of government was because the Founding Fathers knew that sometimes, the rights of the majority, would tend to overrule the rights of the minority unjustifiably. You might be the lone voice crying in the wilderness, but that does not mean you are wrong. Stop giving your voice to the government. When they speak for you, they need to be sure they have your support.

If society is corrupt, then the police officers that are drawn from it, are corrupt. A badge does not impart divinity.

Do we really want our government or any other one to have the same authority and power that Hitler had?

"This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
---Adolf Hitler 1935

These same governments, which I quoted, like our US Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights, European governments, the United Nations, etc. that have said we have the right to life, want to take away our right to defend it.

I maintain that if we should not have guns, then neither should the police, government or military, because they come from within our ranks. In the same vein, law enforcement personnel ought to stop lobbying for gun control laws, else they find themselves patrolling the streets with billy clubs and no guns. Look to England for an example.

The United Nations could enforce gun control on us even if we don't sign the treaty, by saying that if laws were considered standard in all other member nations, then it is binding on us too. In 2008, the only two countries that voted against establishing these international norms, were the US and Zimbabwe.

These people try to say that small arms are what are killing people in wars. That is a bunch of malarchy or our government is wasting a lot of money on big guns. We didn't go to Iraq to take hand guns, we went to find 'weopons of mass destruction'. Don't be foolish enough to assume that wars are fueled by small arms trade. They will use small arms if they have to, but the difference between men and boys has always been the size of their toys, and they will work to acquire big guns, as more cost effective.

Proponents of international gun control try to say that there are no laws already in place to deter  gun trade. Yes, there are, people just break them, with the sanction of those same government officials who want to take our gun rights. Iran and Iraq supposedly had weopons laws and treaties, which they broke. Look to the the history of our own government and the Iran-Contra scandal and the more recent problem of the Mexican Drug Cartels using guns that our government gave to them. A Drug-War Plan Goes Awry American citizens didn't do that. Uncle Sam did.

What does Barack Obama support?

  • Endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership in Illinois.
  • Supports gun bans in any city that wants one, including Chicago and Washington, D.C.
  • Wants to totally eliminate the right of concealed carry nationwide.
  • Voted to make it possible to prosecute innocent citizens who use firearms in self-defense.
  • Voted to allow predatory lawsuits intended to bankrupt the firearms industry.
  • Wants to bring back the failed Clinton assault weapons ban, discredited even by Clinton's own supporters.
  • Voted to ban virtually every type of rifle ammunition used for hunting and sport.
  • Supports gun registration for law-abiding gun owners.
  • Refused to sign a friend-of-the-court brief affirming that the Second Amendment refers to an individual right.
  • Served on the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the number one source of funds for anti-gun organizations.
  • Supported a ban on gun stores within five miles of any school or park, which would practically eliminate every gun store in the country.
  • Voted to prevent gun owners from knowing when the state of Illinois ran record searches on them.
  • Supports forcing gun manufacturers to embrace micro-stamping, a financially ruinous and technically absurd farce.
  • Wants to create and enforce mandatory waiting periods, under the assumption that only angry people buy firearms.
  • Supports the ludicrous one-gun-a-month rule on gun sales.
  • Supports banning cheap handguns, which would affect black and poor Americans the most, constituencies he claims to champion.
  • Supports banning police departments from reselling firearms, even if the money raised would help purchase new equipment.
  • Supports mandatory firearms training for all gun owners regardless of the cost or consequences.
  • Supports a ban on gun ownership for anyone under 21 years of age, which would help weaken the American hunting tradition.
So, we have him on record saying that we have the right to self defense so long as we don't use a gun to do it. He supports, taking away states rights, by allowing cities to enact laws that are counter to the state gun laws and enact federal laws that override state laws. We ought to be able to sue gun companies. Hello! Why can't we sue GM if a drunk uses a car to kill someone? He wants to ban hunting ammunition. Again, you have the right to live, but not to eat in order to do it. He is willing to resort to sneaky methods of running gun stores out of business. He wants a police officer to be able to violate your rights and run a background search on you in secret, without cause. That has gotten police officers fired for pulling that little trick, in the state of Ohio. If your children are going to learn to hunt, they will have to use your guns to do it, because he doesn't think they should own their own. Poor people won't be able to legally own guns because he wants to jack the prices up on guns.

Rest assured, someone other than Barack came up with these ideas and he is just the puppet, with someone's hand up his rear, moving his mouth.

The UN Gun laws would make more guns illegal than people think. There are many people who have received guns as part of an inheritance passed down for several generations. These guns were made before there was any such thing as registration. If you don't know much about guns, you may be unaware that some guns that require you to pull the trigger, each and every time, can still use a magazine. Any gun with a magazine is deemed a no-no by the UN. There will also be massively large amounts of money, that have to be spent in order to register your guns, in order to see if you are allowed to keep them.

The Supreme Court made a ruling today that says that parents have the right to decide whether or not their children play certain video games, so why do we not have the right to defend their bodies as well as their minds?

The Declaration of Independence asserts that it is sometimes necessary to disagree with your government and if your government are the only ones with guns, how do you go about that? The very first thing the British Government did, was to try and confiscate all of the Patriots' weopons. They had to hide them down wells and bury them.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.---Thomas Jefferson

Suicide and euthanasia are not as simple as they used to be, thanks to advances in modern medicine. I learned a few years ago, when my grandfather was on life support, that they have medications that literally force your heart to go on beating, indefinitely. If you want to stay off of life support, you better get that in writing, because, if you don't some doctor will be making that call. Their decision will be based on money.

I knew a man who believed in life support, having gone through open heart by-pass surgery, two times in ten years, had the arteries in his neck lower abdomen, and legs replaced by artificial ones and having survived several strokes. He had been on life support many times, only to recover. But when he was in his last days, he wanted to die, and his wife would not allow him to be disconnected from life support, because she said that she did not have the right to decide who lived or died, that only God did. But, I believe that we not only have the right to decide that in certain instances, we have the responsibility. If you believe in God, then he would have been able to maintain the life of the man without life-support, if that were in his divine plan.
Until someone forces me to give up my responsibility to protect my life and those of others, lives that they have a right to, then I will maintain my right to use lethal force to do so.

Forget the Dog, Beware the Owner.

Wednesday, June 1, 2011

The Socialist Takeover Of The Public School System And The Plan To Teach Us To Conform

Although most adults who are aware of and speak out against the not so secret agenda of those behind our government, are often put down as crackpots. I find it highly, interesting and impressive, that so many young people who have yet to graduate, are aware that they are being systematically fed government propoganda. Some of them are making YouTube videos.

If you do not believe that the government is putting it's own spin on history and social lessons, you should watch some of them. They show actual pages from their text books, and share their opinions, which are far more educated and enlightened about what is going on in the world, than their counterparts, in the "adult" world.

As a product of the public school system, I experienced first hand many of the things that these kids are talking about, that are still happening in our school system. I saw kids beaten, not paddled, (although that is inhumane, as well. Picture children being lifted off the ground by the blows.). I saw kids cursed at, shoved into brick walls and lockers. I saw and experienced personally teachers trick kids into voicing their opinions only to have them ridiculed. The purpose of that was to smoke you out and then make an example of the ideas that are uncacceptable.I went to a school in a higher tax bracket, with mostly middle and upper middle class students and teachers.
And 20 years later, I unfortunately had my own children subjected to this same treatment and more.One of my children was beaten by other students and harrassed by both the teachers and principals. I had to seek medical treatment for my child, and when I complained to the principal, he said my child and I were both liars and that it never happened. We invented head and neck injuries. One of my children was abused and when I filed assault charges, I was visited by CPS, who proceeded to accuse me of bruising him and then blaming the teacher/coach. The interesting thing is, the bruises were hidden, with little chance of their being discovered if I had put them on my child. So, why would I go out of my way to draw attention to them? CPS served the function of putting my family back in its place.

There is a concerted effort to take away any belief systems that you might bring with you from home. They do this by overtly teaching you, that, since you are being taught in a more modern school system, you are smarter than your parents. If you are smarter, then you have no reason to respect your parents. Then they make sure you know that it then follows, that since they are smarter than you are, that they are the ones to be respected, i.e. feared.

Parents are not legally permitted to use any sort of corporal punishment on their children, but much more frequently than it is reported, our children are subjected to physical violence at the hands of those who we trust with their safekeeping for 3/4 of their lives(See news reports below). But the most pervasive violence is the attack on their psyches.

Their self esteem is damaged, by being taught that personal rights should be subject to the greater good. If a child is being bullied, they should be able to tell their teacher. Instead, often what happens is that they are accused of being a tattle tale. This is because the schools count on peer pressure to ensure conformity. This is called collectivity.

If two students are talking to or harassing a third student, and the third student speaks, or complains, the third student is often the one who is reprimanded. They get notes sent home saying that they are the ones who are disrupting class. This is because they are the more vulnerable student, and therefore a prime candidate, to be singled out as an example of what not to do. Never, ever speak out, and make sure nobody can see that you are vulnerable. If you question something you are being taught, you are called down and shamed for original thoughts. This is not just something that happens because teachers are human and therefore subject to human nature. This is government policy and has been for many years.

Charlotte Iserbyt, Senior Policy Advisor for the Department of Education, under Reagan, has said that she was trained to look for "resistors" and once they were found, to try to bring them in line with the program. She also took part in what she called "the restructuring of American education as well as Global education." How often do you hear the term, "insubordination" in reference to students?  To be subordinate, you have to be submissive to and controlled by authority. Merriam-Webster Do we really want our children to be punished for not allowing themselves to be controlled by others? I taught my children that the best discipline comes from within, in the form of self-discipline. You should not do the right thing, because you fear punishment, but because it is the right thing, and the benefits of doing the right thing.

Much of our public education system, as it functions today, has the Rockefellers and their associates to thank for it's existence.

They established an organization called the General Education Board, part of the Rockefeller Foundation, and John D. Rockefeller, Sr. donated $1 Million dollars to it, initially, and it then became absorbed into the Slater and Peabody Funds.

Frederick Taylor 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."
Frederick Taylor Gates: "In our dreams, we have limitless resources and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding bands. 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." From one of the Board's Newsletters.

Although, they have learned to hide their agenda, and opinion of the common people, the goals of public education have not changed. In defense of Rockefeller Sr., it is very likely, that he was used by people, who wanted his money to further their ideals. His health went down hill fast, due to the smear campaign against him that was printed in the press and by book authors. If he had been without conscience, he would not have cared what they wrote about him. On the other hand, his son and grandsons, are not so innocent, of maliscious intent toward the American people.

Modern medicine, including, psychology, psychiatry, cancer tretments, drugs and also educational methods, are a result of the fact that his money was almost limitless, and J.D. Rockefeller, Sr. had a desire to enhance his public relations, through philanthropy. The science and morals behind these systems is very dubious.

Psychology and the principals of it, dictate what is taught in the public school system, and is working it's way into private schools and home schooling, through government mandated educational standards.

Schools used to teach children, how to think conceptually, and to give them as broad a range of education as possible so that they might succeed in life. That was the goal of an education. Now, that we have psychology, they use it to make sure we have the beliefs, attitude and therefore behavior that they want us to have. They assure this, by force feeding us the idea, that how we feel, what our attitude is and what we believe in is more important to our happiness. We now concentrate on how we feel, instead of our ability to reason and think. Losing this ability to think, and lessening of our cognitive skills, is why students now score so much lower on standardized tests than they did a generation or two ago.

A definition of the word psychiatry is a good example of how, the system, has gradually been altering our understanding of certain subjects, and therefore, what we believe, and how we feel about them.

Psychology, comes from two root words, "psych" and "ology" which means the study of.

Originally, the word "Psyche" had the following definitions:
1. The spirit or soul
2. The human mind
3. In psychoanalysis, the mind functioning as the center of thought, emotion, and behavior.

"Soul" meant:
1. the spirtitual or immortal elements in a person
2, a person's mental or moral or emotional nature.

Oxford American Dictionary:
1. the study of the mind and how it works
2. mental characteristics, can you understand his psychology?

Concise Oxford Dictionary:
1. a scientific study of the mind and its functions, esp. those affecting behavior in any
given context.

The last one implies a desire to understand how to control behavior.

American Heritage Dictionary:

1. The science that deals with mental processes and behavior
2. The emotional and behavioral characteristics of an individual or group

So we have moved from thinking that the psyche is the soul, to it's being how the mind works, to what causes you to behave the way you do and think what you do.

And in practice, psychiatry treats you by understanding your brain phsiology, chemistry and your genetics. None of those factor in the soul, or the invisible aspect of what makes up a human mind. Because to the scientific and materialistic person, if you cannot see it, it does not exist.

The psychiatric community, has a huge effect on the educational community, which in turn is responsible for writing dictionaries and thereby they have taken away from us the very idea that what makes up the human psyche or mind is intangible.

Psychiatry is actually a business with the purpose and intent to alter your, thoughts, attitudes and therefore, your behavior.

Why do they want to understand how to control our minds and behavior? Because, if they took away your material possessions, your social connections, i.e. family, friends, your ability to support yourself through a job, your physical health, if you lost limbs, you would still have an identity; your mind. Because your mind is intangible, people often associate it with religion, mysticism, and spiritualism, which are also intangible. That is why the first thing they removed from the definition of psychology was any association with the spirit or soul. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV) basically says that there is no separation of mind and body, that the mind is not a separate entity.

"Although this volume is titled the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the term mental disorder unfortunately implies a distinction between "mental" disorders and "physical" disorders that is a reductionistic anachronism of mind/body dualism."\

While I readily admit that there is a definite connection between mind and body, I would ask, why do we have separate words for them, if they are not separate concepts?

Their aim is to remove, creativity, self-determinism(which is otherwise known as freedom),personal responsibility, morality, the ability to reason and a belief in the inherent value of life.

If you take away creativity, you are left with destructiveness. and violence. If you take away moral and personal responsibility, by teaching that it is all just human nature, controlled by biology, then you are left with persons committing all sorts of acts, who feel no remorse. The end result is a lack of social stability, and rampant mental problems.

The public school system is being used for behavioral manipulation instead of feeding the intellect. Instead of opening our minds, we are having our minds shut off and then closed. Think about it, what is your automatic response to the words, yogo, meditation, magic, alternative medicine, spiritualism, prayer?

A German man named, Wilhelm Maximilian Wundt came up with the ideas that were the foundation of modern psychology. He decided that since you couldn't see a human soul, then it had no bearing on psychology, which was to only be concerned with experience. He believed man to have no spirit or self-determinism and he decided to prove that we are summed up by our experiences, and the external stimuli, that effect our conscious and unconscious mind. He took psychology from being a philosophical subject to being a physiological one.
To explain what self-determinism is, you can turn to Merriam Webster, or you can just sum it up as the free will to decide how you will behave.
If we are considered to have no personality,or soul, it negates, your inner thoughts, feelings,ideas, hopes, dreams and your will. We went from, "I think, therefore, I am" to a study of the brain, and the central nervous system. The brain is not the mind.

Our educational system then went from finding out what your natural abilities were by teaching, languages,logic, history, literature, and rhetoric, to exposing a student to meaningful experiences in order to get the desired reaction. 

The belief is that, since we don't have anything but, a brain, a nervous system and our bodies, the only way for us to learn is by having sensations in the nervous system. We learn to have the proper response. The scientific belief is that our environment is the cause of everything, and our behavior is the effect. So, as long as what they do ends in peace and order within society, that's all that matters.

Have you ever seen the Pink Floyd video for The Wall, where the children are peacefully and orderly walking into a meat grinder?

They simultaneously consider you to have no self-determinism, to be without, responsibility for your actions, and hope that they are correct. In order to assure that they are, they try to teach us to be that automaton. They are creating the reality, that they say is the reality.

But to return to the subject of a Rockefeller agenda, the man earlier quoted, Frederick Taylor Gates, became basically John D. Rockefeller's financial advisor. He handled any requests for money, and reinvested his money, and came up with the idea to use philanthropy to get rid of some of his money, and in return gain some better public relations.

"As a thank offering to Almighty God for the preservation of his family and household on the occasion of the destruction by fire of his country home at Pocantico Hills, New York, on the night of Sept. 17, 1902, my Father makes the following pledge:
Understanding that the total indebtedness of Teachers College at the present time amounts to $200,000 in round numbers, which same was incurred partly because of a deficit in last year's running expenses, and partly by reason of certain necessary repairs and alterations; as soon as he shall receive satisfactory evidence that this entire indebtedness had been wiped out my Father will contribute two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) as an endowment for the College.
Furthermore, during a period of two years from that date, my Father will duplicate, dollar for dollar, all contributions in cash made by others toward endowment, up to a total from him of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) ..." J.D. Rockefeller, Jr.

During the same year, a man named Thorndike, wrote, Educational Psychology:The original nature of man. He was later made a full professor and head of the department of educational psychology, at Columbia University'sTeachers College. He also wrote The Psychology of Learning and Individual Differences and Their Causes, the latter being about how, sex, race, ancestry, and training are what make us different. In his Educational Psychology, he refers to education as being a "form of human control."

He refers to the inborn tendencies that we all have and says, "The aim of education is to perpetuate some of them, to eliminate some, and to modify or redirect others. They are perpetuated by providing the stimuli adequate to arouse them and give them excercise, and by associating satisfaction with their action." He says that these inborn tendencies can be eliminated, "by withholding stimuli...or associating discomfort with their action." These tendencies can be "redirected" by "substituting...another response instead of the undesirable one...or attaching the response to another situation...which works less or no harm." He then says that the purpose of education is to use man's original nature against him, "as a means to changing him for the better---to produce in him the information, habits, powers, interests and ideals which are desirable."
In other words, education was to change from making information available to a student, so that they might use it in whatever means, they determined to be beneficial to them personally, into a means of changing our thoughts and behaviors into those that someone else decided was most desirable. And the information made available to us, would be of their choosing.
Also,that year, a man named John Dewey, became a member of the department of philosophy and also education, at Columbia University. A new concept evolved at Columbia called "Progressive Education."
He said that, "education is a process of overcoming natural inclination and substituting in its place habits acquired under external pressure."
Of course his writings color the old system of education as being the one that is repressive, by saying that teachers impose the "lore" that is written in text books upon their students. And he says that progressive education, teaches individuality, and through experience, focusing on the fact that the world is changing and because of that, the information/lore in the old text books is all out of date, and therefore questionable. But then he kind of lets the cat out of the bag by saying, "basing education upon personal experience" actually causes the student to be under the "guidance" of more, rather than less, people.These men at Columbia, were followers of Wundt.

As a direct result of Rockefeller money, Wundt's ideas, began to be taught to aspiring teachers and psychologists, and from there spread like a disease into our school systems.

Another member of the General Education Board, was Abraham Flexner. He had first worked for the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. While Flexner was with the Carnegie Foundation, he had done a study on the possible modernization of medical schools. Within the Rockefeller machine, The General Education Board, he would find the money to put his ideas to work.
Years later, in 1954, a Congressional Committee investigated how these non-profit foundations were effecting Americans. Norman Dodd was the Research Director. In a radio interview he gave in 1977, he said that he found in the archives of the Carnegie Endowment For International Peace the following:
"The only way to maintain control of the population was to obtain control of 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 tandum and that portion of education which could be considered as domestically oriented be taken over by the Rockefeller Foundation and that portion which was oriented to International matters be taken over by the Carnegie Endowment."
He went on to explain that they intended to change the way history was taught. 
"They decided that the success of this program lay in the alteration in the manner in which American history was to be presented.They then approached four of the then most prominent historians--such as Mary and Charles Beard--with the suggestion that they alter the manner in which they were accustomed to presenting the subject. They [were] turned down they decide they [had] to build a coterie of historians of their own selection." This resulted in the Guggenheim Foundation, which endowed fellowships on professors, picked out by the Carnegie Endowment, and instructed on what to teach and how to teach it.These first 20 professors became the American Historical Association. 
Not surprisingly, in 1928, the American Historial Association published a study that said the "future of this country belongs to collectivism and humanism."

Flexner, is responsible for the cessation of Greek and Latin being taught in public schools. He did not remove literature and history, but completely changed the method of teaching them.
Flexner had gone to Europe and particularly Germany, to observe how hospitals and medical facilities were run there, and what was taught. He became a big proponent of the German method. He was given millions of dollars on behalf of Johns Hopkins University, and through it began to develop the chemical driven modern medicine we have, to the detriment of homeopathic and alternative medicine. The General Education Board has given millions more to medical schools that further it's agenda, of discounting, homeopathic medicine, chiropractics, and other alternative medicine in favor or surgery and chemicals. One of the not so great results of this partnership between Rockefeller money, John's Hopkins, and the General Education Board, was the development of Ritalin, to treat problem children.

Every time the Rockefellers donate money to something it comes back three fold. For instance, with this drug/chemical oriented medical system, they profit because many of the key ingredients of this medicine comes from petroleum by products. John D. Rockefeller, Sr.'s father sold raw petroleum as a cure for cancer, and even listed himself as a physician in the city directory.

Under the younger Rockefellers, petroleum was marketed as a cure for constipation and it was called Nujol. It was discovered that Nujol caused the body to be robbed of fat soluble vitamins, which caused serious diseases. So rather than take it off the market, they added carotene to replace the fat soluble vitamins. The same company that made Nujol, made Flit, a fly killer and insecticide from the very same petroleum products. Thus began our merry go round ride of taking a pill to cure one disease, and another to counter the first pill. Eventually, psychiatry, backed by Rockefeller money, began to push drugs, manufactured by companies controlled by Rockefeller money.

Psychiatry convinces us of the illness, and creates the market for the drugs.

Flexner established a school called the Lincoln School, which was eventually moved to be close to the Columbia Teachers College, and paid for by the General Education Board. It was an experimental school, used to develop methods of teaching and textbooks, that fit in with their agenda. It is ironic and amusing to note that John D. Rockefeller, Jr. sent four of his sons to this school and both Laurence and Nelson have been quoted saying that they cannot read as well as they should, Nelson adding that he has to force himself to do it.

Having used the Rockefeller machine to gain control of the education system, they now have our children at a time when their attitudes are being formed. They control the ideas of this generation and those of future generations. It is not a coincidence that they put the emphasis on socializing students instead of educating them. Socialism is their end goal.

If you do not believe that socialism is the intent of these founders of the education system, take it from John Dewey's own words.

"All that society has accomplished for itself is put, through the agency of the school, at the disposal of its future members. All its better thoughts of itself it hopes to realize through the new possibilities thus opened to its future self. Here individualism and socialism are at one."

Watch some of these news stories about kids being abused, tasered, and etc. A few are put up by students themselves, but others are news reports.


The Leipzig connection: the systematic destruction of American Education
Paolo Lionni, Lance J. Klass - 1980

Pavlov's Children: A Study of Performance-Outcome-Based Education by Ann Wilson

Why Johnny Can't Read: And What You Can Do About It by Rudolph Flesch

Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling, John Taylor Gatto - 2002

Dumbing Down Our Kids: Why America's Children Feel Good About Themselves but Can't Read, Write, or Add  By Charles J. Sykes

Educational Psychology: The original nature of man

 By Edward Lee Thorndike

The school and society

By John Dewey
Experience And Education, By John Dewey

No matter how he tried,
He could not break free.
And the worms ate into his brain.