Showing posts with label Rockefeller Foundation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rockefeller Foundation. Show all posts

Thursday, August 30, 2012

Does It Matter If You Are Pro-Life Or Pro-Choice?


I have been seeing about an equal amount of posts that are Pro-Choice and Pro-Life on my FaceBook wall. And the Presidential candidates have made it an issue by tying it to the issue of rape. But it really matters not in this country which side you are on, because you don't get to make the decision. There is no such thing as Pro-Choice in this country, and there damn sure isn't a policy of Pro-Life in our government, because it doesn't value life.

Way back in the 1960's the Rockefeller Foundation started working towards the development and implementation of an "Anti-fertility Vaccine." By 1972, the World Health Organization and the UN were working with them, and the program had been given a more politically correct name "Fertility Reduction Vaccine." They had a task force, the Task Force on Immunological Methods for Fertility Regulation. They were studying the large scale manufacture and administration of this type of vaccine at low cost.

"In 1972 the Organization...expanded its programme of research in human reproduction to provide an international focus for an intensified effort to improve existing methods of fertility regulation, to develop new methods and to assist national authorities in devising the best ways of providing them on a continued basis. The programme is closely integrated with other WHO research on the delivery of family planning care by health services, which in turn feeds into WHO's technical assistance programme to governments at the service level."(http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/77164?uid=3739704&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101157334641)(http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/77164?uid=3739704&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101157334641http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/77164?uid=3739704&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101157334641

As you can see from the following report at the NIH, they have decided that since hormonal methods of rendering men infertile don't work too well, they intend to use chemical methods.(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2490936/pdf/bullwho00079-0002.pdfhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2490936/pdf/bullwho00079-0002.pdf ) This report also shows that the Rockefeller Foundation is funding this research.

Please do not be naive enough to believe that people as rich as the Rockefeller's have any truly altruistic reason for caring how many children you have. They just want to make sure that there are less of us, so there is more for them.

The study at the above link says that the chemical gossypol that they researched caused menstrual disorders in women, so if it caused these problems for women, it would logically follow that just because it caused male infertility, it isn't healthy. In fact it caused neurological problems. So they decided to experiment on Chinese people with it, and decided that if the dose was low enough it wouldn't hurt you and was reversible. Really?

If you read my other posts on eugenics, you will soon learn that organizations like Planned Parenthood are not as benign and helpful as you are led by the nose to believe. They were established by eugenicists prior to WWI and their main purpose is NOT to allow women to have the right to choose whether or not to get pregnant or to have an abortion once she becomes pregnant. Their true purpose is to control and ultimately to stop the birth of whomever they determine to be undesirable.

To point out what may not be obvious, the very fact that they are calling this a vaccine, shows that they are going to be messing with peoples immune systems in order to cause infertility. You might not get pregnant, but at what cost to your health? They don't care if you suffer and die early. So much the better, because there will be one less mouth feeding off the resources they want to hoard.

“Because of the genetic diversity of human populations”, states the document, “immune responses to vaccines often show marked differences from one individual to another in terms of magnitude and duration. These differences may be partly or even completely overcome with appropriately engineered FRVs (Fertility Regulating Vaccines) and by improvements in our understanding of what is required to develop and control the immune response elicited by different vaccines.”

“A new approach to fertility regulation is the development of vaccines directed against human substances required for reproduction. Potential candidates for immunological interference include reproductive hormones, ovum and sperm antigens, and antigens derived from embryonic or fetal tissue.(…). An antifertility vaccine must be capable of safely and effectively inhibiting a human substance, which would need somehow to be rendered antigenic. A fertility-regulating vaccine, moreover, would have to produce and sustain effective immunity in at least 95% of the vaccinated population, a level of protection rarely achieved even with the most successful viral and bacterial vaccines. But while these challenges looked insuperable just a few years ago, recent advances in biotechnology- particularly in the fields of molecular biology, genetic engineering and monoclonal antibody production- are bringing antifertility vaccines into the realm of the feasible.”

I found the fact that they mentioned using fetal and embryonic cells very interesting, because it has recently become public knowledge that they are putting fetal cells in our food.(http://whqlibdoc.who.int/bulletin/1987/Vol65-No6/bulletin_1987_65(6)_779-783.pdfhttp://whqlibdoc.who.int/bulletin/1987/Vol65-No6/bulletin_1987_65(6)_779-783.pdf )(http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/1993/WHO_HRP_WHO_93.1.pdfhttp://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/1993/WHO_HRP_WHO_93.1.pdf )

As a person who suffers from an autoimmune disorder, I can't help but feel very angry and betrayed by my government for allowing this experimentation. They have obviously been experimenting with better vaccine delivery systems and more effective ones for years now so that they can tell us we need all these new vaccines for new and old diseases, and as an added benefit to them, you and your children will be infertile. I fail to see how that is Pro-Choice.

It's something to think about the next time you get into a Pro-Choice argument with someone or the next time you and your family get in line to get your vaccinations.

In addition to the Rockefeller Foundation, the Bill and Malinda Gates Foundation has a BIG hand in population control around the world. One of their latest projects is research and development of nano-particles that could be administered to you without your knowledge to render you infertile by introducing foreign DNA into your body. (http://www.infowars.com/bill-gates-funds-covert-vaccine-nanotechnology/(http://www.infowars.com/bill-gates-funds-covert-vaccine-nanotechnology/http://www.infowars.com/bill-gates-funds-covert-vaccine-nanotechnology/ )

The Gates Foundation has proudly been partnering with other organizations to force people at gunpoint to be vaccinated in Malawi.(http://www.faceofmalawi.com/2011/07/131-children-vaccinated-at-gunpoint-in-malawi/(http://www.faceofmalawi.com/2011/07/131-children-vaccinated-at-gunpoint-in-malawi/)(http://www.gatesfoundation.org/maternalnewbornandchildhealth/Pages/melinda-french-gates-malawi-slideshow.aspxhttp://www.gatesfoundation.org/maternalnewbornandchildhealth/Pages/melinda-french-gates-malawi-slideshow.aspx)

While they pretend to be philanthropic, it is obvious that they are talking out both sides of their mouths, just in the fact that they have 2 opposite agendas: reducing childhood death and population control. The two things are really not compatible because if you want to control population, you don't really value ALL human life. The following excerpt from one of Bill Gates' statements shows that what he is truly after is controlling the consumption of resources and stability, which is a nice way of saying control of the peoples of the world through government.
" then you would have all the tools to reduce childhood death, reduce population growth, and everything -- the stability, the environment -- benefits from that."(http://edition.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/02/03/gupta.gates.vaccines.world.health/http://edition.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/02/03/gupta.gates.vaccines.world.health/ )

The Gates Foundation is also sponsoring anti-vaccine surveillance and alert systems. http://jonrappoportmedia.blogspot.com/2012/08/gates-foundation-awards-17-million-to.htmlhttp://jonrappoportmedia.blogspot.com/2012/08/gates-foundation-awards-17-million-to.html
With regard to vaccines in general and the way people are being manipulated, the Council on Foreign Relations actually felt that it would be a good idea to make think people think there was a shortage of the H1N1 vaccine so that people who were resistant to getting it would get it because they were afraid they might not be able to change their minds later, and because if everyone else was rushing to get it, it must be a good idea.(http://www.cfr.org/health-and-disease/session-council-foreign-relations-symposium-pandemic-influenza-science-economics-foreign-policy/p20442(http://www.cfr.org/health-and-disease/session-council-foreign-relations-symposium-pandemic-influenza-science-economics-foreign-policy/p20442 )

“I think what would work better would be to say that there was a shortage and people tend to buy more of something that’s in demand. (Laughter.) We saw that — there was one season where, really, people lined up all night to get a flu shot.” Simonsen says, much to the amusement of the other attendees at the symposium."

In an article at infowars.com, a very valid point was made in reference to a statement made by Andrew Jack about the people who were hesitant to take the vaccine.

"“I’m not sure that we’re countering these people very well.” Jack concludes before suggesting that the CFR put out soundbites about there being more mercury in a Tuna sandwich than in the H1N1 vaccine in order to convince “the crazy people” that it is safe.

The fact is however, you do not directly inject a tuna sandwich into your bloodstream. Is it more likely that a two fold increase in autism over the last six years is directly related to thimerosal in vaccines or to tuna sandwiches?"(http://www.infowars.com/cfr-recording-suggests-creating-false-scarcity-to-drive-up-demand-for-h1n1-vaccine/(http://www.infowars.com/cfr-recording-suggests-creating-false-scarcity-to-drive-up-demand-for-h1n1-vaccine/ )


In my other posts on eugenics, I have shown that there are people in this country, in the UN and around the world who believe that if you are not of the elite, you shouldn't be having children. And one of President Obama's own advisers believes that if you happen to be Pro-Life, or just choose to have your baby and you are unmarried, that it automatically makes you an unfit mother, and your child should be taken away from you and put into foster care. That's almost funny when you are familiar with the circumstances of Barach Obama's childhood. But wait, he's a wealthy, successful, politician, so it's different.

What it all boils down to is this: You do not have the final say-so on your fertility, unless you happen to be one of the power elite in this country.


Wednesday, June 27, 2012

The History and Practice of Eugenics, PT. 8

The History and Practice of Eugenics


So what kind of things are going on now during President Obama's administration?

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel was the chair of the Department of Bioethics at the US Institutes of Health. Bioethics is basically euthanasia education. Now he is working for President Barach Obama and is seen as being responsible for the "death council" that has made the list of medical practices that will deny care to the elderly, chronically ill, and poor. Ezekiel's brother is Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel.

In 1953, The American Eugenics Society joined Rockefeller funded Population Council. Daniel Callahan was given a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation in 1668-1969 to found the Hastings Center in Garrison, NY. The Hastings Center is a bioethics center, Theodore Dobzhansky, geneticist and evolutionary biologists, was a founding director of the Hastings Center and was also chairman of the American Eugenics Society. And Daniel Callahan was a director of the Eugenics Society. Ezekiel Emanuel is a Hastings Center fellow, and so is his wife Linda Emanuel. Ezekiel Emanuel's deputy director of the Federal Department of Bioethics, Christine Grady, is also a Hastings fellow and director of the Hastings Center.

Dr. Emanuel wrote a book in 2008 called Healthcare, Guaranteed. In he he advocated a National Health Board to oversee and cut healthcare and to approve all payments and procedures. "To reduce political interference and allow the necessary tough choices to be made. But he believes this board should not have any pressure from elected officials, Congress or the President, and that they should be funded independently from Congressional appropriations. Basically, this board would be autonomous and would not have to answer even to Congress and they would be getting their money from rich backers and we the voters would be at their mercy.

Senator Tom Daschle was at one time the pick to be basically a health czar for Obama. He too, wrote a book in 2008, called Critical: What We Can Do About the Healthcare crisis. He feels that anyone who signs up for Medicare should have to sign a document that says to what degree they consent to be killed in an end of life situation.

You can read some of the papers written by him here: http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS0140673609601379.pdfhttp://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS0140673609601379.pdf
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_Deliberative_Democracy_Meet.pdfhttp://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_Deliberative_Democracy_Meet.pdf

He advocates prioritizing adolescents and young adults as far as healthcare goes, at the expense of the very young and the very old. He says that adolescents have had a lot of education and parental care invested in them whereas infants haven't got much invested in them yet. So adolescents if not saved would be a waste of that investment. He is talking about a hypothetical healthcare emergency, but the problem is, it's not so hypothetical. We could easily find ourselves in some sort of pandemic, and what he is saying is that people between the ages of 15 and 40 would get medical treatment before anyone else. While he says this shouldn't be based on their economic background, it would quickly degenerate to just that. Because he also says that "instrumental value" could also be used as criteria for deciding who gets an organ or a vaccine. This means someone is going to be deciding how useful you are to society.

In the second paper, he says that people who have dementia or children with learning disabilities, should not have basic healthcare guaranteed to them, because they are irreversibly prevented from becoming participating citizens. But healthcare should be guarantee healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation of citizens in public deliberation. Again, the more valuable you are deemed to be to society, the more likely you will be to get medical care, so that you continue to be valuable to society.

President Obama also has a man named John Holdren working for him. He is referred to as his Science Czar, because he is his senior advisor on science and technology, because he is Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Director of White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and he co-chairs the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

Before going to work for the Obama administration, he was director of Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program at Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, and Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at Harvard as well. He also served as Director of the Woods Hole Research Center.

His was trained in aeronautics, astronautics and plasma physics. He focused his energies on environmental change, and energy technologies and policies, how to reduce dangers from nuclear weapons, and science and technology policy. So his whole life has been dedicated to changing our national policies with regard to science. He also served on President Bill Clinton's President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

He testified before Congress during his confirmation hearing that he doesn't believe that the .government should have a role in population control and that he never supported forces sterilization.

But he has written, " if the population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come." He believes that we should lower our population increase below replacement because, "210 million now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many." He co-authored a textbook titled, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, with Paul R. Ehrlich, and Anne H. Ehrlich. In this book they cover family planning, enforced population control, forced sterilization after a predesignated number of children, birth control and abortion. They call these things possible options that could be implemented. They suggest the idea of putting drugs into the drinking water to cause sterilization. They feel that teen and single mothers should have their children taken from them and given away to others to raise. Rather than calling people degenerate or unfit, they refer to them as people who, "contribute to social deterioration" and say that they "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility."And he is in support of a One World Government. He called for a "Planetary Regime" that would take control of the economy of the world and government in general, and the method of doing this would be an international police force.

After his and the Ehrlich's book laid the groundwork by saying that it is a fact that we are overpopulated, on pg. 837 of Ecoscience, it says this: "Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society." By using phrases like "it has been concluded" he avoids taking responsibility for making the conclusion, probably so that he would meet with less criticism and was therefore able to testify in Congress that he had not supported forced sterilization.

Page 786 is the source that says children should be taken away from single mothers. "one way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption--especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society."

Now given that it has basically been the agenda of the elite for the last 100 years or better to undermine the traditional family, by encouraging a relaxation of morals that resulted in more children being born to single mothers, and through women's liberation, encouraging women to think that fathers are not necessary, and they are now condemning women for having children out of wedlock, they are basically showing the ultimate aim; to make as many children as possible wards of the state. This would result in easily indoctrinated and trained drone type citizens for the future world they are working diligently towards. While doing away with the legal bonds between mother and child or father and child or man and woman, they have forgotten to factor in the emotional bonds that were provided by nature. Children are irrevocably changed by being wrenched from their mothers' arms, and the mothers themselves are devastated, often in a way that they never recover from. But they want us to be robotic machines, so they convince themselves that we already are beneath feeling human emotion, in order to absolve themselves of any responsibility toward human decency and kindness.

By proposing enforced abortions, he is effectively going to the opposite extreme from anti abortion. Because he is taking away choice, just for a different reason. And his reason has nothing to do with any consideration for the sanctity of life. There is anti abortion at one extreme, pro choice in the middle and enforced abortion at the opposite end of the spectrum. Both extremes take away choice. Anti abortion supporters want to protect the rights of the unborn child. Those for enforced abortion take away both the rights of the child and the rights of the mother by forcing a medical procedure upon her. Even if a woman supported abortion, it would be horribly traumatic to be forced to undergo one. And no surgery is without the risk of complication and death.

He discusses involuntary fertility control on page 786-7, "A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men. The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and remove when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births."

When this book was written, in 1977, we didn't have those implants, but we do now, in the form of Norplant; and when they first came on the market, the first women they were marketed to were young teen black women. Baltimore was the first city to begin offering Norplant in their high schools in 1993. And it was implemented without adequate testing. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-08-27/news/1993239014_1_norplant-clinic-public-schoolRight after it came on the market in 1991, judges and legislators started trying to mandate its use. Some states began telling women that were convicted of child abuse or drug use during pregnancy, that they either got the implant or went to jail. Some of the bills that were introduced in some states offered financial incentive to women to get them to have the implants inserted. What that means is that if they wanted to receive public assistants, which they might need for the survival of their family, they would have to get the implant. The ACLU holds that forcing women to get these implants violates a basic constitutional right to reproductive autonomy and bodily integrity by interfering with the decision of whether or when to bear children and by forcing a medical procedure upon them, because they are not in a position to reject it.

The ACLU says that these policies are based on the notion that low income women have children indiscriminately. But according to their figures, in 1990 just before Norplant came on the market, low income families had 1.9 children, which was no larger a family than those who were better off financially. They also bring up the point, that Norplant would stop a woman from conceiving, but not stop her from using drugs or abusing her children, so really does not address the problem. I am of the opinion that what they state the problem is, is just their public spin on their real aim, which is finding legal excuses to sterilize women. The ACLU also says these laws discriminate against women, because men are not punished for drug abuse or child abuse by being forced to have vasectomies. They also say straight out that the fact that low income women and especially women of color are targeted by this type of sentencing, is overt racism and eugenics. (http://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/norplant-new-contraceptive-potential-abusehttp://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/norplant-new-contraceptive-potential-abuse

On page 787-8, he discusses adding drugs to the water supply to sterilize people. "Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock." There is no mention of whether or not it poses any moral questions. And animals seem to be more important than humans.

Page 838 of Holdren's book says that people who cause social deterioration, should be sterilized. "If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility- just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource consumption patterns- providing they are not denied equal protection."

If you could understand his argument on the basis of degeneracy, you still can't possibly agree that having more children than some would like makes you a degenerate. He is reverting back to the eugenics term "degeneracy" but he is broadening the definition to include someone who chooses to have a large family as degenerate. Implying that people wouldn't be denied equal protection under the law is meant to show that he wouldn't be racist in determining who had to be sterilized. That just means that they wouldn't just be limited to race in their ability to determine who has to be sterilized. They just need to show that you are degenerate, which would be relative to the person making the determination. They need to make that distinction about "equal protection under the law" because there has already been a Supreme Court case, Skinner vs. Oklahoma, that determined that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment prohibited state sanctioned sterilization being applied unequally to certain types of people. It's hard to do away with a Supreme Court decision, it is easier to maneuver around one by giving the appearance that you are not being racist in your decisions.

On page 838, he suggests that if the law can tell you how many spouses to have it should be able to tell you how many children to have. "In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?"

You might wonder if he has trouble understanding the constitution or something. But the fact is, he would like to do away with the government we have and establish a One World Government. He thinks the UN should be able to make the decisions on population and on how all the world's resources are used. This effectively does away with US sovereignty, and makes constitutionality a mute point."Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international super-agency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.

The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits."(page 942-3) Food, commerce on the oceans, because they are a source of resources, and all of the economy that is based on our resources, would then be under the control of the "Regime."

In case he wasn't clear enough there that he wants to do away with our sovereignty, on page 917, he says it straight out. "If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization."

When the book was published in 1977, he said we had to stop overpopulation by the year 2000. It must get his gall to know that he didn't quite meet his goal. And it probably makes him even more fanatical in his desperation to see his plans implemented. "Humanity cannot afford to muddle through the rest of the twentieth century; the risks are too great, and the stakes are too high. This may be the last opportunity to choose our own and our descendants' destiny. Failing to choose or making the wrong choices may lead to catastrophe. But it must never be forgotten that the right choices could lead to a much better world." (page 944)

You can look up the book yourself. I have given citations. If you think that John Holdren didn't himself say the things in the book, ask yourself, if he doesn't agree with the ideas within the book, then why did he allow his name to be put on the book? Why are the acknowledgments in the book to people at Berkeley, where he worked and to his wife? Ecoscience is not the only book he has written though. He has written other on his own. You can go to Google books and look them up. The Obama administration tried to do a spin on him, by issuing a press statement to the Washington Times, that said that the book was "a three-decade-old, three-author college textbook. Dr. Holdren addressed this issue during his confirmation when he said he does not believe that determining optimal population is a proper role of government. Dr. Holdren is not and never has been an advocate for policies of forced sterilization." I won't cut him any slack for the book being old, if he felt these things strongly enough to make sure they were being taught in a text book, and he has changed his mind, he should feel strongly enough about his supposed new opinion to see that it is taught from text books. And he should hold himself highly responsible for any student who was influenced by his older opinion.

His co-author Ehrlich said that the book was an encyclopedia and that these things were descriptions and not necessarily endorsements of the things that were defined in the book.

Which thing do you give more weight to, an opinion that they felt strongly enough to put in print and leave in print so that people could be taught from, or Holdren's reply when asked whether he believed the government should determine optimal population, "No, Senator,I do not." Has he written a book titled, No Senator I Do Not? If he thinks his earlier opinion was wrong, he should correct that wrong, and it should have taken precedence over a job on the Obama Administration.

Their more recent statements make as much sense as a child pornographer putting out a movie that depicts deviant behavior and then saying they don't endorse the behavior, but just thought people ought to be aware that it was an option.

Another point to be made is this, if John Holdren is not eugenicist in philosophy, then why does he consider Harrison Brown to be more or less his hero? H has said that Harrison Brown's book, The Challenge of Man's Future changed his personal philosophy and was the impetus for him making a career in science and population policy. Harrison Brown was a eugenicist. In 1986, John Holdren edited and co-wrote a book about Harrison Brown titled, Earth and the Human Future" Essays in Honor of Harrison Brown. I would think that if he worked on a book to honor Brown, then he must honor him.


Interestingly, his comments in the book on Brown, prove my point. "Harrison Brown’s most remarkable book, The Challenge of Man’s Future, was published more than three decades ago. By the time I read it as a high school student a few years later, the book had been widely acclaimed. … The Challenge of Man’s Future pulled these interests together for me in a way that transformed my thinking about the world and about the sort of career I wanted to pursue. I have always suspected that I am not the only member of my generation whose aspirations and subsequent career were changed by this book of Harrison Brown’s. … As a demonstration of the power of (and necessity for) an interdisciplinary approach to global problems, the book was a tour de force. … Thirty years after Harrison Brown elaborated these positions, it remains difficult to improve on them as a coherent depiction of the perils and challenges we face. Brown’s accomplishment in writing The Challenge of Man’s Future, of course, was not simply the construction of this sweeping schema for understanding the human predicament; more remarkable was (and is) the combination of logic, thoroughness, clarity, and force with which he marshalled data and argumentation on every element of the problem and on their interconnections. It is a book, in short, that should have reshaped permanently the perceptions of all serious analysts."

He straight out says, that reading a book transformed his thinking and that he believed that the book changed the aspirations and career choices of not just him, but many others of his generation. Now he can't claim that his book might not have had the very same effect of people who read it. And so, he is responsible for it. The book by Harrison Brown that Holdren praises so highly calls for the sterilization and birth control of the degenerate and feeble-minded.
" The feeble-minded, the morons, the dull and backward, and the lower-than-average persons in our society are out-breeding the superior ones at the present time. … Is there anything that can be done to prevent the long-range degeneration of human stock? Unfortunately, at the present time there is little, other than to prevent breeding in persons who present glaring deficiencies clearly dangerous to society and which are known to be of a hereditary nature. Thus we could sterilize or in other ways discourage the mating of the feeble-minded. We could go further and systematically attempt to prune from society, by prohibiting them from breeding, persons suffering from serious inheritable forms of physical defects, such as congenital deafness, dumbness, blindness, or absence of limbs. … A broad eugenics program would have to be formulated which would aid in the establishment of policies that would encourage able and healthy persons to have several offspring and discourage the unfit from breeding at excessive rates."

His co-author Ehrlich said that people should read some of their other books if they wanted to know what they believe in. I guess he was right. This book sure seems to make it clear.

The most bizarre thing about this whole issue of eugenics and Obama care is that people always thinks that if they support the government it will never turn on them. The Emmanuels, Rahm and Ezekiel are Israeli born Jews. And I read somewhere, that they have a sister born with cerebral palsy. How does a Jew support eugenics? They think it will be the other guy that is sterilized, that's how. There were Jewish scientists that worked for the Nazis too.

As a society, we have to make some decisions. They have been claiming for 150 years that the world was on the brink of a disaster because of overpopulation, and that the more valuable elements of human society were going to be extinct because they were being out bred by those deemed degenerate. So far, we haven't had this predicted catastrophe. So the first decision we have to make is whether or not they are right that the world as a whole, really is overpopulated.

If, and that is a big if, you believe it is, then the next thing we have to decide is whether or not we want people in positions of power who believe that the only thing that can stop overpopulation is the use of totalitarian government force.

Or you can decide to go for social reform and education policies. These would be designed to get people to voluntarily comply with birth control measures. In 3rd world countries where population is said to be leveling off, it is believed that better standards of living and better education are responsible. But there is a hidden danger here; education and social reform have been the method consistently used to push the very same communist/socialist agenda that was implemented by force in China, the Soviet Union and other places. Just the very suggestion that social reform and education needs to be used, smacks of people saying, "get them to decide to do it for themselves, because it is easier than pointing a gun at them, for all concerned." It indicates that we are being brain washed to believe that overpopulation exists, when it really doesn't.

So is there any evidence that that is true? How about the fact that China, which was supposedly so severely overpopulated, now has another type of crisis on it's hands. They are expected to have as many as 24 million men than women between now and 2020. The Pulitzer Center reports that it will lead to a population of life-long bachelors the size of Texas by 2020. Again governments and scientist forgot to factor in the human element. Even though it is against the law for Chinese couples to do genetic testing to see if the child is male or female, it is still routinely done in rural clinics. Some rural villages are so disproportionately male that they are called "bachelor villages." This results in other social problems, like women being sold by their families in poor regions. Because women are scarce, they have become a commodity. It has been predicted that a marriage economy could develop due to the trend of families building up large savings in order to attract women to marry their sons. And lower class families could seek upper class husbands so they could raise the status of the family. And some people predict that sexually frustrated men in such large numbers could lead to social unrest.
http://pulitzercenter.org/projects/china-population-women-bachelor-marriagehttp://pulitzercenter.org/projects/china-population-women-bachelor-marriage

If the ACLU feels, as I do that forced abortions and sterilization in a violation of constitutional rights, which are equivalent to human rights, in the US, then they are a violation in China. The system in China is so oppressive that one women takes her life every three seconds there.

Last month, May 16, 2012, CNS News reported a story about Chinese human rights activist, Chai Ling testified during a House Foreign Affairs Subcommitteeon Chen Guangcheng, the blind Chinese activist, who fled to the US Embassy iin Beijing. He was imprisoned by China because he was fighting for human rights for women.

Chai Ling told the story of a woman named Deng Lourong. She was the second of 3 girls. Her parents wanted a boy bad enough that they violated the one-child policy. Chinese officials tore down their home and took all their belongings.

The mother and father both fled, and left the three girls with their grandmother. The grandmother was subsequently imprisoned. The girls had no one to be their guardian, and Lourong was raped at the age of 12. Because this happened, her grandmother was released to take care of them but died soon afterward. The man who raped Deng Lourong one served five days for it.

Deng Lourong was sold as a child bride three years later, and her sisters were sold by traffickers and no one can find them. The man who Deng Lourong had to marry, prostitutes her out to bachelors, and as a result she is mentally ill. (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/human-rights-activist-woman-takes-her-life-every-three-seconds-china)

Even if you believe we are overpopulated, should we do things that result in even greater harm to mankind? I think not. The ends never justifies the means.



In 2009 Ruth Bader Ginsburg made the comment that, "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.
That sounds rather elitist, but she then went on to say, "The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman." That sounds like she believes women should make the choice, but do the two comments taken together mean she thinks that poor women or whatever she was referring to as "populations we don't want goo many of" should be encouraged to make that choice?


At the time the interview was taken, Obama's pick for a new Justice was Sonia Sotomayor.

Her detractors have pointed out that she is a racist. While making a speech at a gathering of La Raza Law Journal, she said, “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences … our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. … I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”   

You could interpret that to mean that since she is from a minority race and a woman, which is often another minority, that she would be doubly compassionate in her decisions, because she had been in their shoes. But you have to consider the circumstances the statement was made under. La Raza, means "The Race." If some white lawyers had a Law Journal and called it "The Race," it would be considered arrogant at best, and racist at worst. The point is, in our world and in our country, racism and reverse racism, happens in all walks of life, and everyone thinks they are justified in it, and that they will personally should never be the victim of it, and everyone else can fend for themselves.

On December 25, 2010, the NY Times reported that Obama's healthcare plan would pay doctors who encouraged or advised patients on options for end of life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life sustaining treatment. When this stuff came up before Republicans like Sarah Palin said that the government was going to use the healthcare bill to cut off care for the critically ill. Obama denied it saying that they weren't going "to cut off grandma's life support." But the final version of the bill that President Obama signed, has Medicare coverage of "voluntary advance care planning," to discuss end of life treatment, as part of the annual visit. Doctors can provide information to patients on how to prepare an advance healthcare directive. I really don't understand what's to cover. They have been making those little pamphlets that explain the whole procedure to people for years, and you can download and print one off the internet. Unless they mean they will cover the cost of printing those up, there's nothing to cover. So what it appears to really mean is that they will pay doctors and nurses for their time explaining and encouraging old people to get one set up. When someone feels bad and someone in a white coat comes at them with a bunch of pressure to make a decision, they could easily fall victim to what they perceive as a person of authority. Older persons can have trouble making decisions on a good day and sometimes need more time than a younger person to think over the pros and cons of something and work it out in their mind what they are going to do. But doctors could easily get them to agree to something like a DNR order right there on the spot, especially with a financial incentive. There is nothing in the bill that says doctors are not permitted to get an older person to make up their mind. One of the things doctors have to explain is that Medicare pays for hospice care. And basically, that is keeping a patient comfortable until they die, but no medical intervention. Who are the persons or organizations on the list of helpful resources that doctors are to tell their patients about? They might give you the address for the Hemlock Society or something.

As messed up as that seems, if you don't have something in writing, the doctors get to make the decisions rather than you and your family. I chose personally to get a Medical Power of Attorney. In my state that is the better way to go. But the states around me use the advance healthcare directives. When you go to the hospital for the slightest thing, they want to know if you have one, and they frown if you tell them you have a medical power of attorney. But that is a much better way of handling your wishes and it is what is required in my state anyway. I imagine that if you don't take care of things yourself, you could be encouraged to do all sorts of things by the doctors providing the information to you. With a Medical Power of Attorney, someone you trust is making decisions when you can't. You just do not want some doctor or doctors doing that for you, when a situation not described in an advance directive or living will comes up. When I had mine made up, no one was paid to influence me. I told my lawyer what I wanted and asked if that was legal, he said yes, and made up the paperwork which was signed and notarized.

Whether or not the end of life counseling will result in the government forcing death on people, there are other aspects of the bill that do. In July 2014, there will be an Independent Payment Advisory Board that decides how much Medicare gets reduced by if it goes over the limits of annual growth rate stipulated by the Obama administration. There is a set amount of money that can be spent for Medicare every year, and after that this board gets to decide who gets what.

I can't find the actual London Times story, but there are websites and blogs all over the internet, that say that in May 2009 they covered a story saying that , Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, Ted Turner, David Rockefeller, Warren Buffet, George Soros, and Michael Bloomberg, met at the New York home of Sir Paul Nurse, a Nobel Prize winning biochemist and President of Rockefeller University.

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss population reduction. A quote from Patricia Stonsifer, who formerly headed the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, said that these people would continue to meet over the next few months. They were supposed to be discussing population issues as a possible environmental, social and industrial threat. http://www.wnd.com/2009/05/99105/http://www.wnd.com/2009/05/99105/
I did manage to find an article on Market Watch at the Walls Street Journal on the meeting.http://articles.marketwatch.com/2009-09-29/commentary/30802021_1_global-warming-collapse-bomb

Let's address the opinions, policies and actions of some of these people. In a CNN interview March 5, 2010, Bill Gates said that child deaths and sicknesses are not the only benefits of vaccinations. And population control is another benefit of vaccinations.

The $800 million dollars that his and Melinda's foundation gives yearly for global health is almost as much as the UN WHO annual budget and is close to the amount that the US Agency for International Development spends to fight infectious disease. He pays 17% of the world budget for eradicating polio. In 2005 his foundation gave the Global Alliance for Vaccines and immunization $750 million dollars. He gave $27 million to the Children's Vaccine Program, which is run by the Program for Appropriate Technology in Health in2003. This was supposed to vaccinate against Japanese encephalitis. This vaccine reportedly causes sterility. They gave the University of Washington Department of Global Health, $30 million to found the department. They have given $287 million to HIV/AIDS research. They gave $280 million to Aeras Global TB Vaccine Foundation. In 2012 he pledged $10 billion to provide vaccinations to children world wide.

During a speech that he gave at the TED conference in Long Beach California in 2010 he said that vaccinations, healthcare, reproductive health systems, could lower the population caused use of Co2 by 15 percent. Reproductive health systems means abortions and birth control. He also recommended reporting every birth by cell phone. Vaccines will be the key. If you could register every birth on a cell phone—get fingerprints, get a location—then you could [set up] systems to make sure the immunizations happen.” He thinks that in rural areas of the world, cell phones would be instrumental in insuring that people get vaccinations and take their TB medicines. “Malaria and TB are going to be the first things where you say, ‘Wow, without this mobile application, all these people would have died."
I guess now we are going to have an app for that. He told the audience that there is "no such thing as a healthy high population growth country." "If you are healthy, you are low population growth." He has a weird idea that if parents have healthy children, then within five years, they will decide to have less children, and that is the basis for his push for vaccinations. OR so he says. He thinks that robots are the next big thing in healthcare. He suggested that C-sections are routine, so a robot could perform them. Having had a C-section, I cannot imagine how surreal it would be to be drugged up and have a robot cut into your body from your belly button to your pubic bone and extract the life that you have carried an nurtured for nine months. It makes my incision scar hurt to think about it. Let's change the subject.

The Bill and Malinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation (David Rockefeller) created GMO biotechnology, and are financing The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa(AGRA). Former UN chief, Kofi Annan heads it. It's board has people from both foundations on it.

The Rockefeller Brothers' Fund and George Soros sponsor the Center for American Progress, which cooperates with Common Purpose. As I pointed out earlier, the Rockefeller Foundation, as well as the Ford and New World Foundations fund the Hastings Center. I won't get into what all it does here but the Rockefeller's are tied to the Council on Foreign Relations.

The film maker Aaron Russo was friends with Nick Rockefeller and told Alex Jones that he said the Rockefeller's bankrolled women's liberation because half of the population wasn't being taxed and if they entered the work force they would be. And their children would have to enter the public school system earlier, which would make it easier to indoctrinate them to accept the state as their primary family. Their aim was to break up the traditional family model. He also said that Rockefeller talked about the need for people to be ruled or controlled by the elite, and one of the ways of doing this was through population control. Population needed to be reduced by half. He also said that Rockefeller wanted people implanted with a chip to control their brain. This idea comes from trans humanism and post humanism. They think technologies could be used to create simultaneously better humans and more easily controlled humans.

This video will give you a little more visual understanding of what I am trying to get across. I found it after I finished writing this. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2615496775977574586http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2615496775977574586

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:
Psychology
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 flat...so 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.



Sources:

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.