NEW WORLD ORDER
PART ONE
EDUCATION
We’re going to talk about education today. Many parents have become dismayed to realize that children who have not memorized the ABC’s through the old-fashioned drill have difficulty in using a dictionary or a telephone book without haphazardly paging through. They don’t know that “M” comes after “L” and before “N,” etc. Well, what’s wrong? What is it that’s wrong? The group idea is the nucleus of the progressive system. No child is permitted to forge ahead of another; this would hurt the group. Promotions become automatic. Nobody is left behind for poor work; this would disrupt the group. Grading, and graded report cards, are frowned upon. Grading promote competition. Competition breeds rivalry and encourages students to excel and rise above the group. When competition is not permitted, children get the idea that personal excellence and trying to get ahead is not worthwhile. It’s all part of the New World Order movement.
Why do so many people in this country act in a way that says “me first, me only”? Whatever is good for me at the moment in the present situation is okay. Where did we learn that stuff? In school. You see, we’re taught that there are no absolutes. And I know that sounds like it doesn’t relate, but that’s the founding principal. There are no absolutes. The only absolute is that there are no absolutes. Everything changes, except one thing: The fact that everything changes.
How do we come to the conclusion and practice of consensus as the best way to decide things? How? Because there are no absolutes. Whatever governs the moment is what we use. And my moment being somewhat different than your moment, or their moment, we have to come together and decide on a moment in order to make things work. How do we come by the concept that – and you’ve heard people say this – “everybody does it, it’s all right, it’s not going to hurt anything.” The ideologies set forth in our educational system sound very good on the surface, just like all the U.N. treaties. Now, they sound good on the surface, but when you get down to implementing them and finding out the results down the road of this education, this type of education, Progressive Education, you’ll find the loss of not only freedom, but knowledge and spiritual development.
Phyllis Schafly, remember her? She calls it the dumbing down of America.
Why are the kids of America so dumb? Why hasn’t our educational system, of the greatest country in the world in history, hasn’t progressed and made our kids smarter over these decades? Why does the government, from city to county to state to federal, always push for educational programs? Why has there been no let-up in the cry that our students aren’t doing as well as they should on our standardized tests? Why is the cry always going up to beef up our educational system? Because what we’re teaching the kids isn’t worth a damn, that’s why! They come away knowing nothing except how to get along with the group.
As we go through some of these things that I’m talking about today, I want you to just look around and see if these things aren’t already in practice. Isn’t this how we live? Isn’t this what’s happening in our world? And it all started with a guy named John Dewey. Progressive Education.”
This book I’m reading from today is called None Dare Call It Treason, by John A. Stormer. It’s one of those works that exposes who controls our lives and how. Now I’ve heard for many years about John Dewey and his Progressive Education and being at the heart of what’s really wrong with society today. And I’ve had this book for four or five years, and I just dug it out and glanced through it the other day. I’d never really read it before. And here’s a whole chapter on education. And lo and behold, it’s all about Dewey and all the stuff that he has put forward.
“America is reaping the consequences of destruction of traditional education by the Dewey-Kilpatrick experimentalist philosophy. Dewey’s ideas have led to the elimination of many academic subjects on the ground that they would not be useful in life. The student thus receives neither intellectual training nor the factual knowledge which will help him understand the world he lives in or to make well-reasoned decisions in his private life or as a reasonable citizen.” Admiral Hyman Rickover said that, and that was in 1959. Remember him? He was the father of the nuclear submarine.
None Dare Call It Treason, by John A Stormer, was written in 1964. Eight years before None Dare Call It Conspiracy, which is another really good book you should read. And it’s all about the elite. But first we have to talk about Dewey.
“Who was this man, Dewey, who is so roundly criticized by the renowned Hyman Rickover, father of the nuclear submarine? John Dewey was an educational philosopher. His experimental philosophies of education were first tried in a model school at the University of Chicago before 1900. They were dismal failures. Children learned nothing. Undismayed, Dewey left Chicago in 1904 and went to Teachers College Columbia University – now, remember that name. It’s the hotbed, the seed bed of all that’s wrong with our education today. Columbia University Teachers College – where he became the dominant figure and the most influential man in American education. His influence can be measured by the realization that under Dewey’s guidance, fully 20 percent of all American school superintendents – one out of every five school superintendents in the country – and 40 percent of all Teachers College heads received advanced degrees at Columbia.” They all went through his system. Forty percent! What are the teachers going to teach but what they were taught? A kid in kindergarten, what does he know? He doesn’t know anything. The teachers bring it right down from Dewey. “They adopted Dewey’s experimental theories, which came to be known as Progressive Education.” They better not call it something else. They call it Progressive, and then it’s worthwhile. “Progressive Education in the schools of the nation.
“Under the pretext of improving teaching methods, they changed what was taught to the American children. What did Dewey believe? In his writing and teaching, Dewey rejected fixed moral laws and eternal truths and principles. He adopted pragmatic, relativistic concepts as his guiding philosophy. Denying God, he held to the Marxist concept, that man is without a soul or free will. Man is a biological organism completely molded by his environment. Dewey believed that because man’s environment is constantly changing, man also changes constantly. Therefore, Dewey concluded, teaching children any of the absolutes of morals, government or ethics was a waste of time. On this moral philosophy, amoral philosophy, he developed his teaching formula, commonly labeled Progressive Education. Dewey published a thing called My Pedagogic Creed in 1897, and in it he saw the destruction – listen to this – the destruction of the child’s individualistic traits as the primary goal of education.” Gee, I thought it was to learn how to read! “Once this was accomplished, the youngster would conform or adjust to whatever society in which he found himself. Ability to ‘get along with the group’ became the prime measuring stick of the child’s educational progress “– if you want to call that progress. Do you see how that means life by consensus?
“Taken to a logical conclusion, Dewey’s theory would have the child who finds himself in the company of thieves become a thief also. The tendency to justify immoral and unethical conduct by rationalizing that everybody does it is rooted in Dewey’s teaching. Dewey summarized his theories this way: ‘Education, therefore, is a process for living and not a preparation for future living.’ Dewey laid the foundation for the future ‘destruction of traditional education’ described by Admiral Rickover when he said, ‘We violate the child’s nature and render difficult the best ethical results by introducing the child too abruptly to a number of special studies, of reading, writing, geography, etc., out of relation to his social life. The true center of correlation of the school’s subjects is not science, literature, nor history, nor geography, but the child’s own social activities.’ Hmmm. Could have fooled me!
“Strict acceptance of Dewey’s theories would eliminate teaching world geography unless the child can take a trip around the world. History would be eliminated from the curriculum because it is past and will not be relived by the student. In practice, Dewey’s theories, as modified by his disciples – see, he didn’t do all of this; the guys he taught did other stuff too, and all the way down until today, they’re still doing it – have eliminated the teaching of strict rules of grammar. The student learns grammar by ‘living, talking with the group, or by reading literature.’ Old-fashioned drill in spelling? The ABCs, penmanship, multiplication tables and other basics have been de-emphasized in favor of learn by doing. Or depending on the degree to which Progressive Education methods are carried, learn by doing can mean learn not at all.
“Rosalie Gordon, author of the widely circulated What’s Happened to Our Schools?, said of Progressive Education: ‘The progressive system has reached all the way down to the lowest grades to prepare the children of America for their role as the collectivists of the future.’ That’s another name for socialist, you know, or communist, if you will. ‘The group, not the individual child, is the quintessence of Progressivism. The child must always be made to feel part of the group. He must indulge in group thinking, in group activity.’ She explains Dewey’s obsession with the group and group activity by saying this: ‘You can’t make socialists out of individualists.’ Dewey was a socialist. At the climax of his career in 1950 he became honorary national chairman of the American counterpart of the British Fabian Society. It was called the League for Industrial Democracy.”
Now we’re going to stop here and go back and find out about this Fabian Society. You might have heard of the CFR and the Trilateral Commission. But this society over in England called the Fabian Society, it’s very likely you’ve never heard of them.
“Following Marx’s death in 1883, his theories were made a world force by two developments. They were the rise of the Fabian Society in England and Lenin’s Bolshevik movement. In 1884 a small group of English intellectuals formed the Fabian Society. It was their goal to establish the same classless, Godless, socialistic, one-world society envisioned by Marx. I’m going to repeat that. It was their goal to establish the same classless, Godless, socialistic, one-world society envisioned by Marx. Leadership of the group was assumed by Beatrice and Sidney Webb and the Irish author and playwright, George Bernard Shaw. Shaw described himself as a communist but differed with Marx over how the revolution would be accomplished and by whom. He spelled out these differences in 1901 in his work called Who I Am and What I Think when he wrote this: ‘Marx’s Kapital is not a treatise on socialism; it is a gerrymand against the bourgeoisie. It was supposed to be written for the working class, but the working man respects the bourgeoisie and wants to be a bourgeoisie. Marx never got a hold of him for a moment. It was the revolting sons of the bourgeoisie itself, like myself, that painted the flag red. The middle and upper classes are the revolutionary element in society. The proletariat is the conservative element.’ That’s the end of what Shaw said.
“On this basis, Shaw and the Fabians worked for world revolution not through an uprising of the workers, but through indoctrination of young scholars. The Fabians believed that eventually those intellectual revolutionaries would acquire power and influence in the official and unofficial opinion-making and power-wielding agencies of the world”-- like the CFR. The Council on Foreign Relations isn’t a government agency. And they dictate all our foreign policy and have for decades. The Federal Reserve is not a federal agency, but they dictate our monetary policies and have since the turn of the century.
“Then after establishing control of these organizations they would quietly establish a socialistic one-world order. Webb formulated the highly successful method that these future rulers would use to change the world. He called it the doctrine of inevitability of gradualness. Inevitability of gradualness.” It’s the boiling frog. You turn up the heat so, so slowly, then he boils to death and doesn’t realize it; he doesn’t jump out of the water. “ In practice, it has meant slow, piecemeal changes in existing concepts of law, morality, government, economics and education. Each change is so gradual that the masses never awaken in time to stop the inevitable.
“Shaw, in the preface to a 1908 edition of Fabian essays, stated the goal, which was this: To make it as easy and matter-of-course for the ordinary Englishman to be a socialist as to be a liberal or a conservative.” England is practically all socialist now. They have socialized medicine, and they’ve been at it for years.
“Shaw, in his work – and this is really good; women, take notice here! – Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism, he explained what life would be like once the New Order was established.” Now this is exactly what the elite rationale is, okay? The elite rationale is that they’re going to do us a lot of real good. They’re going to make the world a better place for us to live in. They’re going to rule the thing, but they’re going to make it better for us. Well, this is how they do it. Now, he’s only talking to women, but this is the overall mindset of these people anyway.
“I also made it clear that socialism means equality of income or nothing, and that under socialism you [women] would not be allowed to be poor.” Now if you stop there, that might work okay, but he doesn’t stop there; he goes on to tell you how that would be implemented. “You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught and employed, whether you liked it or not.” I didn’t say this, he did! “If it were discovered that you had not the character or industry enough to be worth all this trouble – see, they’re going through a lot of trouble to make it nice for us – if you were not of the character or industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner. But whilst you were permitted to live, you would have to live well.” Come on!! That’s the whole elite statement right there. That’s the end of the quote.
“The Fabian socialists rejected all suggestions that they form a political movement on their own. They planned to spread their influence by penetrating existing educational institutions, political parties and civil service, etc. As a starting point, the Webbs established the London School of Economics – that name will come up again, just like Columbia University will come up again. London School of Economics. Today it is world renowned as a branch of the University of London. Its influence has been spread around the world by such faculty, students and supporters as Harold Laskey, Bertrand Russell, Joseph Schumpeter, John Maynard Keynes – you know who he is, that big economist – H.G. Wells, Nehru of India – for those of you who are old enough to remember him.
“When the British Labor Party came to power in 1924, Fabian leader Ramsay MacDonald was Prime Minister. Fabian founder Sidney Webb – remember him and his wife – Sidney Webb was Minister of Labor. When the party regained power in 1929, MacDonald was again Prime Minister, and twenty Fabians held high positions. Eight of them served in the cabinet.” Notice that they were content to spend 40 years – after the inception of this Fabian Society – they were content to spend 40 years to take control of Britain.
Fabianism in America
“The seeds of Fabianism were planted in the United States before the start of the 20th century. Leading English universities exchanged professors, scholars and writings with top American colleges. Sidney Webb himself, the founder, came to America in 1888.” Again, this has been going on a long, long time here. 1888, that’s over a hundred years ago. “The following year his Socialism in England was circulated at Harvard and other schools by the American Economic Association.” Remember that name, American Economic Association. “By 1905, American Fabians had formed the Rand School – you know the name of Rand, the Rand Foundation, the Rand Corporation – the Rand School of Social Science in New York and incorporated the Intercollegiate Socialist Society. Within three years, chapters of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society were formed in Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, New York University, and the University of Pennsylvania.” They were doing their job, boy! They were doing their job!
“Early adherents to this socialist movement in America included such later-day leaders as John Dewey; that’s who we are going to talk about a lot, education. Walter Raushenbush, theology; Walter Lippman, government and press; and Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter.” They’ve even got the Supreme Court Justices in on this.
The New Social Order
Yeah, we’re ready for a New Social Order, folks.
“While at Columbia University, Dewey gathered about himself a group of young educationalists who called themselves Frontier Thinkers. In the forefront of this group were Dr. George Counts, Professor of Education, and Dr. Harold Rugg. Known as the “Hard Progressivists,” they were to have a measurable and lasting effect on the nation’s schools. While Dewey’s theories had been concerned chiefly with teaching methods, Counts and Rugg added the concept of using the schools as an instrument for “building a new social order.” Counts was the director of research for a 17-volume study of American education produced by the American Historical Association.” Keep that name in the front of your head, too. And here’s the telling sentence: “Financed by the Red Cross – no, not the Red Cross! – by the Carnegie Corporation – Carnegie Steel? – the Counts-directed study was to serve as the authoritative guide for revamping the philosophy and concept of American education. The final volume, issued in 1934, contained the recommendations of the five-year project of which the following was typical: ‘One recommendation was to cumulative evidence supports the conclusion that the United States, as in other countries (propaganda), the age of individualism and laissez-faire (freedom of authority) in economy and government is closing.’” Oh, yeah? Just because we say so? Probably. “‘And a new age of collectivism is emerging.’ Of the Counts-directed study, the British socialist, Harold Laskey, writing in The New Republic said – and this is one of their own guys saying this now; this is out of their own mouth: ‘At the bottom, and stripped of its carefully neutral phrases’ – carefully neutral phrases? – ‘the report is an educational program for a socialist America.’ “ See that? I mean, you’ve got to remember that a lot of this was happening a long time ago. In 1934 socialism wasn’t the big bad word for everybody. It’s a big bad word today, but we don’t hear very much about the socialists. That’s why.
“Laskey is an authoritative commentator. He later became the head of the British Fabian Society. Counts’ hatred of free American economic and political traditions and his socialist goals were stated openly in a paper that he presented to the Dewey-founded Progressive Education Association in Baltimore, Maryland in February 1932. Counts said this: ‘Historic capitalism with its deification of the principle of selfishness, its reliance upon the forces of competition, its placing of property above human rights, and its exaltation of the profit motive, will either have to be displaced altogether or so radically changed in form and spirit that its identity will be completely lost.’” We’re going to have to get rid of that stuff. No more capitalism. We’ve got to do something different.
“Dr. Counts made it clear the changes he envisioned would result in ‘a coordinated, planned and socialized economy.’” Hmmm, that’s what we need. See, if you went to the principal of your kids’ school and asked him what they were doing, and he said, oh, well, what we’re doing is we’re doing a coordinated, planned and socialized economy here. We’re teaching the kids to be socialists. What would you do? Would you find another school?
“Accomplishing such a drastic remaking of America would involve many changes. Counts admitted that. He said, ‘Changes in our economic system will of course require changes in our ideals.’ Starting to get down to a little bit now. “ Counts saw no wrong in abandoning even the traditional concepts of morality to achieve his goals. He pointed out in his book, The Soviet Challenge to America, that even in Russia, ‘new principles of right and wrong are being forged.’ Yeah, right isn’t right any more; wrong isn’t wrong any more. This is right, this is wrong. We’re going to change that! You know, I thought right and wrong were absolutes. I mean, something is either right, or it’s not!
“Counts’ obsession with achieving a socialized planned economy and the methods that he was apparently willing to accept to realize it were written – but see, he wrote the foreword of his translation from Russian to English of the ‘New Russia Primer’ by Messieur Ilin, a Communist textbook for junior high school students. Counts did a translation of this thing, and then he wrote the foreword.
Here’s some of the stuff he said in the foreword: ‘A single glance at the contents of the book convinced me that here was a document of rare quality. Practically every page carried a work of genius. It presents the major provision for a five-year plan’ – the Russian five-year plan; maybe some of you remember that term – ‘with extraordinary clarity and charm. But perhaps most important, it reveals the temper of the revolutionary movement [the Communist revolutionary movement] and the large human goals toward which it was consciously building. Counts’ praise for the Communist program could hardly have been more glowing. Very few of even the most dedicated apologists for the Soviet Union would publicly find the goals of the Soviet Communist state to be ‘human,’ but Counts continued.: ‘Mr. Ilin has shown by example how textbooks might be written. In this competition, however, Mr. Ilin has certain clear advantages. The revolutionary struggle has placed in his hands some very powerful aids. This translation is designed to acquaint adults, teachers and educators with a phase of the Russian experiment which, in the long run, may prove to be far more important than those sensational aspects of the revolutionary struggle which are emphasized in both the Daily Press and even more serious publications.’
“Well, the sensational aspects of the revolutionary struggle that he talks about, that he found unimportant, include the murder of millions of Russians, who resisted the state planning and control of every aspect of their lives. Although not a Communist, Counts’ tolerance for Soviet murder was like that of most Fabian Socialists, a product of his admiration for state planning. This ‘end’ justified for Counts, and many other advocates of planning, the murderous means used in Russia to bring it about.
“The Frontier Thinkers – remember them? – the intellectuals grouped around Dewey at Columbia – they moved in two directions. They rewrote the textbooks and they gained prestige of the largest professional teachers organization by capturing the top jobs and control of the National Educational Association. At the 72nd annual meeting of the NEA in Washington, D.C. in July 1934, Dr. Willard Givens, then a California school superintendent, in a report entitled Education for the New America, said this: ‘We are convinced that we stand today on the verge of a great culture. But to achieve these things, many drastic changes must be made. A dying laissez-faire’ – more propaganda here, dying laissez-faire – it’s not dying because he says so – ‘must be completely destroyed, and all of us, including the owners, must be subjected to a large degree of social control.’ There, get out the whip! “A year after delivering this call for the destruction of free enterprise and individual freedom, laissez-faire, Givens was named executive secretary of the NEA, a position he held for 17 years, until he retired in 1952.
“Meanwhile, another of the Frontier Thinkers, that Dr. Harold Rugg, he continued the job of indoctrinating teachers and preparing teachers’ materials designed to ‘influence the social attitudes, ideals and behavior of coming generations.’ In his book, The Great Technology, written for teachers in 1933, Rugg said this: ‘A new public mind is to be created. How? Only by creating tens of millions of new individual minds and welding them into a new social mind. Old stereotypes must be broken up, and new ‘climates of opinion’ formed in the neighborhoods of America.’
“What climate of opinion would Rugg create? On page 171 of his book he says this: ‘We know now that a large and growing group of middlemen and manipulators of sales, money, investment and credit have interjected themselves into our economic system. Most of them, however, are exploiters. The postulate follows that the economic system can be operated efficiently and humanely only by the elimination, re-education and assignment to productive work of the parasitical members of this group of middlemen.’ Clearly, Rugg was proposing the destruction of the small businessman and complete government control of every citizen’s life and employment. Later in his book he defined how the schools were to be used to transform the American political and economic institutions to create the public mind, which would accept complete government control of the individual. ‘Through the schools of the world, we shall disseminate a new conception of government, one that will embrace all of the collective activities of men, one that will postulate the need for scientific control and operation of economic activities in the interests of all the people!” Sich heil!!!! Sich heil!!!
“Note that Rugg did not say a new type of government, but a new conception of government. See, Rugg proposed that this could be accomplished in three ways. ‘First and foremost, the development of a new philosophy of life and education, which will be fully appropriate to the new social order. Secondly, the building of an adequate plan for the production of a new race of educational workers.’ You’ve got to indoctrinate the teachers. ‘Third, making the new activities and materials for the curriculum.’ So we make up the ideas, we pass them along to the teachers, and we give them the materials to work with. Sure, that makes a lot of sense. And it was in the area of new materials, textbooks and teaching aids that Rugg achieved his greatest influence.
“In a work called The Conclusions and Recommendations of the American Historical Association, a 17-volume report on education, of which Counts, remember, was the research director, provided the opening. It proposed to consolidate the traditional subjects of history, geography, sociology, economics, political science, etc., into one composite subject-- something that you had in school--social studies. Social studies! The idea was widely adopted. Completely new textbooks were needed.” Who wrote those textbooks? Rugg! “All traditional presentations of subject matter were scrapped and a variety of economic, political, historical, sociological and geographical data was lumped into one textbook.” And here’s the rub with that. “With such a conglomeration of material in one book, the deletion or the slanting of a presentation of key events or basic truths and facts and theories, is not so evident.” Oh, well, the American Indians, they weren’t real people anyway, and they deserved to die. “ Five million school children ‘learned’ American political and economic history and structure in the 1930s from 14 social studies textbooks that Rugg authored. He also produced the corresponding teachers’ guides, course outlines, and student workbooks.”
We’re going to continue with the education part next time, but before we go on, I want to establish some firm ties to all this educational hocus pocus. You see, the movers and shakers, Dewey, Kilpatrick, Counts, Rugg, and all those guys, they didn’t have the money to finance such expensive and protracted campaigns to change our society. Where did that money come from then? “From where has the money come to build and finance the vast collectivist underground which reaches its tentacles into education, churches, labor and the press? Amazingly, the fortunes of America’s most successful tycoons dedicated by them to the good of mankind had been redirected to finance the socialization of the United States. Two special Congressional committees exposed the extent to which tax-exempt foundations – tax exempt, see! They don’t even have to pay any taxes! – which the tax-exempt foundations are using their resources for un-American and subversive activity. One of those committees was chaired by Congressman Carol Reese, Republican from Tennessee. Investigations proved incontrovertibly that money of American capitalists – Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Gugenheim, etc. – has largely financed those working for the establishment of a New World Order. The Reese Committee acknowledged the magnificent service rendered by the foundations in medicine, public health and science. However, large sums have been wrongly committed to ‘changing society.’
“A handful of foundation executives reluctantly acknowledged this misdirection. Here’s one example. Raymond B. Fosdick, in a work called The Story of the Rockefeller Foundations, quoted the Reverend Frederick T. Gates, long-time advisor to the foundation, and John D. Rockefeller himself, and this is what he said: ‘If I have any regret, it is that the charter of the Rockefeller Foundation did not confine its work strictly to national and international medicine, health and its appointments. Insofar as the disbursements of the Rockefeller-incorporated philanthropies have been rigidly confined to those two fields [medicine and public health], they have been almost universally commended at home and abroad. Where they have inadvertently [propaganda word] transgressed these limits, they have been widely and in some particulars not unfairly condemned.’ Inadvertently? Ha ha! Oh, we didn’t know we were giving the money to Counts for this big 17-volume work. We did that? Oh, gosh!
“How have foundation grants been used to accelerate social tendencies? Here are some of the ways uncovered by the Reese Committee: Aggregate contributions of over $4 million were made by six American foundations to the London School of Economics.” Do you remember the London School of Economics? The Fabian Society’s organization? It became part of the government of England? “ Beatrice and Sidney Webb? This is still a quote here: ‘Beatrice and Sidney Webb founded the school as an international headquarters and intellectual center for the Fabian centralist movement.’ Foundation grants made possible the writing and publication of anti-American, anti-free enterprise books and texts.
Here’s more about that study: “The Carnegie Corporation financed the writing and publication of ‘The Proper Study of Mankind written by Stuart Chase’ – I thought this was going to be Counts – this is something else that they did, right? The Proper Study of Mankind, well, that sounds pretty good – ‘written by Stuart Chase, the book praised the Communist agents, Harry Dexter White and Lockwood Curry, and outlined the ‘ideal society in which an individual is suppressed.’ Over 50,000 copies of this book were distributed by the Carnegie Foundation to libraries and scholars. One of Chase’s earlier books recommended that profit making be punished by firing squads.” Oh, you think maybe that doesn’t sound right? No, it sounds exactly right. It’s their own people saying, we’ve got to get rid of this profit making thing. It’s what I call elite 180-ism. They’ve been doing this for years. They get on the other side of the fence and they rant and rail against themselves. How many times during elections have you heard about going against the special interests? The earlier elections that I was involved in always had Wall Street, we’ve got to curb Wall Street. The guys who were ranting and raving against Wall Street are the guys who are paying the bills, so that they can get their own guys elected anyway! That’s what they do!
“When advised of these facts, and of Chase’s record of support for more than 20 Communist front causes, Dr. Charles Dollard, president of the Carnegie Corporation, defended the selection of Chase to author the book. In a statement filed with the Reese Committee, Dollard said that Chase was ‘an extremely able author.’ Oh, well, that made it okay! He wants to turn America into a socialist country, but he’s a good writer so it’s okay if he does it. “The Carnegie Corporation made continuing grants to the Communist-fronting Professor Robert A. Brady to finance a study and ultimately a book, Business As a System of Power. The book’s theme, as stated in the foreword, was this: Capitalistic economic power constitutes a direct, continuous and fundamental threat to the whole structure of democratic authority everywhere and always. The movement to socialize America via education discussed earlier was largely financed by foundation funds. The Reese Committee found this: The Rockefeller and Carnegie Funds provided the financing for the radical movement in education led by Counts, Dewey, Kilpatrick and Rugg. Direct grants were made to the National Education Association, Progressive Education Association, American Historical Association, and the center of revolutionary movement, Teachers College, Columbia University.” This is a Congressional study that came to this conclusion, folks, not me! Not some author, not this John Stormer, who wrote the book. The Congressional Investigation did this.
We talked about this before: “In a 17-volume study in American education directed by Dr. George Counts, termed later by the British Fabian leader Harold Laskey as ‘an educational program for a socialist America’ – remember that? – was financed by a $340,000 grant from Carnegie. Foundation grants have financed the gigantic program of revising textbooks to serve socialist ends. For example – this is again the Reese Committee – ‘The Rockefeller Foundation provided over $50,000 to finance the Building America textbook series. The California Senate’s Investigating Committee on Education condemned these texts for playing up Marxism and destroying traditional concepts of American government. The California State’s Senate Committee determined that 113 Communist front organizations contributed material to the Rockefeller-financed Building America series. Works of over 50 Communist front authors were included. Beatrice and Sidney Webb, founders with George Bernard Shaw of the British Fabian Society, were among the authors. One of the writers renounced his American citizenship to become Ambassador to the United Nations from Communist Poland. Broadly promoted for years by the National Education Association, the textbook series was still used in a number of states in 1954.” I mean, if you’re 50 years old, you probably studied out of those books.
“In its final report the Reese Committee observed this: It would be interesting to aggregate the total funds poured by the foundations into the dissemination of leftist propaganda and compare it with the trickle which flowed into the exposition of the fallacies and frailties of collectivism.” And if you follow the money, you find the same people behind the U.N. They start it, they finance it, they control it, the U.N. The group. The group! The only good to come out of any socialist frame is to those who are in charge of the group. Not the group; those in charge. It’s the elimination of all competition to those in power; that’s what it is. They get to run things, while we do the work. Or die, as George Bernard Shaw said! You’ll be disposed of in a kindly manner. You’ll live right or well, or die!
For more recent developments in the educational frame, at least, please go to Phyllis Schlafly’s site. It’s called eagleforum.org. She’s been collecting information on the American under-education for years.
The most insidious aspect of today’s education, and its founding principles that there are no absolutes, is the negation of the only real thing that can ground our lives.
We’re destined to live lives of fear, stress and self-protectionism unless we acknowledge that God is real, He’s Absolute, and so is His unfailing faithfulness to keep His word.
New World Order Index
I love mail. 
Come Home