Additional Titles

 

 

 

 

 

Other
Yates
Articles:

Coming Soon

 

 

 

"TAKING THE RED PILL"
THE REAL MATRIX, PART 5

 

 

 

By Steven Yates
December 7, 2004
NewsWithViews.com

The super-elite had two long-term goals. One we have covered at some length: that of gradually taking the West toward a socialist world government, whether by creating an Anglo-American empire or through the UN.

The other, a necessary flipside of the first goal, was social engineering, to create a population that would accept world government—either because they embraced or had even learned to love the idea or because they didn’t care. We saw strong hints of this in our account of the hijacking of the mainstream media and academic disciplines like history. But now our focus must be broadened to middle America generally—the ordinary people working at ordinary jobs and attempting to raise ordinary families. For the social engineering project to work, its targets must learn as little as possible about the principles guiding our original Constitutional republic. They must have been educated—or, rather, trained—not to think, just to follow orders. They must be conditioned for an existence permeated by dependency of various sorts. And they must be continually distracted, so as never to be motivated to put two and two together and get four.

In other words, a “real matrix” had to be constructed around middle America, quietly, quietly. Or as the idea was expressed openly at Carnegie Endowment facilities: “We must control education in the United States.” Centralization, of course, makes control easier. It is far easier to impose policy or a single line of thought on a centralized, top-down educational system than it is to impose it on hundreds of privately owned, independent schools and autonomous districts. The government school system was perfect for what the super-elite wanted.

The Founding Fathers simply assumed that education would not be a function of the federal government. The Constitution does not mention education. The Founding Fathers themselves were privately educated. It is clear, also, from such events as the publication of the Federalist Papers in the major New York newspaper of the time, or from the literature that was published and sold well at the time (e.g., James Fenimore Cooper’s difficult, philosophically dense novels) that early generations of Americans had a command of language and intellect that is superior to today’s masses.

Government schools got their start in the 1840s, when Horace Mann returned from Prussia bearing news of an amazing school system. The Prussian system was also rooted in Hegelian thought. Hegel had believed we lived in a universe of Absolute Reason that would be expressed politically as the Absolute State—the exact opposite of the limited government the Founding Fathers had established. In the Prussian system children were educated not for intellectual accomplishment but for obedience to the state. The word kindergarten is, in fact, Prussian. It suggests growing children, as in a garden (which may recall that disturbing scene in The Matrix where, under the malevolent supervision of AI machines, humans “are no longer born, we are grown”).

Massachusetts, Mann’s home state, bought into the idea, and became the first state (in 1852) to enact a compulsory attendance law. Government schools did not catch on right away. A number of theologians (R.L. Dabney is an example) warned of their dangers. But very slowly, the American population began to accept them. Compulsory education laws were passed in one state after another. Numerous state constitutions (including my own state of South Carolina) adopted planks committing state governments to financing government school systems. The consolidation and centralization of education had begun.

The super-elite watched all this with great interest. They saw, in government schools, a path to a controlled population—a population of “sheeple.” The earliest incarnation of what would become the Rockefeller Foundation, before the turn of the century, began with the meeting between John D. Rockefeller Sr. and one Frederick Taylor Gates. Rockefeller Sr. had begun giving money to a variety of causes, many of them very worthwhile. He had bankrolled the University of Chicago, for example. Gates had ideas of his own about how to use Rockefeller money. He would lead Rockefeller’s eldest son, John D. Rockefeller Jr., into an interest in education that would lead to the founding of the General Education Board in 1902. In his Occasional Letter No. 1, a publication of the General Education Board, Gates penned the following chilling two paragraphs:

In our dreams, we have limitless resources and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. 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 on the farm.

Concealed within these words is a goal of social control—via a system of education that stresses vocationalism at the expense of challenging students cognitively or intellectually. This system would eventually transform government schools into laboratories of social engineering in order to produce “sheeple” who would neither know nor care about, much less challenge, the goal of socialist world government.

John Dewey was the lynchpin figure here. Dewey had doubtless come to the attention of the Round Table Groups very early. A youthful psychology professor at the University of Chicago, he had studied the new “experimental psychology” under G. Stanley Hall, who in turn had been the first American student of the German philosopher-psychologist Wilhelm Wundt, who had begun the “experimental psychology” movement at the University of Leipzig in the 1870s. Wundt’s school promoted a militant empiricism: nothing counted for science except what could be directly observed in the laboratory. Since thoughts, free will, the soul, etc., could not be observed, it was pointless to theorize about them. “Experimental psychology”—the parent of behaviorism—eliminated them in favor of ideas bound to interest would-be social engineers. Children were organic stimulus-response machines. Human beings, in this materialist view, are exclusively products of their environment. Change the environment and you produce a new human being. A whole new way of “educating” seemed about to open up.

Dewey’s progressive education picked up where “experimental psychology” left off. For Dewey—schooled in both Hegelian and Marxist thought as well as Wundtian psychology—the purpose of education is not to communicate knowledge and the accumulated wisdom of our civilization, or to offer children intellectual challenges, but to adjust them to a “changing” society. To the progressive educators, even basic literacy was a mere option and not a necessity. Dewey wrote that “it is one of the great mistakes of education to make reading and writing constitute the bulk of the school work for the first two years.”

Essentially, under progressive educators government schools mounted a systematic attack on children’s minds as those of unique individuals. Dewey also wrote:

The mere absorbing of facts and truths is so exclusively individual an affair that it tends very naturally to pass into selfishness. There is no obvious social motive for the acquirement of mere learning, there is no clear social gain in success thereat.

So education became socialization, the adjustment of the individual to the group and the adoption of the idea that truth equals consensus—which invariably bows to the authority of the strongest personality in the group (or operating behind the scenes).

What developed was an educational system where what mattered was the group, which takes priority over the individual. We encountered the term in passing above: collectivism, the philosophy at the heart of every form of socialism (and, in fairness, much of “capitalism” as it currently exists). Whether the individual learns anything beyond what is needed to adjust to the group and serve the interests of the state and the corporations is, in this view, irrelevant. Funded by Rockefeller dollars via the General Education Board, Dewey took up residence at the newly created Columbia State Teacher’s College at Columbia University in New York City, where he was able to surround himself with the “best and the brightest” of progressive educators.

The trajectory American education pursued after this has been well charted. The story is far too long and involved to tell here. Suffice it to say, even if government education was a bad idea to start with, the super-elites (via their control over tax-exempt foundations, major universities and professional education groups ranging from textbook publishers to the National Education Association) proceeded to destroy whatever might have been left of genuine education in this country—all the while increasing its price tag. I recommend the following three books: Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt’s the deliberate dumbing down of america, John Taylor Gatto’s The Underground History of American Education, and B.K. Eakman’s The Cloning of the American Mind. The first two are large books, and fairly expensive (over $40 each). Get them anyway! These will be the best investments you will make this year toward understanding the “real matrix” and “unplugging” from it. The dumbing down of this country was not an accident. It was deliberate. It was the second component in preparing the West for the advent of world government. The following quotation from Iserbyt’s volume should clinch the argument (as well as demonstrate super-elite involvement via the CFR):

Mr. O.A. Nelson, retired educator, has supplied the vitally important documentation needed to support the link-up between the textbooks and the Council on Foreign Relations. His letter was first printed in ‘Young Parents Alert’ (St. Elmo, Minnesota). His story is self-explanatory.

“I know from personal experience what I am talking about. In December 1928, I was asked to talk to the American Association for the Advancement of Science. On December 27th, naïve and inexperienced, I agreed. I had done some special work in teaching functional physics in high school. That was to be my topic. The next day, the 28th, a Dr. Ziegler asked me if I would attend a special educational meeting in his room after the AAAS meeting. We met from 10 p.m. until after 2:30 a.m.

“We were 13 at the meeting. Two things caused Dr. Ziegler, who was Chairman of the Educational Committee of the Council on Foreign Relations, to ask me to attend… my talk on the teaching of functional physics in high school, and the fact that I was a member of Progressive Educators of America, which was nothing but a Communist front. I thought the word ‘progressive’ meant progress for better schools. Eleven of those attending the meeting were leaders in education. Drs. John Dewey and Edward Thorndike, from Columbia University, were there, and the others were of equal rank. I checked later and found that all were paid members of the Community Party of Russia. I was classified as a member of the Party, but I did not know it at the time.

“The sole work of the group was to destroy our schools! we spent one hour and forty-five minutes discussing the so-called ‘Modern Math.’ At one point I objected because there was too much memory work, and math is reasoning; not memory. Dr. Ziegler turned to me and said, ‘Nelson, wake up! That is what we want… a math that the pupils cannot apply to life situations when they get out of school!’ That math was not introduced until much later, as those present thought it was too radical a change. A milder course by Dr. Brechner was substituted but it was also worthless, as far as understanding math was concerned. The radical change was introduced in 1952. It was the one we are using now. So, if pupils come out of high school now, not knowing any math, don’t blame them. The results are supposed to be worthless. (the deliberate dumbing down of america, pp. 14-15)

This, of course, was the origin of the “new math” which left a generation of high school students unable to multiply and divide, understand fractions, or do other simple arithmetic operations without calculators! The “new math” was just one species of the more general attack on the individual’s basic reasoning ability. Frustrated by bad teaching methods, many students doubtless decided they were “no good at math” and gave up. Others, schooled with destructive, whole-language approaches to reading, never became good readers. They gave up on subjects like history and civics, which require an ability to read and process information. Students would receive less and less, with each passing generation, about the Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Finally we reached the point where it became possible to focus on the fact that many of the Founding Fathers owned slaves, among the worst of sins in these politically correct times. Such matters would loom far larger in the academic portrayal of those who original built our Constitutional republic than any ideas they might have had, especially about limited government. Such students, conditioned not to think but to respond emotionally, became perfect cannon fodder for the School-To-Work and Workforce Investment programs of the 1990s—programs sometimes beginning as early as elementary school, designed to adjust them for a “global workforce”—under the watchful eye of emerging “global governance.”

In this environment, it indeed became possible for two major presidential candidates—George W. Bush and John Kerry—to be members of the same supersecret organization, Skull & Bones, and it not be news! In the “real matrix,” such an election becomes one of the most important in history because of the vast differences in philosophies between the two. Democratic and Republican “sheeple” were practically at each other’s throats prior to Decision 2004. In the real world—the “desert of the real”—Bush’s and Kerry’s agendas were more alike than they were different. Both were pledged to an internationalist foreign policy and to the UN. Both planned to continue, and even expand, the Iraq War. Both accepted intrusive domestic policies such as the USA Patriot Act. Both would increase federal spending and expand entitlements, in a financial environment guaranteed to continue and even accelerate our nation’s growing debt. And none of this was news!

  1, 2, 3, 4, <-- Back - Next, part --> 6, 7

© 2004 Steven Yates - All Rights Reserved

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale


Steven Yates is an independent scholar who earned his Ph.D. in philosophy in 1987. He is the author of Civil Wrongs: What Went Wrong With Affirmative Action (San Francisco: ICS Press, 1994), Worldviews: Christian Theism versus Modern Materialism (Columbia, SC: Worldviews Project, due out in early 2005); and a co-author of The Free Person and the Free Market (Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books, 2002).

He is also an adjunct scholar with the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He has also worked as a clerk in a state agency, written obituaries for the local newspaper, earned a public health degree from the University of South Carolina (1999), done a stint as the writer, editor and consultant for the South Carolina Cancer Research Network writing the organization's Cancer Research Needs Report (2004), and worked as a customer service representative doing computer technical support.

He has other projects underway, including a science fiction novel. Most recently he joined the Stratia Corporation as a consultant and formed the Worldviews Project to further public discussion of the issues between the Christian worldview and that of modern materialism. He lives in Columbia, South Carolina.

E-Mail syates2@bellsouth.net.


 

Home

 

 

 

 

 

The super-elite watched all this with great interest. They saw, in government schools, a path to a controlled population—a population of “sheeple.”