Carved in stone (Roosevelt Memorial) in Washington D.C.


Who Owns The MEDIA?

  The New World Order would be in serious trouble, if for one day, the mainstream media put the pieces together and told the whole truth, 'the story behind the story'. Editing certain news out of the press has been just as important as putting propaganda in, probably more so. Westerners receive relatively little news about the atrocities committed in the socialist dictatorships especially in the former Soviet Union and communist China which continue to this day. The last thing they want the public to hear on the evening news is the fact that its our money which has kept these regimes afloat, or to find out who helped them into power.

   In 1917 Congressman Oscar Callaway told the House that, in 1915 JP Morgan interests and their subsidiary organizations purchased the editorial policies of the 25 most important newspapers in the U.S. By controlling the policy of the most important, they were able to control the general policy of the whole media. They used this power to turn public opinion in favour of entering the First World War.(21) The Rockefellers took over the Morgan empire, and in the 1950s they had one of their pharmaceutical company directors and publisher of the New York Times, Arthur Hays Sulzberger, appointed as Director of the Associated Press. They also owned the trend setting magazines Time, Life, Fortune, and Newsweek.(22) Laurance Rockefeller was a director of The Reader's Digest, a barometer of orthodox thinking, especially on the medical issues in which his family had enormous financial interests. (23)

   Forbes Magazine's recent bio' of media tycoon, Conrad Black read:

   67% ownership in Ravelston Corp., a privately held company, gives him control of a 78% stake in Hollinger Inc., a publicly traded Canadian holding company with real estate and other investments. Hollinger, in turn, owns 32%of the equity and 73% of he voting control of Hollinger International, the Big Board media company that owns the newspapers. There is also a hefty dose of debt financing in this chain. Thus does Black, with a mere $13 million of his own equity money in the till, control $2 billion in media assets. The assets are impressive: Black's 129 newspapers include the Chicago Sun-Times, the fifth-largest paper in the U.S.; the Jerusalem Post, with a circulation of 110,000; and the London Daily Telegraph, which has 40% of the market for national broadsheet newspapers in the U.K...Directors include such illuminati as Henry Kissinger; former Illinois Governor James R. Thompson; financier Henry Kravis' wife, Marie-Josée Kravis; former ambassador to Germany Richard Burt; and Richard Perle, the controversial member of the Defense Policy Board." (24)

  Forbes ranks two media billionaires, Silvio Berlusconi and Rupert Murdoch, at numbers 3 and 4 in the world in terms of power and influence even though their wealth is ranked 45 and 54 respectively. Italy's Prime Minister owes much of his influence to Fininvest, his investment firm that owns 49% of Mediaset, Italy's largest television network. He also has interests in banking, insurance and publishing.(25) Murdoch's media empire includes NewsCorporation and its U.K. subsidiary News International, British Sky Broadcasting Group, Sky Global Networks Inc. and Fox Entertainment Group. Besides T.V. networks and newspapers, this group also owns the publisher HarperCollins.(26)(27)

     Two sisters Anne and Barbara Cox own 98% of Cox Enterprises which controls 17 daily newspapers (including flagship Atlanta Journal-Constitution), 15 TV stations, 78 radio stations and cable systems (6.5 million users). Their personal wealth is estimated to be $11billion each.(28)Two thirds of Viacom's voting stock is controlled by Sumner Redstone whose personal wealth is estimated at $9.7 billion.(29)Viacom now owns CBS, Infinity Broadcasting, Paramount, Nickelodeon, MTV, and Blockbuster. In 1980 Ted Turner launched America's first 24 hr. cable news service, CNN. Turner Broadcasting Systems was bought by Time Warner in 1996 but Turner remains Time Warner's largest individual shareholder (only 1% at June 2003) and sits on its board.(30) 

  Sir Evelyn de Rothschild used to sit on the board of The Daily Telegraph (31) and Edouard de Rothschild bought the controlling stake in French left-wing newspaper, Liberation, in December 2004. (32)

  From July 1999 to March 2002, The Carlyle Group, an $18 billion private equity firm, held a 40% stake in the French daily Le Figaro. Carlyle Group investors have included Frank Carlucci, former U.S. Defense Secretary and Deputy Director of the CIA; the Bin Laden family; and former heads of state, George Bush Sr. and John Major. In March 2004, Le Figaro was purchased by Serge Dassault, head of Dassault Aviation a major military contractor.(33)

  However, ownership, directorship and censorship is not the whole story of media manipulation. Much of what appears in the press is shaped by the education of journalists and their sources. The roots of the 'psychological operation' are in the schools, universities, charities, think-tanks and policy institutes - the subject of the next chapter.

Chapter 2 End Notes

1. Dr. Stanley Monteith, The Brotherhood of Darkness, Hearthstone Publishing, 2000, p.15

2. G. Edward Griffin, World Without Cancer: The Story of Vitamin B17, American Media, second edition 1997, p.183

3. Manning P, Martin Bormann: Nazi in Exile. Secaucus, NJ: Lyle Stuart, 1981, pp. 29, 56, 69, 116-17; 134-35. see article by Dr Leonard Horowitz at

4. G. Edward Griffin, op cit.,p.236

5. G. Edward Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island, American Media, Fourth Edition, 2002, p.482 and Antony C. Sutton, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, CSG and Associates, 1976 p.164

6. Griffin, World Without Cancer, pp.187-189

7. International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ),The Water Barons, a report for The Center for Public Integrity, 2003. See

8. Bill Marsden, Cholera and The Age of The Water Barons, The Center for Public Integrity, 2003. See

9. Impact of Wal-Mart on Retail Consolidation and Standardization, Infosys Technologies Ltd.

10. What's Wrong With Supermarkets? CorporateWatch.

11. James A. Paul, Iraq: the Struggle for Oil , Global Policy Forum, August, 2002 (revised December, 2002). See

12. Jobs slashed at new oil colossus, BBC news, London, 1 December 1998. See

13. The 2003 Global Scoreboard, BusinessWeek Online, November 2003.
See h

14. The United States of Television, Global Policy Forum.

15. EU Court Boosts Foreign Mergers, Global Policy Forum.

16. French Rothschild is set to take helm in London, Charles Pretzlik, Banking Editor, The Financial Times, London, 10 February 2003.

17. Horses, stamps, cars - and an invisible portfolio, The Guardian, London, 30 May 2002. See,11550,724327,00.html

18. Robert Gaylon Ross Sr.

19. Dr. Alexandr Nemets, Expert: Russia Knew in Advance, Encouraged Citizens to Cash Out Dollars,, 17 Sept. 2001. See

20. Arnold and Buffett's Loaded Elephant Gun? Buffett's Back with the Terminator!, Reuters

24 Sept. 2002 .
See copy at

21. Monteith, op cit., p.31

Chapter 3

  There exists behind closed doors, a high command of policy groups which feed the argument for political globalization. Policies are passed down the chain of command into the public arena by lavish patronage of public institutions and key politicians. In discrete pursuit of financial globalization, they have also advanced the view that the future of mankind is best served by a transfusion of wealth from the West to lesser developed countries in the form of foreign aid and bank loans. This chapter identifies the groups which constitute the Ministry of Truth for International Relations and the next three reveal how they have miraculously consolidated financial power in the hands of their members.



  In 1870, John Ruskin, professor of Fine Arts at Oxford University, inspired a student named Cecil Rhodes with the dream of uniting the English speaking world under a federal government. Rhodes went on to become one of the richest men in the world. Besides the Rhodes Scholarships which provided for American students to study at Oxford, Rhodes' legacy was the formation of a secret society which professor Quigley called 'the Milner group'.(1) 

  Lord Rothschild loaned £750,000 to assist Rhodes in creating De Beers in 1888. As well as being the largest shareholder in De Beers, Rothschild  was also amongst the 'circle of initiates' in the Milner group.This clique of British aristocrats invented the Round Table movement aimed at fostering international government. Two important Round Table groups were set up after the end of World War I: The Royal Institute of International Affairs in London, also known as The Chatham House Study Group founded in 1919; and The Council on Foreign Relations in New York founded in 1921. The plans for these two groups were drawn up at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference. The RIIA was largely funded by the Astor family, The Rhodes Trust and certain British banks whilst the CFR was a front for JP Morgan &Co.(2)

  The financial elite have dominated the Round Table movement ever since. Lord Waldorf Astor was Chairman of RIIA 1935-1949 (3) and David Rockefeller was CFR director 1949-1985, Chairman of the board 1970-1985 and vice president 1950-1970. Despite being over 80 years old he is still the honary chairman of the CFR International Advisory Board.(4) CFR members currently number around 4000 of the most influential people in the United States. All of the major American news anchors are members of the CFR including Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Barbara Walters and Tom Brokaw.(5) Both the Royal Institute of International Affairs and the CFR have off the record meetings which observe the Chatham House Rule of secrecy. (6)


  David Rockefeller founded another international relations policy making forum in 1973 called the Trilateral Commission. It is dedicated to fostering closer cooperation between North America, Europe and Japan.(7) Consisting of the top few hundred industrialists and policy makers, this semi-secretive organization is far more exclusive than the CFR.


  Like Round Table and the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg's purpose is to coordinate American and European foreign policy. The annual Bilderberg meeting of the top 120 European-American movers and shakers is the world's most secretive and exclusive foreign policy making forum. There are no published minutes and only recently have the meetings been mentioned in the mainstream press.(8) They normally take place a week or two before the publicized G8 inter-governmental conferences. Bilderberg was founded in 1954 by Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, a card carrying member of the Nazi SS. Whilst membership appears to change year to year, David Rockefeller has been spotted several times over the last few years and Dutch Royalty are regular attendees. Kenneth Clarke, Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson are just some British Ministers who have attended Bilderberg in recent years.

  On the 'official participants list' from Bilderberg published before the 2002 meeting in Chantilly Virginia, media personnel included: Kenneth Whyte, National Post (CDN), Tager Sidenfaden, Editor of Politiken (Germany); Andrea Mitchell, Foreign Affairs correspondent for NBC ; Charles Krauthammer, columnist Washington Post; Jim Hoagland, Associate Editor, Washington Post; Paul A Gitot, Wall Street Journal; Conrad Black, Chairman, Telegraph Group; Jean de Belot, Editor-in-Chief, Le Figaro (French).(9)

  Bilderberg's control over the mainstream press is evidenced by the fact that on 20th July 1976, London Financial Times correspondent C. Gordon Tether was finally fired after several attempts to publish articles about Bilderberg in the Lombard Column (10)


  Unlike Mr Tether, Financial Times columnist Martin Wolf has been a regular attendee of Bilderberg for years. Only this year did he publish the fact in the FT, writing an article on the conference in Versailles in May 2003. Since the meetings are strictly confidential, we can only assume that Mr Wolf 's suggestion of a rift in American and European foreign policy is the first ever official - and well timed - piece of Bilderberg propaganda.(11)


  In addition to these secretive groups, the elite manage a high-level international think-tank on environmental issues- The Club of Rome. Its members are one hundred individuals, at present drawn from 52 countries and five continents.(12) It was founded in 1968 by Dr Aurelio Peccei on behalf of Fiat and Olivetti.(13) With a particular focus on environmental issues, the group is charged with finding internationalist solutions to the world's problems. Members have included top businessmen, notably Canada's environmentalism ambassador and multi-billionaire, Maurice Strong. Honary members include European royalty and presidents such as Mikhail Gorbachev, the Red who mysteriously turned Green.


  The high command launch their policies into the public arena on a wave of money that washes over schools, universities and charitable organizations. In the United States that wave has been directed at changing the bias of American education away from individualism towards socialism and internationalism.

  The Ford Foundation was established in 1936 by Henry Ford of Ford Motor Company. In January 2002 its assets were valued at $13 billion and total grants since 1972 alone total $10.2 billion!(14) The major Rockefeller family foundations were established by John D. Rockefeller - the General Education Board in 1903 endowed with $129 million, and The Rockefeller Foundation in 1913 endowed with $50 million. Total grants to date by the Rockefeller Foundation are estimated at $ 2 billion.(15) The Rockefeller Brothers Fund was founded in 1940 and by January 2003 it had given away $574,466,677. RBF merged with The Charles E. Culpepper Foundation in July 1999.(16) The Carnegie Endowment Fund was established in 1910 with a $10 million endowment from Andrew Carnegie(17) and became a key partner of the Rockefeller and Ford foundations in pursuit of a single aim.

  That aim became apparent to The Congressional Special Committee to Investigate Tax-exempt Foundations, known as the 'Reece Committee', set up in 1952. To their concern, the Committee discovered that the Rockefeller and Carnegie group of foundations exercised a very significant degree of control over American schools and universities. In 1954 Norman Dodd was the staff director of the committee. He recorded an interview with G. Edward Griffin shortly before he died in which he described how the Carnegie Endowment and the Rockefeller Foundation joined forces after the end of World War I to use the education system, and the teaching of American history in particular, to promote internationalism and collectivism. And when Rowan Gaither, President of the Ford Foundation, met with Mr Dodd he made an astonishing admission:

   Mr. Dodd, all of us who have a hand in the making of policies here have had experience operating under directives, the substance of which is that we shall use our grant-making power so to alter life in the United States that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union.(18)


  The establishment of the United Nations in 1945, only a year after the IMF and World Bank, is some evidence of the parity of political and financial globalization. Vladimir Bukovsky, possibly the most famous Soviet dissident after Alexander Solzhenitsyn, spent twelve years in Soviet prisons and psychiatric hospitals due to his opposition to communism. He gave his opinion on the U.N. in a recent interview:

  It was meant to serve the "progressive causes", such as advancement of socialism, "national liberation", unilateral disarmament of the West, redistribution of wealth from the "rich North" to the "poor South" or just plain anti-Western propaganda. (19)

 Whilst the U.N. has pursued that goal through international aid and inter-governmental agencies, its sister financial organizations have been the key drivers for international socialism and the first world financial empire. In September 1963, President Kennedy addressed the annual conference of the IMF/World Bank and described the intent behind the creation of these institutions:

  Twenty years ago, when the architects of these institutions met to design an international banking structure, the economic life of the world was polarized in overwhelming, and even alarming measure on the United States... Sixty percent of the gold reserves of the world were here... There was a need for redistribution of the financial resources of the world.. And there was an equal need to organize a flow of capital to the impoverished countries of the world. All this has come about. It did not come about by chance but by conscious and deliberate and responsible planning.(20)

  Under the Bretton Woods agreements, The World Bank was to make loans to under-developed countries and the IMF was to promote monetary cooperation between nations by maintaining fixed exchange rates between their currencies. Under the IMF quota system, the majority of the donated capital to the IMF comes from Western governments, especially the U.S.. In 1970, the IMF came up with the "SDR " scheme for increasing quota capital. Special Drawing Rights, which are merely government promises to pay, increase the quota by 25%.(21) The IMF now has reserves against which its sister organization the World Bank can obtain loans from western commercial banks for developing countries. These loans can be obtained at a very low rate of interest because western governments offer to bail out the World Bank with "callable capital" if it gets into trouble. The callable capital is about ten times as much as the quota capital. Over the last fifty years a torrent of Dollars, Pounds, Francs, Deutsche Marks and Yen gushed through the World Bank/IMF directly into the hands of foreign dictators and used to build the one system dictators knew how to build: Socialism and despotism.(22)

  The following chapters show that what appeared here to be simple foreign investment, was actually laying down the gangplank for the captains of Western industry and finance to board the ship, loot it, and sail off into the sunset with most of the Third World's natural resources and industries. Financial globalization has been achieved through economic piracy masquerading as international credit.


  Before the bankers could channel billions of dollars to foreign dictators and set up inter-governmental structures, they needed Western politicians who were amenable to their plan. By controlling policy-making groups, education and the media, the bankers have helped to make international socialism more politically acceptable than it otherwise would be. There have also been very significant instances where the financial elite have selected and sponsored witting servants for the top jobs in politics to further their globalist aims. For example, Rothschild agent Colonel Mandell House personally chose Woodrow Wilson - the most unlikely of all political candidates - and secured his nomination for President on the Democratic ticket in 1912. It was House who convinced the Morgan group, and others with power in politics and the media, to throw their support to Wilson, allowing him to win the election and become the 28th President of the United States. Under Wilson, the United States got itself a central bank - the Federal Reserve system - and entered into a World War. Col. House moved into the Whitehouse with the President for six years and remained his most important adviser. In his memoirs, President Wilson said,

  Mr. House is my second personality. He is my independent self. His thoughts and mine are one.(23

  More recently, representing the most powerful money families in Europe, Helmut Kohl was the spearhead for European monetary and political union during his sixteen year tenure as German Chancellor 1982-1998. Between 1959 and 1969 Helmut Kohl worked for the 'Verband der Chemischen Industrie' (Association of the Chemical Industry), the largest lobby organization of the chemical-pharmaceutical industry - the Rockefeller/I.G. Farben cartel.(24) These interests systematically promoted Helmut Kohl's political career in order to further their global expansion plans. Kohl's chancellorship ended in scandal when it was revealed that he had accepted millions of Deutsche Marks in bribes, the source of which he refused to disclose.(25)

  On 19 September 2000, an article appeared in The Daily Telegraph by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard which pullled all this together in just a few paragraphs (26). It began:

  DECLASSIFIED American government documents show that the US intelligence community ran a campaign in the Fifties and Sixties to build momentum for a united Europe. It funded and directed the European federalist movement.

  The documents confirm suspicions voiced at the time that America was working aggressively behind the scenes to push Britain into a European state. One memorandum, dated July 26, 1950, gives instructions for a campaign to promote a fully fledged European parliament. It is signed by Gen William J Donovan, head of the American wartime Office of Strategic Services, precursor of the CIA.

 The article went on to describe how the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations set up an organization called the American Committee for a United Europe in 1948 which was run by CIA chiefs on their behalf. The documents show that ACUE financed the European Movement, the most important federalist organization in the post-war years. In 1958, for example, it provided 53.5 per cent of the movement's funds. Furthermore, the European Youth Campaign, an arm of the European Movement, was wholly funded and controlled by Washington. The Belgian director, Baron Boel, received monthly payments into a special account. The leaders of the European Movement - Retinger, the visionary Robert Schuman and the former Belgian prime minister Paul-Henri Spaak - were all treated as hired hands by their American sponsors.


A memo from the European section, dated June 11, 1965, advises the vice-president of the European Economic Community, Robert Marjolin, to pursue monetary union by stealth.

  It recommends suppressing debate until the point at which "adoption of such proposals would become virtually inescapable".

  What the Telegraph article didn't mention was that all of the OSS-CIA-ACUE principals involved in the "European federalist movement" - Donovan, Smith, and Dulles - were also Council on Foreign Relations members (27)

   More evidence of this nature was recently obtained from the secret archives of the Soviet Union. Prime Minister Yeltsin outlawed the Communist party in 1991 but when he was challenged in the courts, he needed evidence of its criminal past. He turned to Vladimir Bukovsky for assistance in finding the evidence in the secret archives of the Politburo. In 1992, Mr Bukovsky was granted access to the archives for half a year, and copied as many documents as he could using a portable scanner and computer. Even the very small proportion of documents copied revealed much that was embarrassing to both Western and Soviet leaders. Consequently, these archives - including the documents which Mr Bukovsky still has on his computer- have been classified again! His 44 page booklet entitled E.U.S.S.R., published in December 2004, reveal some truly astonishing facts about the collapse of the Soviet Union.(28)

  By 1987, Gorbachev had decided that perestroika included the convergence of the U.S.S.R. and Europe into a "Common European Home". This idea was supported by Europe's social democrats whose political leaders went in secret to Moscow before the dissolution of the U.S.S.R. to confirm that the European Community would include most of the Soviet states. However, behind these political leaders were the financial elite, in particular the members of the Trilateral Commission. One of the Politburo documents records a meeting which took place on 18th January 1989 between Gorbachev and key members of the Trilateral Commission - Rockefeller, Kissinger, Nakasone and Giscard d'Estaing. They encouraged the Soviets to integrate into the world's economic and financial institutions (GATT, IMF) and also into the European Community. Giscard announced that there would be a European state within twenty years and asked Gorbachev which East European countries would be allowed to join. Kissinger then asked what the Soviets thought of the concept of  'Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals'.

  On 19 July 1990, Jacques Delors, President of The European Commission visited Moscow and confirmed in secret that he wanted the Soviet Union to be part of the future European state. However three months before, his close friend and European co-chairman of the Trilateral Commission, Georges Berthoin had met with Gorbachev's European advisor, Vadim Zagladin. Berthoin was the ambassador who set out Delors' views ahead of time. One of the possiblities Delors asked him to discuss was whether the USA and Japan should also be integrated with Europe and the Soviet Union. This idea reflected the inter-continental membership of the Trilateral Commission.

  As we near our final destination of one world government and the New World Order, it's very important to realize who planned the journey. Why have the richest and most powerful men in the world done everything possible to conceal what they have been doing? If we are on the road to utopia, why the need for secrecy?

Chapter 3 End Notes

1. Carroll Quigley, The Anglo American Establishment, GSC and Associates,1981, ch's 3-5.
See also G Edward Griffin, The Future Is Calling (Part Two) p.5 at

2. Quigley op cit.,pp.5-7 and 190- 91; and Griffin, op cit., p.7

3. Quigley, op cit., p.184. See also Spartacus Educational at

4. The Council on Foreign Relations website.

5. Griffin, op cit.

6. Royal Institute of International Affairs website and CFR website

7. The Trilateral Commission website

8. Emma Jane Kirby, Elite Power Brokers Secret Meeting, BBC, London, 15 May 2003. See

9. Official Bilderberg press release and participant list, Chantilly, Virginia, U.S.A., 30 May - 2 June 2002. See

10. The Banned Articles of C. Gordon Tether, Goodhead News Press - Bicester - 1977 ISBN 0 905821 009. See

11. Martin Wolf, A Partnership heading for a Destructive Separation, Financial Times, London, 21 May 2003. See

12. The Club of Rome website.

13. Donella H. Meadows and Dennis L. Meadows, The Limits To Growth, 1972 Potomac Books, pp.9-10

14. The Ford Foundation website.

15. The Rockefeller Foundation website.

16. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund website.

17. The Carnegie Endowment website.

18. The Hidden Agenda, An interview with Norman Dodd conducted by G Edward Griffin. Transcript at

19. Jamie Glazov, A Conversation With Vladimir Bukovsky,, 30 May 2003. See

20. G. Edward Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island, American Media, Fourth Edition, 2002, pp.109-110

21. What is the International Monetary Fund ?, IMF.

22. Griffin, op cit., pp.89-95.

23. G. Edward Griffin, The Future is Calling, part 3.

24. Dr Matthias Rath, The Pharmaceutical Business with Disease, The Dr Rath Health Foundation. See

25., an on-line encyclopedia.

26 Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Euro- Federalists financed by U.S. Spy Chiefs, The Daily Telegraph, 19 Septemeber 2000. See

27. William F. Jasper, Global Tyranny.. Bloc by Bloc, The New American, 9 April  2001

28. Vladimir Bukovsky and Pavel Stroilov, EUSSR, Sovereignty Publications, December 2004. ISBN 0-9540231-1-0


How do you Brainwash a Nation
AUGUST 8, 1994

Training for Global Merger
For decades social sciences curricula in government schools
have been designed to reflect a socialist, globalist philosophy

  Beginning in the 1950s, a succes­sion of books highly critical of the direction in which American education was headed began to sketch a disturbing picture of pervasive subversion in our schools and colleges. The Turning of the Tides (1953) by Paul Shafer and John Howland Snow, The Diminished Mind: A Study of Planned Mediocrity in Our Public Schools (1954) by Mortimer Smith, Why Johnny Cant Read (1955) by Rudolph Flesch, Bending the Twig: The Revolution in Education and Its Effect on Our Children (1957) by Augustin G. Rudd, Collectivism on Campus (1955) and Brainwashing in the High Schools (11958) by E. Merrill Root, and other educational exposes touched off a heated national conflict over who will control the mind and soul of public education.
  Question of Character Perhaps the most influential of the blasts at the educational establishment was Professor Root's Brain‑washing in the High Schools. He began his book with quotes from an interview with Major William E. Mayer, a United States Army psychiatrist and a leading expert on brainwashing. Mayer pointed out that in Korea, for the first time in American history, one‑third of all American soldiers made prisoner succumbed to brainwashing by the enemy. The problem, according to Major Mayer, was that "they became something called 'Progressives.' By the Communists' own definition, this meant that a man was either a Communist sympathizer or a collaborator ‑ or both during his stay in a prison camp."
  Military weakness was not involved here. "No," Major Mayer said, "it is something, more than that. It goes deeper. The behavior of many Americans in Korean prison camps appears to raise serious questions about American character, and about the education of Americans " (emphasis added). When asked why, he answered: "Because, in my opinion, the behavior of too many of our soldiers in prison fell far short of the historical American standards of honor, character, loyalty, courage, and personal integrity." Having received little or no fundamental facts and no enduring prin­ciples from their "formal education," they were easy victims for the communist brainwashing experts.
 Professor Root then proceeded to investigate how extensive this educational deficit had become by a meticulous examination of 11 of the most widely used high school history textbooks.
  His revelations shocked ‑the nation. The texts systematically denigrated patriotism, American heroes, and the principles and institutions of the American system of government. Socialism and communism were presented favorably, while communist leaders were praised. American textbooks were filled with, anti-American, anti‑Christian, anti‑capitalist, pro‑communist propaganda.
  Yet for all the furor that Root (and the many other authors who followed after him) created, and in spite of all the promises by the educationists to rectify the matter, very little was done to correct the outrageous slant of the nation's textbooks and other curricular materials. In the 1970s and '80s textbook reviewers Mel and Norma Gabler were still documenting an overwhelming bias in the texts. New York University Professor Paul C. Vitz, in his 1986 study of' 90 elementary and high school texts used in an estimated 70 to 87 percent of the public school classrooms, found an extraordinary degree of bias especially directed against Christianity and traditional morality. 'In the portion of the study dealing with elementary social studies texts, for instance, he found that "not one of the forty books totaling ten thousand pages had one text reference to a primary religious activity occurring in representative contemporary life."
  Numerous studies have demonstrated the cumulative "dumbing down" effect of such deficient curricula. Ravitch and Finn, in their 1987 study What Do Our 17‑Year Olds Know?, stated:

  One student in five (20.8 percent), for example, does not know that George Washington commanded the American army during the Revolution‑, almost one in three (32 percent) doesn't know that Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. Nearly a quarter (22.6 percent) fail to name Richard Nixon as the president whose resignation resulted from Watergate.

An Evil Plan
  The nagging question returns again and again: Why? Why have all efforts to restore a sane perspective, honest regard for objective facts, and a patriotic appreciation of American virtues and contributions of Christianity failed? Much of the answer to that question is to be found in the testimony of Norman Dodd, the staff director of the 1953 Congressional Special Committee to Investigate the Tax‑Exempt Foundations. The committee's investigation of the minutes of the Carnegie Foundation showed that the Foundation's trustees determined  soon after World War I that they "must  control education in the United States." Working together with the Rockefeller Foundation, they devised a plan to dominate, both domestic. and international education.
  The Carnegie‑Rockefeller elitists determined they must build their own “stable of historians," said Dodd in an interview. So they approach the Guggenheim Foundation which specializes in fellowships and say, “When we find young men in the process of studying for doctorates in the field of American history and we feel that they are the right caliber, will you grant them fellowships on our say so?" And the answer is. "Yes.”
 So, under the condition they assemble 20. And they take this 20 potential teachers of American History to London and there they are briefed into what is expected of them when, as, and if they secure appointments in, keeping with the doctorates they will have earned. And that group of 20 historians ultimately becomes the nucleus of the American Historical Association.
  And then toward the end of the 1920s, the  (Carnegie) endowment grants to the American Historical Association $400,000 for the study of our history in a manner which points to ‑ what can this country look forward to in the future.... And the essence of the last volume is the future of this country belongs to collectivism administered with characteristic American efficiency.
  How did these plans progress? Very rapidly and effectively. Working hand in glove, with the foundations was the internationalist Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the organization widely recognized as America's shadow government. Indeed, most of the top officers and directors of the major foundations have been and are CFR members. In the Council's Survey of American Foreign Relations: 1928, CFR director of research Charles P. Howland reported:
  University courses dealing with international affairs have trebled in number since the war; there has been an outpouring of books on foreign relations, diplomatic history, and international law; periodicals such as Foreign Affairs, Current History, and the American Journal of International Law, and the information service of the Foreign Policy Association are supplying materials for a sound background and associations and organizations devoted to an impartial discussion of international relations and the supplying of authentic information have sprung up in almost every great city. As yet, however. these agencies for furnishing adequate standards of judgement and accurate current information have not penetrated very far down in society.
  In the CFR's globalist vernacular "sound impartial," "authentic” and "accurate" meant information and perspective that advanced the CFR's goals of submerging the United States in a socialist world government. The Special Committee to Investigate Tax‑Exempt Foundations reported in 1954 that the CFR's "'productions are not objective but are directed overwhelmingly at promoting the globalist concept." Moreover, the Council had become "in essence an agency of the United States Government ... carrying its international bias with it."

An Education Mafia
  Concerning the problem of getting their propaganda to "'penetrate very far down in society," the CFR‑foundation elites also had ambitious schemes under way. Due to the vast sums they had lavished on educational institutions, they held enormous influence at Harvard, Columbia, the University of Chicago, and other prestigious universities where the nation's teachers were trained.
  One of those who most effectively advanced the CFR‑foundation collectivist agenda was Fabian Socialist philosopher/educator John Dewey. Dewey left the University of Chicago in 1904, taking a professorship at Columbia and its affiliated Teachers College, where he remained until his death in 1952. Among the influential alumni  of Teachers College were Elwood P. Cubberly, George D. Strayer, George H. Betts, Edward C. Elliott, Walter A. Jessup, William Heard Kilpatrick. Bruce R. Payne, David S. Snedden, and Lotus D. Coffman. In his important expose' of the National Education Association, NEA: Trojan Horse in American Education, Samuel Blumenfeld explained the significance of this “educational mafia".
  Cubberly became dean of the School of Education at Stanford; Strayer, professor at Teachers College and president of the NEA in 1918‑19; Betts, professor of education at Northwestern; Elliott, president of Purdue; Jessup, president of the University of Iowa and president of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching; Kilpatrick, professor at Teachers College and a founder of Bennington College; Payne, president of George Peabody College in Nashville; Snedden, Massachusetts State Commissioner of Education: Coffman, dean of the College of Education at the University of Minnesota, and later the university's president.
  In their revealing 1982 study, Managers of Virtue, David Tyack and Elizabeth Hansot note that this education cation mafia or network exercised incredible power throughout the education establishment:

… it is one of the best known secrets in the fraternity of male administrators, a frequent topic of. higher gossip at meetings though hardly ever discussed in print, that there were "placement barons," usually professors of educational administration in universities such as Teachers College, Harvard, University of Chicago, or Stanford who had an inside track in placing  their graduates in important positions.
  According to Tyack and Hansot, the network "controlled importamt resources: money, the creation of reputations, the placement of students and friends, the training of subordinates and future leaders, the influences over professional association's and public and administrative bodies." Not surprisingly, then, "The network of obligations linked local superintendents more to their sponsors than to their local patrons and clients." Which is why those "local patrons and clients" (taxpayers and parents) have always come out on the short side of every education “reform.”
  How extensive was the clout of these networkers? From A History of Teach­ers College, by Establishment historian Lawrence A. Cremin, we gain some apprecianon of the pervasive influence of Dewey and associates at Columbia alone. According to Cremin,  writing in 1953, "the single most powerful educa­tion force in the world is at 120th Street and Broadway in New York City. Your children's teachers go there for ad­vanced training.” "With one hundred thousand alumni,” continued Cremin. "Teachers College has managed to seat about one‑third of the presidents and deans now in office at accredited U.S. teacher training schools. Its graduates make up about twenty percent of all our public school teachers. Over a fourth of the superintendents of schools in the one hundred and sixty‑eight U.S. cities with at least fifty thousand population are Teachers College‑trained."
  The education mafia did not deal kindly with those who challenged its de­signs. Professor Charles Austin Beard is a case in point. Beard began his profes­sorship at Columbia in 1904, the same year as Deway. A militant socialist, he quickly became the darling of the edu­cational establishment and one of Amer­ica's most famous historians. However, he was thoroughly opposed to the bla­tantly dishonest designs of the CFR New Deal‑FDR gang in the White House to drag America into World War II. His masterful expose’ of those machinations, President Roosevelt  and the Coming the War, 1941 made him a persona non grata in academe and the object of vicious attacks in the major media and professional journals.
  In 1947, Beard: blasted the CFR cabal in the Washington Evening Post, charging that the CFR and the Rockefeller Foundation "do not want journalists or any other persons to examine too closely and criticize too freely the official propaganda and official statements relative to 'our basic aims and activities' during World War II. In short, they hope that, among other things, the policies and measures of Franklin D. Roosevelt will escape in the coming years the critical analysis, evaluation and exposition that befell the policies and measures of Woodrow Wilson and the Entente Allies after World War I.”
  Beard was not making accusations without substance. In its 1946 Annual Report, the Rockefeller Foundation frankly admitted to subsidizing a corps of court historians to frustrate the development of any debunking of the CFR Establishment's internationalist official historiography. And history has proven Dr. Beard right: The CFR‑Carnegie‑Rockefeller court historians have been given a virtual monopoly on research access and on the writing and teaching of history in the United States.


An American Deception
August 1994

  May 17, 1994 marked a major milestone in the long campaign to nationalize American education: the 40th anniversary of Brown v Topeka Board of Education On that date, the radical Warren Supreme Court cited a book written by communists and socialists as authority for its decision to put the federal government in charge of the nation's schools.
  The book that launched the revolution was An American Dilemma, supposedly written by prominent Swedish socialist Gunnar Myrdal. Actually, it was written by a pack of revolutionaries from the Social Science Research Council, the Carnegie Corporation, and the Russell Sage Fountation; Myrdal merely saved as prestigious window dressing. How the book came about and how Myrdal came to be associated with it deserves a brief retelling, since it illustrates the pattern of deception employed by the foundation elitists.
  In 1937, Myrdal was invited by Frederick Keppel (CFR). president of The Carnegie Corporation, to come to America to direct "a comprehensive study of' the Negro in the United States." "Upon his arrival in New York," records Zygmund Dobbs in The Great Deceit, "Myrdal was handed an outline of the broad aims of the forthcoming, study written by Donald Young, head of both the Social Science Research Council and the Russell Sage Foundation." In a confidential note to Keppel, Myrdal admitted his incompetence to the task, complaining that his background in economics had not prepared him for this planned foray into sociological experimentation. This "expert." who would be cited by the Supreme Court and presented to the world as the ultimate authority on U.S. race issues, told Keppel, “one reason for these initial diffi­culties is that the race problem as such is new to me." Moreover, he said, “I have, thus, to acquire a working knowledge of American history, geography, culture, politics and institutional set‑up before I can even place the Ne­gro in the right position in the national scene.”
  Not to worry, the Carnegie claque had every­thing planned. Socialist academics and activists like Arthur M. Schlesinger, Otto Klineberg, Gor­don Allport, Franz Boaz, Ruth Benedict, Melville J. Herskovitz, M.F. Ashley‑Montagu, and Ralph Bunche would be brought on board to do most of the actual writing. Top communists would also have a hand. "Doxie Wilkerson, a member of the National Committee of the Communist Party and James E. Jackson, Jr.,  who later became president of the Communist Party, were paid with Carnegie funds to help fashion An American Dilemma," noted Zygmund Dobbs. Myrdal was handed a total of 15,000 typewritten pages of manuscript, which he and his staff con­densed into 1500 pages for An American Dilemma."
  In this celebrated tome, Myrdal and company attacked the U.S. Constitution and its limited governmental design as "a plot against the common people," and said it "'was dominated by property consciousness and designed as a defense against the democratic spirit let loose during the Revolution.”

The Whole Word Hoax
Abandoning phonics for the whole‑word approach to teaching reading
has brought disastrous results

  It has been nearly 40 years since  Rudolf Flesch descended on the American education scene with his blockbuster, Why Johnny Can't Read. ­
  The book created a sensation in 1955,explaining to a nation of puzzled parents why their children were having such a difficult time learning to read. After all, the parents had all learned to read in the same schools without any great trouble. Flesch revealed how the pro­fessors of education changed the way reading is taught in Ameri­can schools, throwing out the al­phabetic phonics method – the proper, time‑tested way to teach children to read an alphabetic writing system ‑ and replacing it with a new whole‑word – or sight‑word method – which teaches children to read English as if it were an ideographic writ­ing system like Chinese, Japa­nese, or ancient hieroglyphics.

What's the Difference?
  A child cannot learn to read English well using a holistic for­mula, because in such an effort he typically will develop a holistic reflex which creates a block against his seeing words phoneti­cally. Since an alphabet system is by nature a phonetic (sound‑sym­bol) system, a block against seeing the printed word phonetically produces what is termed "dyslexia." To become a proficient reader, a child must develop a phonetic reflex, not a holistic one.
  Unfortunately, the battle between phonics and the whole‑word approach is not merely over reading instruction methods. It is a battle over worldviews and political agendas. A defining point of this conflict was John Dewey's attack on the traditional primary school cur­riculum in his essay, "The Primary Edu­cation Fetich." Dewey wrote:

  There is ... a false educational god whose idolators are legion, and whose cult influences the entire educational system. This is language study ‑ the study not of foreign language, but of English; not in higher, but in primary education. It is almost an unquestioned assump­tion, of educational theory and prac­tice both, that the first three years of a child's school life shall be mainly taken up with learning to read and write his own language. If we add to this the learning of a certain amount of numerical combinations, we have the pivot about which primary education swings....

  It does not follow, however, that because this course was once wise it is so any longer.... My proposition is, that conditions ‑ social, industrial, and intellectual ‑ have undergone such a radical change, that the time has come for a thoroughgoing examination of the emphasis put upon linguistic work in elementary instruction....
  The plea for the predominance of learning to read in early school life because of the great importance attaching to literature seems to me a perversion.
  Dewey argued that it is important for the child to experience life through classroom activities, projects, and social interaction before learning to read about them. This kind of education would prepare the child for a socialist society, for the aim of Dewey and his colleagues was to change America from a capitalist, individualistic society into a socialist, collectivist one.
  Dewey the master strategist then set forth what must be done:

  Change must come gradually. To force it unduly would compromise its final success by favoring a violent reaction. What is needed in the first place is that there should be a full and frank statement of conviction with regard to the matter from physiologists and psychologists and from those school administrators who are conscious of the evils of the present regime.... There are already in existence a considerable number of education "experimental stations," which represent the outposts of educational progress. If these schools can be adequately supported for a number of years they will perform a great vi­carious service. After such schools have worked out‑carefully and definitely the subject‑matter of a new curriculum, ‑ finding, ‑ the right place for language –studies and placing them in their right per­spective, ‑ the problem of the more general educational reform will be immensely simplified and facilitated.

Implementing the Plan
  Here was, indeed, a master plan, involving the entire progressive education community, to create a new socialist curriculum for the schools of America, a plan, based on the new psychology, that was indeed carried out and implemented. For example, the first "authoritative" book on the new way to teach reading, The Psychology and Pedagogy of Reading, was written by psychologist Edmund Burke Huey and published in 1908. In it Huey wrote:

  It is not indeed necessary that the child should be able to pronounce correctly or pronounce at all, at first, the new words that appear in his reading, any more than that he should spell or write all the new words that he hears spoken. If he grasps, approximately, the total meaning of the sentence in which the new word stands, he has read the sentence. Usually this total meaning will suggest what to call the new word, and the word's current articulation will usually have been teamed in conversation, if the proper amount of oral practice shall have preceded reading. And even if the child substitutes words of his own for some that are on the page, provided that these express the meaning, it is an encouraging sign that the reading has been real, and recognition of details will come as it is needed. The shock that such a statement will give to many a practical teacher of reading is but an accurate measure of the hold that a false ideal has taken of us, viz.. that to read is to say just what is upon the page, instead of to think, each in his own way, the meaning that the page suggests.
  ... Until the insidious thought of reading as word‑pronouncing is well worked out of our heads, it is well to place the emphasis strongly where it belongs, on reading as thought‑getting independently of expression.
  So there you have the genesis of the look‑say method. Indeed, many look-say primers were published and used experimentally in both private and public schools. But it wasn't until the publication of the "Dick and Jane" reading program in 1930 that entire school systems began to adopt the methodology. Of course, many of the older teachers continued to teach phonics in conjunction with "Dick and Jane," but eventually they were replaced by younger teachers not sullied by phonics methodology.
  The educators who engineered all of this knew, of course, that the Dewey‑inspired method of teaching reading would in time lower the literacy skills of the nation. If they didn't know it from the reading difficulties children were having in America, they certainly knew it in 1932 when the Communist Party of the Soviet Union threw out the Dewey methods, which had been in use in Soviet schools since the revolution, and went back to an intensive phonics method of teaching reading.

New Label, Same Disaster
  Today in America look‑say is now called whole language, and is supposedly based on a new theory of what reading is. Here is how several whole-language professors, writing in Whole Language: What's the Difference? (Heinemann, 1991), describe what they mean by the "new" approach:
  From a whole language perspective, reading (and language use in general) is a process of generating hypotheses in a meaning­-making transaction in a sociohistorical context. As a transactional process ... reading is not a matter of “getting the meaning” from text, as if that meaning were in the text waiting to be decoded by the reader. Rather, reading is a matter of readers using the cues print provide and the knowledge they bring with them ... to construct a unique interpretation. Moreover, that interpretation is situated: readers' creations (not retrievals) of meaning with the text vary, depending on their purposes for reading and the expectations of others in the reading event. This view of reading implies that there is no single "correct" meaning for a given text, only plausible meanings.
  The whole language advocates have gone well beyond Edmund Burke Huey, seeing reading as "creating meaning," not decoding accurately the message of the writer. This is the definition of reading now used in Kentucky's outcome-based education program: constructing meaning. One might say that this "new" view of reading is a product of the deconstructionist view of text. Webster's New World Dictionary (1988) defines deconstruction as "a method of literary analysis ... based on a theory that, by the very nature of language and usage, no text can have a fixed, coherent meaning." And, as the advocates of whole language argue, "In a transactional model, words do not have static meanings. Rather they have meaning potentials and the capacity to communicate multiple meanings."
  This is what children are up against in American primary schools today: whole‑language theories about reading. Doesn't it make more sense to teach the children to read by time‑tested methods based on over 2,000 years of experience than to subject them to experiments which produce disabled readers?

Ideological War
  What the public doesn't realize is that this is more of a war over ideologies than one over teaching methods. It is a war by the educational elite to impose its rule over the American people. Destroying resistance to their collectivist plans by dumbing down Americans is an essential part of their strategy. To do this, they must convince the American people that "traditional literacy" is no longer desirable. In fact, Professor Anthony Oettinger of Harvard University told an audience of corporate executives in 1988:
  The present "traditional" concept of literacy has to do with the ability to read and write. But the real question that confronts us today is: How do we help citizens function well in their society'!
  ... Do we, for example really want to teach people to do a lot of sums or write in “a fine round hand" when they have a five‑dollar hand‑held calculator or a word processor to work with? Or do we really have to have everybody literate - writing and reading in the traditional sense ‑ when we have the means through our technology to achieve a new flowering of oral communication?
  The traditional concept of literacy means teaching children to read by intensive, systematic phonics so that they can read with accuracy and fluency. It is easier and less costly to teach than whole language, so that even from a practical standpoint it makes more sense to teach reading using phonics than to use faulty methods that permanently deprive millions of children of the ability to master the written word.


Down the Slippery Slope
Dewey's Godless ideology set stage for present‑day education establishment

  The story of how American education has become the awful mess it is today is a long one, with many important characters implementing crucial changes in pedagogical theory ideologies, and worldviews. But if one wanted to reduce the story to a simple summation, one could say that the history of American education is really the history of a war between those who believe in traditional biblically based values, and those who don't.

From Faith to Faithlessness
  This ongoing war, which is being more intensely waged today than ever before, can be divided into three periods. The first‑ from America's colonial times to the 1840s ‑ saw the dominance of the biblical worldview as seen through a Calvinist perspective: God's sovereignty was the central reality of man's existence, and the purpose of' man's life was to glorify God. Biblical literacy was considered the overriding spiritual and moral function of education, for man was considered sinful and in need of God's law as the guide to a long, healthful and productive life. Latin, Greek and Hebrew were studied because they were the original languages of the Bible and of theological literature. This period was characterized by a high standard of literacy. It was also the period which birthed our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.
  The second period, lasting from the 1840s until about World War I, was dominated by the statist‑idealist philosophy of Germany's G.F. Hegel, a philosophy which spread throughout the Western world like a malignant spiritual disease, undermining Calvinist foundations, It was largely brought to this country by the Unitarian professors at Harvard who had studied in Germany and admired this new worldview. In Hegel's pantheistic scheme the purpose of life was to glorify man, and the instrument through which man's collective power could be exercised was the state. Hegel wrote, "The State is the divine idea as it exists on earth." To this the Unitarians who predominated at Harvard added their own ideas about the perfectible nature of man.
  This was the period of Horace Mann, the consolidation of the public school movement, the centralization of control by a state education bureaucracy, the institution of compulsory school attendance, and the founding of the National Education Association in 1857. In the aftermath of the War Between the States, the interpretation of the Constitution shifted to reflect the new power of the federal government over the states.
  During this Unitarian‑ Hegelian period in America, the state replaced God as sovereign over the people and the schools became increasingly secularized. But since Hegel considered man's mind to be the highest manifestation of God on earth, discipline, high academic standards, and achievement were the hallmarks of the public schools.
   The third period, which began around World War I and has continued to the present, saw the rise of the progressives, members of the Protestant academic elite who no longer believed in the religion of their fathers. They put their new faith in science, evolution, and psychology. Science explained the material world, evolution explained the origin of living matter, and psychology offered the scientific means to study man's nature and to control his behavior.
  These elites were also socialists. Why? Because they had to deal with the problem of evil. They had to answer the question of why men do the horrible things they do. Why do they rob, rape, and murdered? They rejected the biblical view of man as innately depraved and sinful, deciding instead that the causes of evil were ignorance, poverty and social injustice. And what was the chief cause of social injustice? It was this horrible capitalistic system with its selfish individualism and superstitious religion. Their solution: get rid of capitalism, individualism, and religion and replace them with socialism, collectivism and humanism. Socialism had to be brought about if they were to prove that they were right and traditional biblical values were wrong. For if it turned out that the Bible was right and they were wrong, they knew where they'd spend the rest of eternity. Therefore, they were quite confident that socialism was the answer.
  But how was this socialism to be brought about'? The only way was by the slow permeation method adopted by the Fabians in Britain and by a gradual takeover of the education system, through which children would be educated to become socialists.

Early Leadership
  It was during the first two decades of this century that the progressive education establishment took shape. John Dewey emerged as the progressives' chief ideologue, with Charles Judd of the University of Chicago engineering "a detailed reorganization of the materials of instruction in schools of all grades." Judd's protégé, William Scott Gray, produced the "Dick and Jane" reading program, and organized the International Reading Association to control the teachers of reading.
Several occurrences in the early days of the progressive movement helped to establish the direction of American education: 1) educational research and pedagogy were co‑opted by behavioral psychologists; 2) graduate schools of education were established for the indoctrination of teachers and the creation of doctors of education; 3) the National Education Association was transformed into a teacher membership organization for the purpose of controlling the classroom teacher and organizing teacher political activity; and 4) large philanthropic foundations such as Rockefeller and Carnegie were taken over by progressives, who proceeded to fund progressive education programs.
  The 1920s and '30s were devoted to a transformation of the public school curriculum. Charles Judd told a meeting of the American Political Science Association in 1931 that the entire organized profession was now engaged in the process of promoting "a movement to bring to full realization the project of socializing the whole body of instructional material in schools and colleges."
  The work, in fact, was being done so vigorously that a reporter attending the 1932 meeting of the NEA's school superintendents department ‑ held in Washington, DC and attended by John Dewey, Charles Judd, and other progressives ‑ wrote: "Here, in the very citadel of capitalism ... this group of outstanding spokesmen of American education talked a remarkably strong brand of socialism."
  Even the American Historical Association got into the act of preparing America for socialism. In 1934, financed by the Carnegie Foundation, its Commission on the Social Studies reported:
  ... two social philosophies are now struggling for supremacy: individualism, with its attending capitalism and classism, and collectivism, with planned economy and mass rights. Believing that present trends indicate the victory of the latter the Commission on the Social Studies offers a comprehensive blueprint by which education may prepare to meet the demands of a collectivist social order without submerging the individual as a helpless victim of bureaucratic control.
  During the 1930s many refugees from Hitler's Germany came to America. One of them was social psychologist Kurt Lewin, whose work was to have a profound effect on American education. Lewin founded the Research Center for Group Dynamics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (it later moved to the University of Michigan). Lewin is credited with inventing sensitivity training, which became the inspiration for the encounter movement. Shortly before his death in 1947, Lewin established the National Training Laboratory at Bethel, Maine, under the sponsorship of the National Education Association.
  Lewin's work in group dynamics spurred the development of Third Force psychology by humanists Abraham Maslow, Carl Rogers, Sidney Simon, and others who attempted to interject an emotional and spiritual component in behavioral psychology. Since the goal of education had now been reidentified as " self-­actualization," the emphasis was now on the development of the affective domain through such programs as values clarification, sensitivity training, situational ethics, multiculturalism, pluralism, and human sexuality.

Global Education
Another theme promoted in public education since the end of World War II has been that of world government. In December 1942, NEA Journal editor Joy Elmer Morgan wrote an editorial entitled "The United Peoples of the World," announcing the NEA's support for world government:
 World organization may well have four branches which in practice have proved indispensable: The legislature, the judicial, the executive, and the educational. In addition to the framework of government the world needs certain tools of cooperation: A world system of money and credit, a uniform system of weights and measures; a revised calendar; and a basic language.
  Morgan also called for a world police force and a world board of education (which came in 1945 as UNESCO). For the NEA, the United Nations became the hope of the world. In January 1946, Morgan wrote in the NEA Journal:
  In the struggle to establish an adequate world government, the teacher has many parts to play. He must begin with his own attitude and knowledge and purpose. He can do much to prepare the hearts and minds of children for global understanding and cooperation.... At the very top of all the agencies which will assure the coming of world government must stand the school, the teacher, and the organized profession.

A New Enemy
  Of course, as anyone can see, there is no place for traditional biblical faith in such an educational scheme. In fact, the war against God in the public schools still rages for one very unforeseen reason: the resurgence of Judeo‑Christian faith in millions of Americans. And therefore the new enemy of the NEA is the "religious right." Hardly an issue of NEA Today is published without an article about the war against "religious extremism." And every day more and more Christians are removing their children from the public schools and educating them at home or enrolling them in private schools.
  At present, public education is in its final stage of eliminating every vestige of traditional education from its system. With outcome-­based education using Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives as its guide, the public schools have become for all practical purposes Unitarian parochial schools. And with the widespread use of whole language in the primary schools, the process of dumbing down Americans now has the complete backing of the federal and state governments.
  If the United States is to survive as a free country, under a Constitution that guarantees the protection of the citizens' unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the American people must recognize the threat that government­-controlled education poses to their future as a free, independent people. Americans must wake up and recognize the progressive­-socialist agenda for what it is, and reject it entirely. As long as America's education is controlled by the present psycho socialist mafia, there is no possibility that it can be reformed to resemble anything that sane Americans consider acceptable.


Mr. Blumenfeld is a contributor to THE New AMERICAN and author of NEA: Trojan Horse in American Education. Is Public Education Necessary?, and many other books. He publishes the monthly Blumenfeld Education Letter, and lectures on education to audiences nationwide.