Chapter 31 - The Attack on Education
On Thanksgiving Day in 1984, three brothers and their wives were all arrested in Idaho and jailed for 21 days.
About the same time, two others, a husband and wife, were arrested and imprisoned for 132 days.
These people all had one thing in common: they believed in religious freedom. They had all taken their children out of public school so that they could teach them at home.
The Constitution of the United States, in the First Amendment, guarantees to every American their God-given, inalienable right to the free exercise of their religious views.
The pertinent part of that Amendment reads as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
These parents were exercising their God-given rights to religious freedom, but were denied, and even imprisoned, for attempting to exercise those rights.
The Masons/Communists/Humanists/Illuminists all want the government to train the children of the nation in government run schools.
Adam Weishaupt, the founder of the Illuminati, wrote: "We must win the common people in every corner.
This will be obtained chiefly by means of the schools." 599
"We must acquire the direction of education -- of church -- management -- of the professorial chair, and of the pulpit." 600
And Professor John Robison wrote in his book about the Illuminati entitled PROOFS OF A CONSPIRACY that: "They [the Illuminati] contrived to place their Members as tutors to the youth of distinction." 601
Karl Marx, the Communist, wrote this plank in his COMMUNIST MANIFESTO: "Free education for all children in public schools." 602
Matt Cvetic, who for nine years was an undercover agent in the Communist Party USA for the FBI, attended a secret meeting of top-level Communists in 1948, at which a Soviet Agent played a speech from Joseph Stalin, the head of the Communist Party in Russia. The Russian dictator had given directions to the American Communists to put new emphasis on the recruitment of youth. This is part of that speech: "We Communists gained control of the Youth in Russia before we were able to wage a successful Communist Revolution in Russia, and Comrades, we must gain control of the Youth in the United States if we are to wage a successful Communist Revolution in that nation.
For this purpose, we are ordering our Comrades to set up a new Communist Youth group in the United States." 603
Six years later, Pravda printed a Declaration of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. It was signed by Premier Nikita Khrushchev, the dictator of Russia. The declaration proclaimed: "... scientific and atheistic propaganda is an integral part of the Communist education of the working people, and has as its aim the dissemination of scientific, materialist knowledge among the masses and liberation of believers from the influence of religious prejudices." 604
But even more recently, Victor Mikronenko, the current head of the Young Communist League, called Komsomol, was interviewed by New York Times reporter Bill Keller in February, 1988. Mr. Keller reported that Mikronenko: "said he sees no reason to change the policy banning believers [in God] from Komsomol. Atheist education is one of the primary tasks of the youth organization.'" 605
The Communists see education as a vehicle to re-educate young children away from religion and a belief in God.
Similar attempts have occurred and are occurring in America.
The Masons have lent their support to public education.
Henry C. Clausen, 33rd degree Mason, and the Sovereign Grand Commander for the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry until a short time ago, wrote a little pamphlet entitled DEVILISH DANGER. In this he makes the case for Masonic support of public education. He wrote: "So, we [presumably he spoke for all Masonry] say again: Hands off our public schools! Keep church/ state forever separated! Stay American!" 606
The Supreme Commander of the Masons said he was concerned that the Supreme Court in 1983 had granted permission for the state of Minnesota to allow a tax deduction for undercollegiate private/church school tuition. He felt concern, apparently, that the private school parents were getting a religious exemption over those who were not religious. As far as could be seen in his pamphlet, he expressed no concern about why Christian parents, who wished to pay for a private education for their children in a private school, should be forced to pay for two educations, one of which the parents never utilized.
The issue involved the reasoning behind the requirement that parents who provide an alternative education for their children have to pay for two educations: the one they use, and the one they don't use. The issue is not about religion: it is about freedom!
But Mr. Clausen did not see it that way.
He apparently wants all children taught what the government wants taught in government schools.
And secondly, Mr. Clausen apparently did not recognize the fact that "non-religious" people have the same God-given right to take their children out of government schools and teach them at home as do "religious" people.
The Mason also did not answer the question posed by Sam Blumenfeld, an author of great merit who writes on the subject of education. He posed this question in his book entitled, NEA: TROJAN HORSE IN AMERICA: "If the [states] can forbid the slightest hint of religion in its public schools on the grounds that it violates the separation of church and state, how can it then justify its massive intrusion into the life of a church school?" 607
This is a legitimate question and one that the Humanists/ Illuminati/Communists/New Agers appear to be unwilling to answer.
And Mr. Blumenfield makes this observation as well: "... the government does not have the right to compose a prayer for use in its own schools, but in Nebraska and elsewhere it claims the right to regulate the curriculum of a church school that doesn't even want government support and would be denied it even if it wanted it on the grounds that such support would violate the establishment clause [meaning the First Amendment prohibiting the "establishment of a religion."] 608
The Humanists added their support for public education with this, the 11th Principle in the HUMANIST MANIFESTO II: "We believe in the right to universal education." 609
Some have told the world why they want the state to educate the children. Ashley Montague wrote this: "Every child in America comes to school 'insane' at the age of six because of the American family structure." 610
Others who saw the problem of children being brought up with what they consider to be the poisonous attitudes of religious parents was the National Training Laboratories, a program run by the National Education Association, the national teacher's union. They wrote: "Although they [the children of religious parents]
appear to behave appropriately and seem normal by most cultural standards, they may actually be in need of mental health care, in order to help them change, adapt, and conform to the planned society in which there will be no conflict of attitudes or beliefs." 611
The humanists apparently see it as a problem when the parents control what their children are taught. The parents have complete control of their children for at least the first five or six years of their lives. Then the state begins the educational process when the child is placed into either kindergarten or the first grade.
One of the major concerns of the humanists is that the parents might instill some religious values in their child before the public school begins their formal training program.
One who voiced that opinion was Paul Blanchard who said this in 1976: "I think that the most important factor moving us toward a secular [meaning worldly] society has been the educational factor.
Our schools may not teach Johnny to read properly, but the fact that Johnny is in school until he is sixteen tends to lead toward the elimination of religious superstition.
The average American child now acquires a high school education, and this militates against Adam and Eve and all other myths of alleged history." 612
Another who foresaw that the public schools were the solution to the problem of children being taught religious beliefs by their parents was John Dunphy, who wrote an essay entitled A RELIGION FOR THE NEW AGE for the Humanist magazine. This is part of what he wrote: "I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classrooms by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the new proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. [There is that thought again that man is god.]
These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers.
The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new -- the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith... resplendent in its promise..." 613
One of the most celebrated educators of the past was Professor George S. Counts of Columbia University. He wrote that he saw the need to change the purpose of education in a 1932 monograph entitled DARE THE SCHOOLS BUILD A NEW SOCIAL ORDER? He made his views very clear as to what he thought the purpose of education was with these comments: "Ignorance must be replaced by knowledge, competition by cooperation, trust in Providence [meaning a belief in God] by careful planning, and private capitalism by some form of socialized economy..." 614
With all of this discussion about what education should or should not be, one would think that all of the dialogue has caused education to become a science of precise definition. By now, the purposes of education should have been carefully thought out, so that there should be no further debate as to what it is. However, such is not the case.
In 1979, a newsletter called EDUCATION USA reported that at least one judge stated that no one knew what education was. That rather revealing conclusion was offered by a judge in a court case involving a mother who sued the San Francisco Unified School District in 1976 because her son, who was a high school graduate, could not read or write.
She sought damages for remedial education and the wages her son would be unable to earn because of his lack of educational skills. The judge disagreed, according to the newsletter, saying: "Schools have no legal duty to educate. If there is no legal duty to educate, there can be no malpractice where education fails." 615 The judge in the district court that heard the case reported that "schools have no legal duty to educate," because the purpose of education was not known. Not even the educators know what they are to do with the children forcibly brought to their schools.
The judge in the appeals court explained: "The science of pedagogy [defined as the art or science of teaching] itself is fraught with different and conflicting theories..."
As a result, he said, there is no way to assess the school's negligence when they do not educate any child.
So the courts do not know what the purpose of education is.
But some of the educators know. It is to make certain that the child in the government schools no longer believes in what his parents have taught him. They certainly know that the purpose of education is to remove all religious values taught by parents. That is what they are clearly saying!
Some in America do know why they want the children in the government schools. The judge was wrong. Some know, and some want the parents to send them their children.
But the child still does not learn the three essentials of a good education: what used to be called the "3 R's: reading, 'riting and 'rithmetic." The pablum offered all of the children, and the holding back of the bright child to teach the slow child, has caused a nation of anxious, dull students.
The sight of children in school unable to learn has caused medical doctors and psychologists to create a whole new field of childhood diseases called either Attention Deficit Disorder or Minimal Brain Disfunction. Children are now termed to have Learning Disorders. Children are now called Learning Disabled.
The "bible" of the psychiatric industry, known as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, gives the symptoms of this new disease: (only a partial list):
A. Inattention: At least three of the following:
exhibiting activity like: often failing to finish things he or she starts; often doesn't seem to listen; easily distracted; has difficulty concentrating on schoolwork or other tasks requiring sustained attention; etc.
B. Impulsivity: At last three of the following:
exhibiting behavior like: often acts before thinking; shifts excessively from one activity to another; etc.
C. Hyperactivity: At least two of the following:
exhibiting behavior like: running about or climbing on things excessively; has difficulty staying still or fidgets excessively; etc.
And quite often after the child has been diagnosed as having this disorder, he or she will be given Ritalin, a drug that is supposed to cause normal behavior. The drug also has another name: people on the streets call the drug "speed."
But the drug has negative reactions: it can cause nervousness, insomnia, skin rashes, dermatitis, nausea, dizziness, headaches, drowsiness, blood pressure and pulse changes, fast heart beat, and weight loss.
But the drug is still being prescribed.
Because of all of these concerns, parents all over the United States are withdrawing their children from the public schools and either teaching them at home or placing them in private or Christian schools that teach religious values. And all of this activity has not gone unnoticed by the Humanists/ New Agers/Communists.
Two researchers wrote a report in the February, 1980 PHI DELTA KAPPAN about this new challenge to the government school system. They concluded that the trend of removal will continue, and
perhaps accelerate: "as fundamentalists remain locked into rigid, theologically based positions on many issues while American society moves forward."
They say that the fundamentalists have a right to: "march resolutely toward the values of their past, but one may question whether they should take a growing percentage of America's youth there with them." 616
Obviously, declining public school attendance figures have caused some government school officials to become concerned, because the placing of children in a private school removes them from the indoctrination of the public school system. So, many states have taken steps to close many of these schools down.
One glaring example of the misuse of the power of the state government occurred on January 14, 1986, when thirty state and local government officials, including nearly a dozen uniformed and plain-clothes officers surrounded the church and school of the Santa Monica Foursquare Church in Southern California.
What had provoked this show of force? Were the teachers beating the children? Were they forcing them to take drugs?
Were they teaching the children that cannibalism was a moral option?
No, the school was operating without a state issued license.
In another state, in this case North Dakota, a judge convicted a Baptist minister and his wife on charges of violating that state's compulsory school attendance law by sending their children to the fundamentalist school they operated. The pastor took the same position that other ministers in the nation have taken: "For us to submit... is to admit that the state is lord over the church." 617
Those who support public education must fear those parents who have opted to provide their children with a private education in America. They must be trembling because of the growth of both private schools and home schooling.
Hundreds of thousands of children are not being taught what the Humanists/Masons/Communists/New Agers want taught in government schools.
Some children are being taught religious values.
And that is not acceptable to those who believe in The New World Order.
On Thanksgiving Day in 1984, three brothers and their wives were all arrested in Idaho and jailed for 21 days.
About the same time, two others, a husband and wife, were arrested and imprisoned for 132 days.
These people all had one thing in common: they believed in religious freedom. They had all taken their children out of public school so that they could teach them at home.
The Constitution of the United States, in the First Amendment, guarantees to every American their God-given, inalienable right to the free exercise of their religious views.
The pertinent part of that Amendment reads as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
These parents were exercising their God-given rights to religious freedom, but were denied, and even imprisoned, for attempting to exercise those rights.
The Masons/Communists/Humanists/Illuminists all want the government to train the children of the nation in government run schools.
Adam Weishaupt, the founder of the Illuminati, wrote: "We must win the common people in every corner.
This will be obtained chiefly by means of the schools." 599
"We must acquire the direction of education -- of church -- management -- of the professorial chair, and of the pulpit." 600
And Professor John Robison wrote in his book about the Illuminati entitled PROOFS OF A CONSPIRACY that: "They [the Illuminati] contrived to place their Members as tutors to the youth of distinction." 601
Karl Marx, the Communist, wrote this plank in his COMMUNIST MANIFESTO: "Free education for all children in public schools." 602
Matt Cvetic, who for nine years was an undercover agent in the Communist Party USA for the FBI, attended a secret meeting of top-level Communists in 1948, at which a Soviet Agent played a speech from Joseph Stalin, the head of the Communist Party in Russia. The Russian dictator had given directions to the American Communists to put new emphasis on the recruitment of youth. This is part of that speech: "We Communists gained control of the Youth in Russia before we were able to wage a successful Communist Revolution in Russia, and Comrades, we must gain control of the Youth in the United States if we are to wage a successful Communist Revolution in that nation.
For this purpose, we are ordering our Comrades to set up a new Communist Youth group in the United States." 603
Six years later, Pravda printed a Declaration of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. It was signed by Premier Nikita Khrushchev, the dictator of Russia. The declaration proclaimed: "... scientific and atheistic propaganda is an integral part of the Communist education of the working people, and has as its aim the dissemination of scientific, materialist knowledge among the masses and liberation of believers from the influence of religious prejudices." 604
But even more recently, Victor Mikronenko, the current head of the Young Communist League, called Komsomol, was interviewed by New York Times reporter Bill Keller in February, 1988. Mr. Keller reported that Mikronenko: "said he sees no reason to change the policy banning believers [in God] from Komsomol. Atheist education is one of the primary tasks of the youth organization.'" 605
148
The Communists see education as a vehicle to re-educate young children away from religion and a belief in God.
Similar attempts have occurred and are occurring in America.
The Masons have lent their support to public education.
Henry C. Clausen, 33rd degree Mason, and the Sovereign Grand Commander for the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry until a short time ago, wrote a little pamphlet entitled DEVILISH DANGER. In this he makes the case for Masonic support of public education. He wrote: "So, we [presumably he spoke for all Masonry] say again: Hands off our public schools! Keep church/ state forever separated! Stay American!" 606
The Supreme Commander of the Masons said he was concerned that the Supreme Court in 1983 had granted permission for the state of Minnesota to allow a tax deduction for undercollegiate private/church school tuition. He felt concern, apparently, that the private school parents were getting a religious exemption over those who were not religious. As far as could be seen in his pamphlet, he expressed no concern about why Christian parents, who wished to pay for a private education for their children in a private school, should be forced to pay for two educations, one of which the parents never utilized.
The issue involved the reasoning behind the requirement that parents who provide an alternative education for their children have to pay for two educations: the one they use, and the one they don't use. The issue is not about religion: it is about freedom!
But Mr. Clausen did not see it that way.
He apparently wants all children taught what the government wants taught in government schools.
And secondly, Mr. Clausen apparently did not recognize the fact that "non-religious" people have the same God-given right to take their children out of government schools and teach them at home as do "religious" people.
The Mason also did not answer the question posed by Sam Blumenfeld, an author of great merit who writes on the subject of education. He posed this question in his book entitled, NEA: TROJAN HORSE IN AMERICA: "If the [states] can forbid the slightest hint of religion in its public schools on the grounds that it violates the separation of church and state, how can it then justify its massive intrusion into the life of a church school?" 607
This is a legitimate question and one that the Humanists/ Illuminati/Communists/New Agers appear to be unwilling to answer.
And Mr. Blumenfield makes this observation as well: "... the government does not have the right to compose a prayer for use in its own schools, but in Nebraska and elsewhere it claims the right to regulate the curriculum of a church school that doesn't even want government support and would be denied it even if it wanted it on the grounds that such support would violate the establishment clause [meaning the First Amendment prohibiting the "establishment of a religion."] 608
The Humanists added their support for public education with this, the 11th Principle in the HUMANIST MANIFESTO II: "We believe in the right to universal education." 609
Some have told the world why they want the state to educate the children. Ashley Montague wrote this: "Every child in America comes to school 'insane' at the age of six because of the American family structure." 610
Others who saw the problem of children being brought up with what they consider to be the poisonous attitudes of religious parents was the National Training Laboratories, a program run by the National Education Association, the national teacher's union. They wrote: "Although they [the children of religious parents]
149
appear to behave appropriately and seem normal by most cultural standards, they may actually be in need of mental health care, in order to help them change, adapt, and conform to the planned society in which there will be no conflict of attitudes or beliefs." 611
The humanists apparently see it as a problem when the parents control what their children are taught. The parents have complete control of their children for at least the first five or six years of their lives. Then the state begins the educational process when the child is placed into either kindergarten or the first grade.
One of the major concerns of the humanists is that the parents might instill some religious values in their child before the public school begins their formal training program.
One who voiced that opinion was Paul Blanchard who said this in 1976: "I think that the most important factor moving us toward a secular [meaning worldly] society has been the educational factor.
Our schools may not teach Johnny to read properly, but the fact that Johnny is in school until he is sixteen tends to lead toward the elimination of religious superstition.
The average American child now acquires a high school education, and this militates against Adam and Eve and all other myths of alleged history." 612
Another who foresaw that the public schools were the solution to the problem of children being taught religious beliefs by their parents was John Dunphy, who wrote an essay entitled A RELIGION FOR THE NEW AGE for the Humanist magazine. This is part of what he wrote: "I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classrooms by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the new proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. [There is that thought again that man is god.]
These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers.
The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new -- the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith... resplendent in its promise..." 613
One of the most celebrated educators of the past was Professor George S. Counts of Columbia University. He wrote that he saw the need to change the purpose of education in a 1932 monograph entitled DARE THE SCHOOLS BUILD A NEW SOCIAL ORDER? He made his views very clear as to what he thought the purpose of education was with these comments: "Ignorance must be replaced by knowledge, competition by cooperation, trust in Providence [meaning a belief in God] by careful planning, and private capitalism by some form of socialized economy..." 614
With all of this discussion about what education should or should not be, one would think that all of the dialogue has caused education to become a science of precise definition. By now, the purposes of education should have been carefully thought out, so that there should be no further debate as to what it is. However, such is not the case.
In 1979, a newsletter called EDUCATION USA reported that at least one judge stated that no one knew what education was. That rather revealing conclusion was offered by a judge in a court case involving a mother who sued the San Francisco Unified School District in 1976 because her son, who was a high school graduate, could not read or write.
She sought damages for remedial education and the wages her son would be unable to earn because of his lack of educational skills. The judge disagreed, according to the newsletter, saying: "Schools have no legal duty to educate. If there is no legal duty to educate, there can be no malpractice where education fails." 615 The judge in the district court that heard the case reported that "schools have no legal duty to educate," because the purpose of education was not known. Not even the educators know what they are to do with the children forcibly brought to their schools.
150
The judge in the appeals court explained: "The science of pedagogy [defined as the art or science of teaching] itself is fraught with different and conflicting theories..."
As a result, he said, there is no way to assess the school's negligence when they do not educate any child.
So the courts do not know what the purpose of education is.
But some of the educators know. It is to make certain that the child in the government schools no longer believes in what his parents have taught him. They certainly know that the purpose of education is to remove all religious values taught by parents. That is what they are clearly saying!
Some in America do know why they want the children in the government schools. The judge was wrong. Some know, and some want the parents to send them their children.
But the child still does not learn the three essentials of a good education: what used to be called the "3 R's: reading, 'riting and 'rithmetic." The pablum offered all of the children, and the holding back of the bright child to teach the slow child, has caused a nation of anxious, dull students.
The sight of children in school unable to learn has caused medical doctors and psychologists to create a whole new field of childhood diseases called either Attention Deficit Disorder or Minimal Brain Disfunction. Children are now termed to have Learning Disorders. Children are now called Learning Disabled.
The "bible" of the psychiatric industry, known as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, gives the symptoms of this new disease: (only a partial list):
A. Inattention: At least three of the following:
exhibiting activity like: often failing to finish things he or she starts; often doesn't seem to listen; easily distracted; has difficulty concentrating on schoolwork or other tasks requiring sustained attention; etc.
B. Impulsivity: At last three of the following:
exhibiting behavior like: often acts before thinking; shifts excessively from one activity to another; etc.
C. Hyperactivity: At least two of the following:
exhibiting behavior like: running about or climbing on things excessively; has difficulty staying still or fidgets excessively; etc.
And quite often after the child has been diagnosed as having this disorder, he or she will be given Ritalin, a drug that is supposed to cause normal behavior. The drug also has another name: people on the streets call the drug "speed."
But the drug has negative reactions: it can cause nervousness, insomnia, skin rashes, dermatitis, nausea, dizziness, headaches, drowsiness, blood pressure and pulse changes, fast heart beat, and weight loss.
But the drug is still being prescribed.
Because of all of these concerns, parents all over the United States are withdrawing their children from the public schools and either teaching them at home or placing them in private or Christian schools that teach religious values. And all of this activity has not gone unnoticed by the Humanists/ New Agers/Communists.
Two researchers wrote a report in the February, 1980 PHI DELTA KAPPAN about this new challenge to the government school system. They concluded that the trend of removal will continue, and
151
perhaps accelerate: "as fundamentalists remain locked into rigid, theologically based positions on many issues while American society moves forward."
They say that the fundamentalists have a right to: "march resolutely toward the values of their past, but one may question whether they should take a growing percentage of America's youth there with them." 616
Obviously, declining public school attendance figures have caused some government school officials to become concerned, because the placing of children in a private school removes them from the indoctrination of the public school system. So, many states have taken steps to close many of these schools down.
One glaring example of the misuse of the power of the state government occurred on January 14, 1986, when thirty state and local government officials, including nearly a dozen uniformed and plain-clothes officers surrounded the church and school of the Santa Monica Foursquare Church in Southern California.
What had provoked this show of force? Were the teachers beating the children? Were they forcing them to take drugs?
Were they teaching the children that cannibalism was a moral option?
No, the school was operating without a state issued license.
In another state, in this case North Dakota, a judge convicted a Baptist minister and his wife on charges of violating that state's compulsory school attendance law by sending their children to the fundamentalist school they operated. The pastor took the same position that other ministers in the nation have taken: "For us to submit... is to admit that the state is lord over the church." 617
Those who support public education must fear those parents who have opted to provide their children with a private education in America. They must be trembling because of the growth of both private schools and home schooling.
Hundreds of thousands of children are not being taught what the Humanists/Masons/Communists/New Agers want taught in government schools.
Some children are being taught religious values.
And that is not acceptable to those who believe in The New World Order.
152
0 comments: