There'll always be a conformity of any young generation at any which time. The alternative is too pesky for it to ever happen on it's own so you really don't need a conspiracy to create a conformity. You may need one for the alternative, though.

Acts of rebellion can be found through all times. After rebellion, the acts usually and very naturally become the norm. It only means that society constantly adopts new ways.

Considering such plain and simple mechanisms is to me a clear sign of openmindedness. Inventing evil movements with grand schemes, meticulously covert planning and secret methods is a sign of minds homed in on what the self needs to see. Basically the closemindedness that comes with a strong focus on the self.

I'm sorry but I'm very pleased to see that, by default, Americans believe that conspiracies are false. In my book, it's a sign of healthiness.

I don't believe Norrin "invented" the CFR or the Trilateral Commission, SM.

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

If that is what the conspirators call themselves then why this long thread?

You are not an American and know little to nothing about what is going on in this country.

Even non-Americans get tattooed, you know.

What you are failing to understand is that the mere fact that people disagree with you, and do not see Konspiracies behind every curtain does not mean that they are "sheep," nor does it mean that they have been brainwashed. Until you get that understanding into your head, you will only meet frustration as you try to post your theories.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Of course not. I'd agree with you that education policy is a crucial issue; however, let's take a look at your sources.

First, Norman Dodd's testimony. I used to see it as some sort of "smoking gun," but it is not. The final report of the Special Committee on Tax-Exempt Foundations would be better; and access to the Carnegie Endowment's archives or to Ms. Casey's tapes might be best. But all we have are the experiences in Dodd's memories, which aren't much to build a convincing analysis off of.

Second, you provide a chapter from Gary Allen. Reading quickly through portions of his writing, it hardly appears to be legitimate research into the subject. I see no sources whatsoever, just a story told by a storyteller.

And third, the link to E-files. It provides a few sources, but the link's value as a source itself is highly doubtful. It admits to using only six sources; three of which are about how bad American education is, two about foundations, and one about the Bundy brothers (but used only for its relevance to foundations). This appears to be highly selective evidence for a source that claims to provide the "truth about education." Nevermind that reviews of each of these books has raised some doubts about their own value.

Based on this evidence alone, I'm not convinced of any coordinated effort by elites to use their philanthropy in some attempt to degradate our population via public education. Then again, I haven't given the subject a whole lot of attention; I have the e-book of "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America," and if I have time, maybe I'll start to read through it. Still, what other sources have convinced you that foundations control education in America?

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

Are you claiming that Dodd's assertions have no bearing at all on reality, and if so, what's leads you to such a conclusion?

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

No, I did not assert that. I'm saying that we don't have the final report of the Reece Committee and we don't have the minutes of the Carnegie Endowment; all we have are Dodd's memory and his word. Perhaps his memory is flawless (a case could be made that it is at least very good, because his testimony and an interview with him about ten years later are very much alike), but we still do not know how truthful his words are, and even if he is sincere, how objective the information is. Essentially, I'm saying we don't know a lot of things, and Dodd's testimony, though helpful, doesn't improve the situation much.

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

Well, I have another piece to add, besides Dodd's testimony and
Wormser's claims.

This is from B. Carrol Reece, the chairman of the Reece committee.


TAX EXEMPT SUBVERSION

by Congressman B. Carroll Reece

American Mercury 56-64 (July 1957)

In the social sciences, the power of the large foundation is enormous.

"It can exercise various forms of patronage which carry with them
elements of thought control. It can exert immense influence on
educational institutions, upon educational processes, and upon
educators. . . . It can materially predetermine the development of
social and political concepts and courses of action, through the
process of granting or with-holding foundation awards upon a selective
basis, and by designing projects which propel research in selected
directions. It can play a powerful part in the determination of
academic opinion, and through this thought leadership, materially
influence public opinion."

This power to influence national policy is amplified tremendously when
several great foundations act in concert.

"There is such a concentration foundation power in the United States,
operating in the social sciences and education . . . It operates in
part through certain intermediary organizations supported by the
foundations. It has ramifications in almost every phase of research
and education, in communications, and even in government."

A professional class of administrators of foundation funds already has
emerged. This informal guild, as the committee describes it, "has
fallen into many of the vices of a bureaucratic system, involving vast
opportunities for selective patronage, preference and privilege."

Through selectivity in granting funds for research projects, this vast
interlocking guild of social engineers "has shown a distinct tendency
to favor political opinions of the Left."

One influential foundation gave heavy financial support to The
Institute of Pacific Relations, which later was shown to be an all-out
Moscow front working for the establishment of a communist regime in
China, an aim which has since been accomplished.

At one point, subversion is defined in the committee report as "the
process of undermining our vitally protective concepts and
principles." Several big-name foundations were found to have supported
attacks upon our social and governmental systems, and to have financed
"the promotion of collectivist ideas."

Socialist attack upon these Congressional reports misrepresent the
purposes of the committees, by suggesting that the end sought by
Congress might be to bring every foundation grant under direct federal
supervision. Instead, the Committees urged merely that all foundation
objectives be described honestly to the public -- thus to destroy the
protective shield of high-sounding public purpose as a possible cover
for hateful attack upon the freedom under the law.

"Research in the social sciences plays a key part in the evolution of
our society. Such research is now almost wholly in the control of the
professional employees of the large foundations and their obedient
satellites. Even the great sums allotted by the Federal Government for
social science research have come into the virtual control of this
professional group.

Almost without exception the trustees of large foundations are active
men of great affairs, often too busy with their private concerns to
give minute attention to the foundation's operations. The effective
decisions thus are made by the administrative officers. The trustees
meet once a month, or once each quarter, to approve staff reports and
recommendations. But in the case of The Ford Fund for the Advancement
of Education, Professor Briggs told the House Committee he had
resigned from the national advisory committee when he became satisfied
that:

"Not a single member of the staff, from the president down to the
lowest employee, has had any experience, certainly none in recent
years, that would give understanding of the problems that are met
daily by the teachers and administrators of our schools."

This staff had been selected, the witness continued, "by a former
influential officer of The Ford Foundation who is notoriously critical
-- I may even say contemptuous of the education of teachers."


Because the trustees are recognized as eminent citizens "with many
other occupations and avocations," they had no way of knowing that the
Rockefeller Foundations was contributing heavily to international
Communism through the Institute of Pacific Relations. Neither could
the trustees of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, have
been aware of the full background of Alger Hiss at the time he was
confirmed as president of that endowment. Both cases illustrate the
normal chasm between the trustees and office managers of the
foundations. Likewise, both cases illustrate the interlocking guild
which prevails among tile professional foundation managers. When lush
jobs are available on the foundation projects, the guild provides the
ideal candidate.

No set of foundation trustees, meeting once a month, could possibly be
fully aware of such devious operations. Yet these are some of the
reasons why the City of Los Angeles, through formal action by its
Board of Education, rejected a gift of $300,000 from the Ford
Foundation for teacher training.

Testifying before the Cox Committee on December 22, 1952, Maurice
Malkin, a U.S. immigration inspector in New York, told of Moscow's
direct orders to American Communists to penetrate our philanthropic
foundations. Malkin had been a member of the Communist Party of the
U.S.A. from 1919 until 1937, when he was expelled.

Ludwig Martens, the first official Soviet representative in the United
States, was the transmission belt for this penetration order, Malkin
related.

"This Ludwig Martens came to the Party and ordered us, that instead of
depending upon Moscow to finance the American party directly, we
should try to work out ways and means of penetrating philanthropic
charitable grants, foundations et cetera . . . to try to penetrate
these organizations, in order to drain their treasuries, that they
should be able to finance the Communist Party propaganda in the United
States, beside the subsidies that will be granted by Moscow." (Cox
hearings p. 692)

This campaign of penetration was in some measure successful, Malkin
continued: "We made a little headway, like trying to penetrate the
Garland Fund, at that period known as the American Fund for Public
Service . . . In the Garland Fund we succeeded in placing a few
Communists and fellow-travelers at the controlling board, or grant
board."

Among the men thus placed, Malkin named as known Communist
sympathizers William Z. Foster, Benjamin Gitlow, Norman Thomas, Roger
Baldwin, Forest Bailey, Adelaide Shulkind.

A similar penetration had been successful in the Phelps Stokes Fund,
the witness recalled: "Now in these two organizations the Communist
Party actually succeeded in getting in and milking the organization
dry . . . Up until about 1928 these organizations actually financed
the Communist Party publications, known as the Daily Worker, The Young
Worker, the Masses, the Labor Herald, and Novy Mir."

"Besides that, these two funds also helped to finance the organization
of the Worker's School in New York in 1924, which was actually the
training school for Communist leadership in the United States, which
later was supplemented by what they call the Lenin Institute and Lenin
School of Moscow."

Critics of the Congressional. inquiries into tax-exempt foundations
studiously ignore this segment of the record.

"The existence of this plot was corroborated by others, and stands
amply proved," the final House Committee report said; in December
1954. (Report p. 197)



TAX EXEMPT SUBVERSION

///////

So, now we have another person backing up Dodd and Wormser's claims,
of course he is just a US Congressman, so I don't expect people to
believe him.

LET'S LOOK AT THAT FIRST QUOTE......

"It can exercise various forms of patronage which carry with them
elements of thought control. It can exert immense influence on
educational institutions, upon educational processes, and upon
educators. . . . It can materially predetermine the development of
social and political concepts and courses of action, through the
process of granting or with-holding foundation awards upon a selective
basis, and by designing projects which propel research in selected
directions. It can play a powerful part in the determination of
academic opinion, and through this thought leadership, materially
influence public opinion."

Wow, "thought control"?

Now that can't be true.

No way the children of America have been conditioned to accept gun
control, or global warming, or gay rights, or fluoride in our water,
or vaccinations without question.

No, that could never happen in America.

One of my favorite researchers is Dr. Dennis Cuddy.

In part 5 of his great piece titled " MENTAL HEALTH, EDUCATION AND
SOCIAL CONTROL", he quotes Zbigniew Brzezinski...........

Similarly, Zbigniew Brzezinski in BETWEEN TWO AGES: AMERICA'S ROLE IN
THE TECHNETRONIC ERA (1970) referred to "the ruling elite" and said
that "Society would be dominated by an elite...(which) would not
hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern
techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under
close surveillance and control." He also forecast "difficult problems
in determining the legitimate scope of human control. The possibility
of extensive chemical mind control, the danger of loss of
individuality....Man is increasingly acquiring the capacity
to...affect through drugs the extent of (children's) intelligence, and
to modify and control their personalities." And he furthered indicated
that "in the technetronic society the trend seems to be
toward...effectively exploiting the latest communication techniques to
manipulate emotions and control reason." Mika Brzezinski, one of the
people to whom the book is dedicated, is now a correspondent with CBS
News.

Hmmmm, that sure sounds a little scary.

So, what about the kids that refuse to "conform"?

Oh yeah, we just drug them.

Preschoolers Lead Growth of Antidepressant Use
Use Among Girls Age 0-5 Doubles

The use of paroxetine and other antidepressant medications continues
to grow by about 10 percent annually among children and adolescents,
according to a study published in the April 2004 issue of Psychiatric
Services. The study profiles trends of prescription antidepressant use
in children and adolescents using prescription claim information from
a random, nationwide sample.

The study by Express Scripts examined antidepressant use among
approximately two million commercially-insured, pediatric
beneficiaries 18 years and younger from 1998 to 2002. The fastest
growing segment of users were found to be preschoolers aged 0-5 years,
with use among girls doubling and use among boys growing by 64
percent.

Rate of Preschool Kids Prescribed Antidepressants Skyrockets - Cong Investigates FDA

By Scott Allen, Globe Staff | October 7, 2007

Following the death of a 4-year-old Hull girl from an overdose of
psychiatric drugs last December, state officials have set up a unique
early-warning system to spot preschoolers who may be getting excessive
medication for mental illness. In just the first three months, the
system has flagged the cases of at least 35 children for further
investigation, and the number is sure to rise.

The state Medicaid program is analyzing records of 82,900 children
under age 5, looking for those taking at least three psychiatric drugs
or a single prescription of a powerful antipsychotic drug. Mental
health professionals will review the care of these children and, if
necessary, contact the prescribing doctor for an explanation, say
officials of the state insurance program for lower-income families,
known as MassHealth.

Although cases like the overdose of Rebecca Riley are rare, the
prescription of psychiatric drugs to young children is not. Doctors
last year prescribed Clonidine - a drug sometimes used to treat
hyperactivity that was found in lethal quantities in the Hull girl's
bloodstream - to 955 children under age 7 in MassHealth. Doctors also
prescribed antipsychotic drugs, which raise the risk of diabetes and
obesity, to 536 children under age 7, according to MassHealth records.
MassHealth could not say how many of these cases involve children
under age 5 and might be subject to review.

Some psychiatrists have been concerned for years about the rise of
psychiatric drug treatment of young children, largely because few
preschoolers are old enough to show clear signs of mental illness and
there are almost no studies on how the chemicals affect their
developing brains.

Mass. launches warning system to watch for overprescribing of psychiatric drugs to preschoolers - The Boston Globe

Well, I don't know about all of you, but I don't know how kids made it
through preschool before psychotropic drugs and antidepressants.

I just thank God we have these drugs now so that kids can learn how to
conform and quit thinking like individuals.