Who Controls Education ? - Page 7 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

John Drake · #91 (**permalink**) 06-18-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Si modo

Absolutely! It's very scary to me...very.

[edit] If only one of the networks would come up with a popular TV series glamorizing engineering and/or a pure science. We could have the Perry Mason effect or the ER effect, and see more kids take up one of the subjects. [/edit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Si modo

You have a point. Then I really want to see a popular TV series glamorizing it.

Is this a good time to pitch The Tesla Chronicless again?

Seriously, I do hear stories that some kids want now want to be scientists, "like in CSI" (though I have to wonder if some of them just think it's Goth)

John Drake · #92 (**permalink**) 06-18-2008

I just wish SOMEBODY would.

pramjockey · #93 (**permalink**) 06-18-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imperator

wow and you got a job right off the bat? Cool....and yes congrats.

Very kind.

Thank you.

pramjockey · #94 (**permalink**) 06-18-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norrin Radd

Sorry, I missed this post.

Ramblings, yeah.

I post more evidence to support my opinions than 99% of the people at this forum.

Ramblings, sure.

Whatever you say.

I disagree. The sheer volume of spam that you cut and paste hardly qualifies as "evidence" of much of anything.

drgoodtrips · #95 (**permalink**) 06-18-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norrin Radd

BUT OF COURSE THERE IS NO REPLY TO MY LAST POST.

No, it is so much easier to just dismiss information without bothering to read it than to actually educate yourself.

I am starting to see why so many "intellectuals" believe that the masses need guidance. Why they believe that the masses are unable to think for themselves.

I now see why individual liberty was a failed experiment. All because the sheeple are unable to think for themselves.

The masses love letting the Mass media tell them what to think.

The disinterest a political forum has in your last post is evidence that personal liberty is impossible? That seems sort of.... melodramatic.

Norrin Radd · #96 (**permalink**) 06-20-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

The disinterest a political forum has in your last post is evidence that personal liberty is impossible? That seems sort of.... melodramatic.

It's not the disinterest in my last post, it is disinterest in the truth.

How many whistle blowers have risked their careers to try to warn the American people about wrong doing? How many have ruined their careers, doing the right thing, yet the American people don't even care about these many whistle blowers.

I see American apathy on most important topics. rBGH, Fluoride, government waste, education and dozens of other topics.

People don't even question why the US has been in a declared state of national emergency since 1933.

People just don't give a crap about the truth. They are content to let the mass media tell them what to think.

Norrin Radd · #97 (**permalink**) 06-20-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by pramjockey

I disagree. The sheer volume of spam that you cut and paste hardly qualifies as "evidence" of much of anything.

How would you know, you are too lazy and uncaring to even read it.

Of course, you are just a typical American, allowing the "establishment" to tell you what to think.

God forbid you actually might have to read something and educate yourself.

It is sad day when a person is attacked for posting evidence to back up his opinion. It is an even sadder day when the information is attacked by a closed minded person who admitted he didn't even bother to read the information.

baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

pramjockey · #98 (**permalink**) 06-20-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norrin Radd

How would you know, you are too lazy and uncaring to even read it.

Of course, you are just a typical American, allowing the "establishment" to tell you what to think.

God forbid you actually might have to read something and educate yourself.

It is sad day when a person is attacked for posting evidence to back up his opinion. It is an even sadder day when the information is attacked by a closed minded person who admitted he didn't even bother to read the information.

baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Please. The sheer volume of material that I have had to read just for grad school demonstrates that I'm not opposed to reading or learning. However, in this situation, it is your responsibility to present your information in a clear and coherent manner. You have failed to meet this responsibility.

Si modo · #99 (**permalink**) 06-20-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Please. The sheer volume of material that I have had to read just for grad school demonstrates that I'm not opposed to reading or learning. However, in this situation, it is your responsibility to present your information in a clear and coherent manner. You have failed to meet this responsibility.

Pram brings up an excellent point here, Norrin. Papers almost always have abstracts - a summary of what is contained in the paper including a touch of background, only the significant findings (and not all of them), and the conclusion. It's only a pargraph long.

If one writes a good abstract, the reader will then read all the details.

TMI is rarely the way to go if you wish to draw the reader into your examination of your thesis.

Norrin Radd · #**100** (**permalink**) 06-21-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Si modo

Pram brings up an excellent point here, Norrin. Papers almost always have abstracts - a summary of what is contained in the paper including a touch of background, only the significant findings (and not all of them), and the conclusion. It's only a pargraph long.

If one writes a good abstract, the reader will then read all the details.

TMI is rarely the way to go if you wish to draw the reader into your examination of your thesis.

I ALMOST NEVER post an entire piece. I post the "essentials" which back up my point, or position.

If people are too lazy to read a few paragraphs, then that is there problem.

Maybe they should try sifting through hundreds of pages to find the precise information themselves.

I have hundreds of posts on this forum that I spent at least half an hour on, looking up information to use, from the best sources I could find.

I have dozens of posts that I spent an hour on, or more. Just looking up information that I have already read, in order to provide evidence which supports my opinion.

But it is too much to ask people to spend 5 minutes to read the information?

pramjockey · #**101** (**permalink**) 06-21-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norrin Radd

I ALMOST NEVER post an entire piece. I post the "essentials" which back up my point, or position.

If people are too lazy to read a few paragraphs, then that is there problem.

Maybe they should try sifting through hundreds of pages to find the precise information themselves.

I have hundreds of posts on this forum that I spent at least half an hour on, looking up information to use, from the best sources I could find.

I have dozens of posts that I spent an hour on, or more. Just looking up information that I have already read, in order to provide evidence which supports my opinion.

But it is too much to ask people to spend 5 minutes to read the information?

Let's examine the OP:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norrin Radd

I have actually searched under these keywords before, as well as many others regarding education.

It is amazing what you can learn on the internet.

From Norman Dodd's testimony on Regionalism. Dodd was the chief investigator for the Reece committee, which was a Congressional committee in the 1950s which investigated tax free foundations and their influence on government,

26 years later Dodd testified in State hearings on Regionalism. Dodd's background was finance and banking, but he was honest, so he was not a very good banker. His resume can be learned by watching, or reading his interview from 1981, shortly before his death.

Now, finally, we are in a war. Eventually, the war is over, and the Trustees turn their attention, then, to seeing to it that life does not revert in this country to what it was prior to 1914; and they hit upon the idea that in order to prevent that reversion, they must control education in this country. They realized that that is a perfectly tremendous, really stupendous and complex task – much too great for them alone. So they approached the Rockefeller Foundation, with the suggestion that the task be divided between the two of them.

The Carnegie Endowment takes on that aspect of education which is a domestic in its relationship. These two run along in tandem that way, disciplined by a decision – namely, that the answer lies entirely in the changing of the teaching of the history of the United States. They then approached the... five of the then most prominent historians in this country with the proposition that they alter the manner of the teaching of the subject, and they get turned down flatly; so they realized then they must build their own stable of historians, so to speak.

They approach the Guggenheim Foundation, which specializes in Fellowships, and suggest to them that when they locate a relatively young potential historian, will the Guggenheim Foundation give that person a Fellowship, merely on their say-so... and the answer is, they will.

Ultimately, a group of twenty are so assembled, and that becomes the nuclei of the policies which emanate to the American Historical Association. Subsequently, around 1928, the Carnegie Endowment granted to the American Historical Association $400,000 in order to make a study of what the future of this country will probably turn out to be and should be. They came up with a seven-volume set of books, the last volume being a summary and digest of the other six. In the last volume, the answer is as follows:

"The future belongs to the United States..... the future in the United States belongs to collectivism administered with characteristic American efficiency".

And that becomes the policy which is finally picked up and manifests itself in the expression of collectivism all along the line, of which the dividing of this country into regions, using all of the logic which supports the ultimate idea that in order that regional government, in turn, be effective, there must be a new Constitution of the United States.

That is the background, gentlemen, of this very serious question with which you all are now wrestling. I felt that, possibly, that might tend to help a little bit as you take on this high responsibility, which is tremendous. You must have been thoroughly impressed with the complexities which arrive and confront you if you do not go at this problem in terms of the origin of the idea and the real purpose behind that idea; and skipping all the way over to try to distill a system, or a working plan, whereby our society can cope with these complexities, such as they exist today. I am very appreciative of the opportunity to be with you. I wanted to make these points as brief as possible...

Regional Governance | Norman Dodd Testimony on Regionalism

Now, the chief council for the Reece committee was named Rene Wormser. After the committee made it's final report, Wormser wrote a book titled, oddly enough, "Foundations: Their Power and Influence."

This next segment is long, but it is VERY IMPORTANT.

Yet, when a committee of five members was appointed to conduct the foundation investigation, Mr. Reece found that, of the four others appointed with him, three had been selected from among members of the House who had voted against the investigation.

The key agent in Rockefeller efforts to break up the investigation was Congressman Wayne Hays of Ohio, a member of the Committee. During the inquiry, two tennis-shoe types decided to play Agatha Christie and began trailing Hays. They discovered that he went to the same Washington hotel for a closed luncheon on a specific day each week. Dressing as cleaning women, the ladie investigated and established that Hays was reporting to representatives of several major foundations. Rene Wormser comments in Human Events on the Hays' tactics,

Mr. Hays showed himself exceptionally adept at disruption. For example, in one session of 185 minutes, he resorted to constant interruption 246 times. He refused to obey rules of the committee. He insulted and vilified witnesses, counsel to the committee and committee members themselves. His intransigence finally caused a termination of the hearings.

The brazen Congressman Hays even explained the purpose of his conduct to Counsel Wormser. Mr. Wormser noted in his book, Foundations: Their Power and Influence:

". . . Mr. Hays told us one day that 'the White House' [Eisenhower] had been in touch with him and asked him if be would cooperate to kill the committee."

Because of limited time, staff, and money, the Reece Committee was forced to concentrate its investigation on various Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations, and on the huge Ford Foundation. The Committee found that one of the first areas into which John D. invested his money was education. Daddy Oilbucks put his assistant, Fred Gates, in charge of his General Education Board. Gates tipped the Rockefeller philosophy on education in the Board's Occasional Paper No.1;

" In our dreams we have limitless resources and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present educational conventions fade from our minds, and unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive rural folk. "

Later, the General Education Board expanded horizons to take into its "molding hands" the city folk at well. To this end the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations, which often had interlocking directorates and many times acted in unison, began in the early Thirties to back John Dewey and his Marxist educationalists with enormous amounts of money.

As Rene Wormser observes:

"Research and experimental stations were established at selected universities, notably Columbia, Stanford, and Chicago. Here some of the worst mischief in recent education-was born. In these Rockefeller-and-Carnegie established vineyards worked many of the principal characters in the story of the suborning of American education. Here foundations nurtured some of the most ardent academic advocates of upsetting the American system and supplanting it with a Socialist state.... "

The Carnegie and Rockefeller foundations had jumped into the financing of education and the social sciences with both Left feet. For example, the foundations (principally Carnegie and Rockefeller) stimulated two-thirds of the total endowment funding of all institutions of higher learning in America during the first third of this century. During this period the Carnegie-Rockefeller complex supplied 20 % of the total income of colleges and universities and became in fact, if not in name, a sort of U.S. Ministry of Education. The result was a sharp Socialist-Fascist turn. As Rene Wormser, Counsel for the Reece Committee, reports:

"A very powerful complex of foundations and allied organizations has developed over the years to exercise a high degree of control over education. Part of this complex, and ultimately responsible for it, are the Rockefeller and Carnegie groups of foundations. "

These foundations were, by way of grants amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars, responsible for the nationwide acceptance of avowed socialist John Dewey's theories of 'progressive' education and permissiveness -the products of which have been marching on our college campuses for the past two decades.

Traditionalist teachers, who had been strongly resisting Deweyism, were swamped by education propagandists backed with a flood of Rockefeller-Carnegie dollars. At the same time the National Education Association, the country's chief education lobby, was also financed largely by the Rockfellers and Carnegie foundations.

It, too, threw its considerable weight behind the Dewey philosophies. As an NEA report maintained in 1934:

"A dying laissez-faire must be completely destroyed and all of us, including the "owners," must be subjected to a large degree of social control."

Since America's public school system was decentralized, the foundations had concentrated on influencing schools of education (particularly Columbia, the spawning ground for Deweyism), and on financing the writing of textbooks which were subsequently adopted nationwide. These foundation-roduced textbooks were so heavily slanted in favor of socialism that Wormser concluded:

"It is difficult to believe that the Rockefeller Foundation and the National Education Association could have supported these textbooks. But the fact is that Rockefeller financed them and the N.E.A. promoted them very widely."

and then the coup de gras

[i]Little wonder that Reece Committee Counsel Wormser says evidence compiled during and after the Reece investigation of foundations:

"...leads one to the conclusion that there was, indeed something in the nature of an actual conspiracy among certain leading educators in the United States to bring about socialism through the use of our school systems... "

The Rockefeller File: Chap. 4, The Power of Foundations by Gary Allen

So, here we have both the chief investigator and the chief council of a Congressional Committee telling us that there was a conspiracy by the foundations to take control of education in the US?

Now, what are the odds that Congress appointed 2 CONSPIRACY WHACKOS TO BE THE CHIEF INVESTIGATOR AND THE CHIEF COUNCIL OF A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE ?

What are the odds?

Because of this control of education, the recent generations have been lied to all their lives. If it were not for the internet, the future of freedom would already be lost.

Is there something wrong with me to think this is one of the most important issues in the US today?

This is not a good summary with some pertinent findings. This is a rambling stream-of-consciousness that is hard to read because finding whatever you intend to be your point proves elusive.

TSGracchus · #**102** (**permalink**) 06-21-2008

Norrin, I'm going to make you a suggestion. It's just a suggestion, but it would help you to be taken more seriously if you can do this.

With your next post, please state in a single paragraph exactly what you are claiming about the state of education in the U.S. Do not supply evidence for this claim. (You can do that later, if and when it's questioned.) Do not present the words of others. Do not present links. And don't worry about the fact that you won't have "proven" anything. Just say what it is you are claiming is the case. Because, to be quite honest, it's very difficult to tell what you're trying to say from the blizzard of stuff you posted earlier.

Example:

"The education of children in this country is tailored by federal government policies to fit an agenda which was laid down by several tax-free foundations in the last century. This agenda consists of (X, Y, Z). Children are raised to believe in (X, Y, Z) in school, and that provides support for certain governmental policies which we have today. The federal government insures that these beliefs will be included in school curricula through (Q, R, S)."

Now I think that might be something sort of close to what you are saying, but you'll note that I was unable to make a good guess as to what X, Y, Z are, or Q, R, S. You have not been remotely clear on this yourself.

Can you do this? If you do, then perhaps we will have a basis for discussion, or at least something to discuss. If one or more of your points is then questioned, then (and only then) would it be appropriate to bring in evidence to back it up.

If you don't or you can't, then when people don't take you seriously, you have no one but yourself to blame.

Norrin Radd · #**103** (**permalink**) 06-22-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSGracchus

Norrin, I'm going to make you a suggestion. It's just a suggestion, but it would help you to be taken more seriously if you can do this.

With your next post, please state in a single paragraph exactly what you are claiming about the state of education in the U.S. Do not supply evidence for this claim. (You can do that later, if and when it's questioned.) Do not present the words of others. Do not present links. And don't worry about the fact that you won't have "proven" anything. Just say what it is you are claiming is the case. Because, to be quite honest, it's very difficult to tell what you're trying to say from the blizzard of stuff you posted earlier.

Example:

"The education of children in this country is tailored by federal government policies to fit an agenda which was laid down by several tax-free foundations in the last century. This agenda consists of (X, Y, Z). Children are raised to believe in (X, Y, Z) in school, and that provides support for certain governmental policies which we have today. The federal government insures that these beliefs will be included in school curricula through (Q, R, S)."

Now I think that might be something sort of close to what you are saying, but you'll note that I was unable to make a good guess as to what X, Y, Z are, or Q, R, S. You have not been remotely clear on this yourself.

Can you do this? If you do, then perhaps we will have a basis for discussion, or at least something to discuss. If one or more of your points is then questioned, then (and only then) would it be appropriate to bring in evidence to back it up.

If you don't or you can't, then when people don't take you seriously, you have no one but yourself to blame.

So, you are telling me, instead of using the words of well respected people, I should use my own words and not worry about providing evidence to support my claims?

If I did this, I would be like every other pathetic loser who posts on discussion forums without providing a shred of evidence to back up their opinions.

Sorry, but I am not a pathetic loser. I actually know what I am talking about, unlike 90% of the people who post on discussion forums.

Either you care about the truth, or you do not.

Obviously most of the people at this forum don't give a flying fuck about the truth.

Si modo · #**104** (**permalink**) 06-22-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norrin Radd

So, you are telling me, instead of using the words of well respected people, I should use my own words and not worry about providing evidence to support my claims?

If I did this, I would be like every other pathetic loser who posts on discussion forums without providing a shred of evidence to back up their opinions.

Sorry, but I am not a pathetic loser. I actually know what I am talking about, unlike 90% of the people who post on discussion forums.

Either you care about the truth, or you do not.

Obviously most of the people at this forum don't give a flying fuck about the truth.

No Norrin. That's not what he is telling you. You have three posters here who see the potential of your posts and want to clearly hear what you have to say. You could easily be dismissed, but three posters see something in your posts, but not enough.

You've been given suggestions on how to improve the transmission of your message. You keep throwing out the suggestions with veiled insults to posters who are trying to help you. Consider that.

Consider the suggestions of some patient posters.

John Drake · #**105** (**permalink**) 06-22-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSGracchus

Norrin, I'm going to make you a suggestion. It's just a suggestion, but it would help you to be taken more seriously if you can do this.

With your next post, please state in a single paragraph exactly what you are claiming about the state of education in the U.S. Do not supply evidence for this claim. (You can do that later, if and when it's questioned.) Do not present the words of others. Do not present links. And don't worry about the fact that you won't have "proven" anything. Just say what it is you are claiming is the case. Because, to be quite honest, it's very difficult to tell what you're trying to say from the blizzard of stuff you posted earlier.

Example:

"The education of children in this country is tailored by federal government policies to fit an agenda which was laid down by several tax-free foundations in the last century. This agenda consists of (X, Y, Z). Children are raised to believe in (X, Y, Z) in school, and that provides support for certain governmental policies which we have today. The federal government insures that these beliefs will be included in school curricula through (Q, R, S)."

Now I think that might be something sort of close to what you are saying, but you'll note that I was unable to make a good guess as to what X, Y, Z are, or Q, R, S. You have not been remotely clear on this yourself.

Can you do this? If you do, then perhaps we will have a basis for discussion, or at least something to discuss. If one or more of your points is then questioned, then (and only then) would it be appropriate to bring in evidence to back it up.

If you don't or you can't, then when people don't take you seriously, you have no one but yourself to blame.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norrin Radd

So, you are telling me, instead of using the words of well respected people, I should use my own words and not worry about providing evidence to support my claims?

If I did this, I would be like every other pathetic loser who posts on discussion forums without providing a shred of evidence to back up their opinions.

Sorry, but I am not a pathetic loser. I actually know what I am talking about, unlike 90% of the people who post on discussion forums.

Either you care about the truth, or you do not.

Obviously most of the people at this forum don't give a flying fuck about the truth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Si modo

No Norrin. That's not what he is telling you. You have three posters here who see the potential of your posts and want to clearly hear what you have to say. You could easily be dismissed, but three posters see something in your posts, but not enough.

You've been given suggestions on how to improve the transmission of your message. You keep throwing out the suggestions with veiled insults to posters who are trying to help you. Consider that.

Consider the suggestions of some patient posters.

Not to disagree, but can't he use like ONE link? Like may