Before I get into talking about the one lead agency that is responsible for all things brainwashing in the United States, I think it imperative to continue on a bit more in exposing how the brainwashing is done and who is responsible for the creation of a duped wildlife science institution and the formation of a society willing and eager to accept it.
It is important, in helping readers to understand the dynamics of what is taking place, to distinguish the two things that must exist in order for effective brainwashing to take place. I have written of these two things already. One, is that there exist a deliberate and planned program to “train” educators and leaders at all levels of our society. Once the “trainers” are in place, then the brainwashing of the masses can take place in order that they become willing to accept the “to shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America.” This contrivance then begins to perpetuate and snowball with each passing generation until it becomes the gigantic monster that it is. It is my hope that I can begin to expose the enormity of this illusion, for without it comprehension is doomed to failure.
Charlotte Iserbyt is a former Senior Policy Adviser, under the first Reagan Administration, of the United States Department of Education; in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement. In this capacity, she had access to files on “restructuring American and Global Education”. She is also author of the book, “Deliberate Dumbing Down of America”.
Iserbyt was troubled after having read some of the files that existed that pertained to “restructuring” America’s education. As a senior policy adviser she was “trained” to identify the “resistors” of the programs designed to change our education system. Some of the programs designed to completely alter what our children were taught are: sex education, drug education; alcohol, suicide, death education. When Iserbyt recognized these “resistors”, her job was to “win them over.” One of the best ways to do that was to get as many respectable community leaders to drink the Kool-Aid and then dropping names often was all it took for “resistors” to follow along – a sad commentary, but nonetheless accurate. In her own words she says that she was trained at “conning” the communities in which she visited. This is a point in which once Americans would have asked why it was necessary to “con” the community? Either the program had merit and could stand on it’s own or it wouldn’t. Anything else had to have been a con game and what was the purpose of that snow job?
Iserbyt also speaks of the impact that Benjamin Bloom has had on American education. As she describes it, just about every teacher in the United States has to have been taught aspects of Benjamin Bloom’s ideology of “restructuring” education. This is often done through “sensitivity sessions”, something highly encouraged and done in National Training Laboratories “T-Groups”. Bloom’s twisted and to some, perverted, ideas about reeducating the masses have effectively permeated the depths of the United Nations and their UNESCO areas of education that I wrote about in Part III.
Bloom is called the father of outcome-based education and proudly describes his notions of what educating our people should be:
“The purpose of education and the schools is to change the thoughts, feelings and actions of students.” “….a large part of what we call ‘good teaching’ is the teacher’s ability to attain affective objectives through challenging the students’ fixed beliefs and getting them to discuss issues.”
The professor often bragged at workshops geared at “training” teachers that he could take a young student and convert them to atheism from Christianity in about an hour.
Berit Kjos writes that, “Facilitated group discussion is key to the transformation, and UNESCO’s plan for “lifelong learning” calls for universal participation. Young and old everywhere must be trained to think and work collectively.”
And again here, “This mind-changing (Hegelian dialectic) process required students in Communist nations to “confess” their thoughts and feelings in their respective groups. Trained facilitator-teachers would then guide the group dialogue toward a pre-planned consensus.”
Recall if you will what I wrote in Part IV about the recent symposium that was put on by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, presented as a means of attempting to discover what the people of Idaho wanted the department to do about finding new means of financing the department. The event had nothing to do with what they presented it as but everything to do with what was just described above, whether IDFG knew what they were doing or not. I believe they knew full well what they were doing simply by looking at the slate of presenters for the conference.
When groups gather, such as the one in Idaho, a well-trained and fully brainwashed facilitator will cause the “transformation”. This transformation results in more than just what might meet the eye. Not only will the event achieve a result that then can be misrepresented by claiming it was what the people wanted, their brainwashing processes continue, as all in attendance have been subjected to a “training” session all of its own. Each participant leaves having learned how great and productive facilitated meetings are. And the cycle grows and continues, which is all part of the bigger plan.
All of this reminds me of a simple card trick but to the person without the ability or the desire to think for themselves, can be easily duped. As the presenter of the card trick, select four cards; two, three, four and five will work wonderfully. You have a participant select one of the cards and have them hold it. You should know which card the person is holding. If you can’t figure out how to do that then I suggest you not try this trick.
Let’s say as a “facilitator” of the trick you know the person is holding a four of clubs. You are going to make them think you are going to guess the card they picked and so you use a process of elimination. You say, “I’m thinking of two numbers between 2 and 5.” You ask them to pick 2 of those four numbers. If they pick say, 3 and 4 you say, “pick one of those numbers.” If they say three, you tell them that leaves 4. If they pick 4 they’ve made it easy for you.
You use the same process to select a suit until you eventually have them convinced you picked their four of clubs card. Stupid? You bet. But the point here is, this is the same process a trained facilitator will use to force desired results. Getting people’s ideas and writing them down always works well. That’s why there are always easel boards and overhead projectors. If nobody in attendance offers up the desired ideas, predetermined before the meeting, then the facilitator will suggest it to them and write it down. Certainly no one there will question or even suspect what they are up to. They will eagerly nod their heads and agree because mostly that’s what they have been brainwashed to do. After all, they are a facilitator, right?
Are you getting any clue here as to how deeply entrenched this outcome based manipulation is into our education systems and thus our entire society? Because we have been so brainwashed to believe that our government and our leaders are better than those evil other countries, we seldom, if ever, question. We just accept. The more robotic, passive and unthinking we are, the better it is for the “change agents”, the “facilitators” and those really in control.
This process might not seem so sinister if it wasn’t for the ambition of those with power and control, “to shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America.”
Part VI will look more closely at the Environmental Movement and I’ll begin to pull this all together in what I hope will make more sense.