Life In The Idiocracy. The Dumbing Down of AmericaI watched a movie a few years ago that changed my life. The movie is titled "Idiocracy". It is a really scary movie. It is a depiction, a real possibility, of our future if we continue as we are. In the movie "Idiocracy" the President of the United States is an ex wrestler. Not an Olympic wrestler. A "WWF" wrestler. This seems really stupid huh? Part of the effort in the dumbing down of society is the campaign aimed at the dumbing down our children. This started some years back and guess what? They're not children anymore. Did you know that TV style entertainment wrestling has been in the top ten search queries for the past two years? I only checked the past two years. You know what the rest of the list mainly consists of? Celebrity gossip and porn. There is a Spanish language porn site that gets three and a half million visits a day. We no longer vote for people because of their ideas on important issues. They never bring up important issues. We vote for people based on our emotional reactions. So what is stopping this presidential part of the movie from being a reality today? There were no retired wrestlers running in the last election. How about in four years? Their was one running a few years back in Minnesota. He was elected. I personally like him. He's not dumb. It's more the principle. Where are the statesmen?
The really awful part of the movie was the overall picture of the society. The brain parts were gone. All that was left was a body. The structural monstrosity of society without the benefit of sane coherent thought. There were no smart people left in the society. Doesn't that seem dangerously close to home? How far are we from that today? If you wanted to make a society of idiots, how would you go about making one? Do you think you could make one? Where would the focus of your "dumbing down curriculum" start? Wouldn't you begin by dumbing down education, dumbing down schools, dumbing down our kids? I would. What will be the end result of all this dumbing down? Would we survive it? Will we survive it? How dumb can we get? What sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom? It is only our brain. We can learn. We have our education. Other than that, there is no significant difference between us and the rest of the animal kingdom. The difference that remains is only physical. Where the physical body is concerned, we're pretty light weight beings. Without an educated brain we wouldn't survive nature. We don't have the strength, the hides or the sensory acuteness necessary to live here. We have our brains and that's it. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that we are more than our brains. I don't want people to hit a philosophical wall here and get distracted. Say we are "us" spending time in a body. OK, what is happening then? We are seeing the world through the view port provided by the brain. Is that the way it is? It is according to all the evidence we've put together. Lets say it is. Then the brain, the body, everything in the world that is not consciousness is the environment. We exist as consciousness within an environment. Our environment is everything from "us" out. Not just from our skin out. If we are "us" spending time in a body, then the skin is out there too. If we don't think of it that way we're ignoring the most important part of our environment.
OK, so here we are looking out through the brains picture. We are seeing different pictures. No two pictures are the same. Similar but not identical. We evaluate the world, decide what is best to do, and do it. What about people with brain damage? What about the genetic glitch? There is nothing wrong with "them" but their brains aren't functioning at their peak. We don't want those people deciding our future or planning a society. We have the societies that we made with our brains - right? Not really. We have the society that some other brains came up with. Others have made some adaptations. Some of us have had our ideas effect the society we live in. Not many. I don't know any personally. I have only read things by and about them. Do we have a society designed by the best brains? So we're led to believe. I don't necessarily agree or disagree. I didn't know any of them. I do know that our society, our republic, was never designed for us commoners. But it did provide us with a way to protect ourselves and make improvements. It also lends itself, by design, to manipulation and destruction from any number of crazies who are able gain positions of power.
But whatever your point of view is on these subjects, I don't want to "get all political", we can agree that we are better off with better brains. The best brain possible is the one we want. The reason for going on and on about the body and consciousness and the environment is to get people looking at "the world" a little differently. There is a lot of hoopla about saving the environment. The environment that is closest to us is our body. That includes our brain. That's where we need to start. Here is something to consider, everything we put on the earth ends up in our brain. The earth is a big nutrient factory. Everything we need to have a healthy brain comes from the earth. What if we poison the earth? What effect will it have on our brain? Everything we put down, drop, dump, empty out, ends up in our brain. Don't expect me to explain the entire process. There is nothing else that can happen. It's as simple as we are what we eat. If we pollute the earth, we pollute what grows and we pollute our brains by ingesting it.
We dump tons of toxins, trash and poisons on the earth everyday. Then we eat it. Animals eat it. Then we eat them. Isn't this going to kill us? Of course it is. But not right away. First we're going to get dumber. Most of us grew up ingesting fluoride. Fluoride is poison. It will kill you. If you don't get enough to kill you right away it will just make you dumber. We, as a nation will become, are becoming, more and more idiotic every day. Every day I read the most ridiculous stuff from people with political blogs. Journalists who are to dumb to understand what is being done to them. Maybe they're just to scared to say anything. That's pretty dumb too. Who stays quiet, and dies, when they could save themselves by making the right noises? People put their faith in gods and politicians. I don't know about the gods but I do know about the politics. I do know that political goals and you're best interests do not coincide. We have some smart, well meaning politicians. Just a few. We have a few smart people that keep telling us what is taking place in the world and what will happen if we don't act. They are, for the most part, ignored. Take Noam Chomsky for example. Here is a guy that, for as long as I've known him and listened to him, has stated his opinion maybe twice. The rest of the time he gives us facts. A lot of people hate him. Why? Because he knows too much. People hate it when someone messes up their emotional lives and threatens their plans with facts.
So are we going to end up an Idiocracy? I think we are there now. It's not complete. It's not as bad as the movie. We aren't all as dumb as we will eventually be, but it's really bad. Most people haven't made any assessments of life since early childhood. They think they have. How many still believe what they were told in Sunday school? Why? How many know how history gets recorded. Who gets to write it and what their ideologies were. How many people are interested in the future? Not their immediate, financial comfort, future but the overall future of humans? How many people know of a "How did we get here" story that makes sense? That makes sense without faith? If things make sense you don't need faith. How many arguments continue to rage simply because people don't want to be wrong? How much of science and medicine is like that?
As I sit here writing I'm not sure what the best thing for the human race is. The big plan that's in the works is a mass depopulation. They just got rid of a million Iraqis. This depopulation plan is well documented and widely known but I don't see a lot of concern. I don't see a lot of people getting ready to defend themselves and their families. They will even argue that it's not real. They get mad if you present the facts. It makes them uncomfortable. The lack of foresight and concern is pretty remarkable. I still write stuff because I know that a large part of this apathy and ignorance is due to the poisoning of peoples brains. A lot of it is a product of false teaching and a steady bombardment of propaganda. But I have a hard time with it. I have a hard time liking people. It's not the stupidity as much as the arrogance and selfishness. I guess the thing that keeps me going is children. I like them.
So we have, due to the most recent emotionally driven election, a new mouthpiece for the banking cartel. Obama is continuing along with the plan just like George. The same people are in this administration as the last and the populace is fighting with the facts to save themselves from being wrong. From looking like idiots. We blew it again. We are behaving like idiots. Is this an Idiocracy. Problem is, it's not a movie, and it's not funny.
I'll make one more prediction: we won't get out of this now without a fight. I mean a literal physical, people are going to die, fight. We had one last chance. It was the time between presidents. More like the time before the last round of candidates. Once it got to the finals it didn't matter. We will have one more fake economic recovery of sorts - maybe. Then it's over. No more U.S., no more dollar, no more playing games. The end game of the world domination planners is here. Not out there in the distance, here at the door. Your door. The front door of, what you refer to as, your home. There will be no reasoning, diplomacy, petitioning or debate. We are at the point now when our usefulness is coming to an end. The governments militant citizenry is being formed. The federal government front will swallow the last vestiges of private property and we will have the armed forces and police brigades rolling along the streets. Constitutional or not. There is no one to blame but ourselves. We didn't care enough about the constitution. Most people can't tell you what it is.
Don't think that the police and military can arrest all of you? Don't think there are enough idiots to overpower you? Look around. Look at the internet. Look at the violence. The police act like they are in a futuristic post society movie. The people that want to be police look at you as the other people. The people out there. The them in the "them or us". It's not a question of can it happen, it's happening now. People are getting arrested and detained for talking about the government. Right now, today. There will be no funny Idiocracy. It's not a movie. You can't just watch the end and leave. There's no place to go.
Death sentence for private and home education,
Courtesy of the Supreme Court
All observers not laboring under hallucinations of the senses are agreed, or can be made to agree, about facts of sensible experience, through evidence toward which the intellect is merely passive, and over which the individual will and character have no control. Chauncey WrightCharlotte Iserbyt July 8, 2002
Basically I was a rebel growing up. I got kicked out of six schools. But I don't think that it makes you less of an intellect. You know, if you ever crave knowledge, there's always a library. Michelle Rodriguez
Curiosity is one of the most permanent and certain characteristics of a vigorous intellect. Samuel Johnson
The Supreme Court's recent 5-4 decision allowing the constitutionality of financial aid to parents which they may use at religious or private schools, including virtual academy (computer-assisted-instruction) charter schools available to home schoolers, will result in the deliberate dumbing down of all education.
In this latter regard, the writer of this article was told in 1981 by the Director of the Office of Libraries and Learning Technology, U.S. Department of Education, that " in the future all education will take place in the home, using computer-assisted-instruction, but that we will always have the school buildings for 'socialization' purposes." This is the United Nations lifelong learning/brainwashing concept (International community education) which places all community services under the umbrella of the community school. (The National Alliance of Business refers to this agenda as Kindergarten-Age 80).
The public sector succumbed years ago to federal control through funding. Now, private schools, willing to go the "voucher" route in order to get the money to stay in business, will have the opportunity to be equally dumbed down, denied a liberal arts curriculum, and stripped of all sound moral education. I can already hear the howling from voucher-supporting conservatives the first time the heavy hand of the federal government lands on a private school denying it the right to determine "what is right and what is wrong" in its curriculum, hiring practices, recital of the Pledge of Allegiance, The Lord's Prayer, etc. Those private schools which courageously, for reasons of conscience, resist vouchers will eventually be forced out of business due to their inability to remain competitive.
Interestingly enough, the blame for this incredibly dangerous Trojan Horse decision can be laid at the feet of the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Is school choice a plot to implement the socialist, corporate fascist, workforce training agenda for the global planned economy?
This decision will succeed in carrying out the long-standing leftist/internationalist goal of total control of all education (public and private) through the dollar. It provides a classic example of what the late Senator Edmund Muskie, D. ME. referred to when he described how the Democrats, when they couldn't get something controversial approved, would go to the Republicans for action. Muskie, known as "Mr. Metro", used as an example President Nixon's implementation of metropolitan/regional government (the unconstitutional carving of the nation into ten regions), something the Democrats had been unwilling or unable to tackle or accomplish.
The late Robert Hutchins, left-wing educator, former President of the University of Chicago, and supporter of World Government, would be ecstatic over the voucher decision. In fact, he could have written it. In an article by Virgil C. Blum in The Commonweal, January 31, 1964 entitled "Freedom and Equality", p. 513, Blum says:
"Dr. Robert M. Hutchins sees no constitutional difficulty in federal aid for the education of church-related school children in secular subjects. The fact that such education 'is permitted by religion' or that federal aid for such education is an 'aid to religion' he says 'is immaterial.' The benefit that accrues to religion, Hutchins argues, is 'incidental to an overriding public benefit.' Consequently, 'such incidental benefits,' he reasons 'do not invalidate the legislation'."
It is not difficult to understand why Hutchins would be supporting aid to church schools. He knew it was not a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow but government control and therefore, he could argue that "aid to religion" as a byproduct of government support for church schools would be 'incidental to an overriding public benefit.'
Why don't more people understand that government control of private and home school education is exactly what is going to happen? And why have religious organizations, especially those affiliated with the Catholic Church, supported school choice proposals when they have so much to loose once the government controls are implemented?
If the question of school choice is considered in a vacuum, without the benefit of an in-depth understanding of the history and highly controversial goals of American public education, if it is considered simply in the context of providing a better education for low income children, if it is considered only as an issue of equal funding for all children, one escapes the very dangerous crux of the matter: Accountability... accountability to the government which is granting the voucher or tax credit.
While working in the Department of Education and involved in supervising grants and contracts to local schools, government labs and centers, United States and foreign universities, etc., I had to make sure that the recipients of the federal grants complied with federal regulations, guidelines, and criteria for that particular project. I never questioned the wisdom of such a requirement. Although the U.S. Department of Education is in itself an unconstitutional entity and should not exist, it would still have been illegal to allow recipients of federal money (extracted from the taxpayers) to spend that money as they wished. There must be accountability as long as we Americans want government to perform in an orderly, fair manner.
Elected officials and others in supervisory positions, including public school superintendents who complain about government regulations, should, when the government honey pot is passed around the board table, just say "NO". That is the only way to avoid the regulations imposed rightfully in the name of "accountability," and to remain a truly free agent. During my three-year tenure as an elected school board member I voted "NO" on every single motion to accept federal curriculum or federal funding.
So, why is it that those promoting tuition tax credits and vouchers have missed this point of accountability? Is it because it is too simple to understand? Is it because they feel that the need to level the field for low income children should take precedence over accountability requirements and that accountability requirements are not to be feared? Read on...
In 1982, while working on a U.S. Department of Education technology grant to the Association for Educational Computing and Technology, a spin-off the National Education Association, I was shocked by some internal comments in an early draft of the grant. Although I was not working in an "Eyes Only" position for the CIA or Defense Department, but for an agency which supposedly exists to provide a beneficial service to parents, children, and teachers, this paper was stamped [ CONFIDENTIAL! ] On one page there appeared the following information:
"Project design features: What We (the U.S. Department of Education) Can Control or Manipulate? Under that incredible question the following items and activities were listed: State participation/selection process, role of advisors, content of program, training of state leaders, resource people utilized, basic skills content areas emphasized, perception of need to use technology." The main reason I gave that document to the press, for which I was subsequently relieved of my duties, was that I was appalled at the blatant attitude of the federal government regarding the national public school system. Do the five justices who ruled favoring school choice proposals live in such a dream world that they believe the government will require less regulation of the private and home schools than it requires of the public schools?
There is a certain naivety, Alice in Wonderland attitude, amongst those who should know better regarding what will happen to private schools and home school entities which accept vouchers. Did the Supreme Court majority not study the catastrophic history of school choice in France which resulted, in 1983, with the socialist French Government under Mitterand assuming control of all private and religious education which received government funding?
The conservative Mayor of Paris, Jacques Chirac, said the takeover threatens "the free choice of schools by parents, the basic character of private education, the freedom of management of these establishments."
The conservative Paris newspaper, LeFigaro said it was worse than that: "Private schools are no longer threatened. The propositions of Education Minister Alain Savery on the future of private education are equivalent to a sentence of death."
It is understandable that parents are desperate to find a solution to the devastating problems facing their children in the public schools. However, they should realize that the despicable situation has been planned for over 150 years (the dumbing down was deliberate...the Hegelian dialectic at work), in order to get the parents to call for and accept what is being sold to them as a solution providing freedom of choice, which in fact is what the internationalists, especially the Carnegie Corporation, has had planned for at least 75 years. The Carnegie Corporation's plan to change our economic system from free market to collectivist was published in 1934 in its little book "Conclusions and Recommendations for the Social Studies". Not only did President Reagan in 1985 sign agreements with President Gorbachev to merge the United States and Soviet education systems; the Carnegie Corporation signed even more extensive agreements with the Soviet Academy of Science to carry out the same agenda.
Let me warn parents and private school administrators: "Freedom to choose" is exactly the opposite of what they and the private sector will receive if they take one penny of federal, state or local tax money to educate children. Believe it or not, slavery is right around the corner, since once the private sector is controlled through vouchers, thereby creating a partnership with government (corporate fascism), students , having been psychologically profiled, will be tracked into specific training at an early age and later into job slots to suit the needs of the corporate sector and the global economy. That is the failed international socialist quota system that in essence provides NO CHOICE! Our children will have no freedom to choose what they want for their futures. This is going on right now in the public school sector due to Goals 2000, the School to Work Opportunities Act, and the reauthorization of the ESEA (S.1, the Bush-Kennedy "No child Left Behind Act.") Some bright 9th graders are spending 3 out of 5 days a week at the job site, rather than studying math, science, literature, history, foreign languages, art, music, etc. which would give them a liberal arts education, indispensable for upward mobility, freedom, and an understanding of the world in which they live.
Ah.....would that Aristotle, 384-322 B.C., could return to express his displeasure with this latest development. He said "Educated men are as much superior to uneducated men as the living are to the dead."
What school choice is all about is not giving parents a real choice without strings attached; it is about controlling all children (referred to as "human resources"), everywhere on this planet, in order to implement the corporate fascist global economy, with 100% participation in the global computer!
Why, otherwise, does one find most of the major players and promoters of school choice coming from the corporate sector, with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as the largest and loudest supporter of all? TIME magazine, 6/8/92, owned by Time-Warner came close to the truth when it said "...the Bush Administration strongly supports the concepts that underlie the Edison Project...Many observers believe Whittle's long-term plan anticipates the use of these (voucher) funds. If adopted, the reform (vouchers) could funnel billions of public dollars into private schools..." And NEWSWEEK, 6/8/92, not to be outdone by TIME, said "There's no question that Whittle schools could be extremely rewarding ...If Congress approves a voucher system..." Are we so naive that we believe big business really cares about our children's futures? It cares, and rightfully so, about big profits. That's perfectly fine, but not at the expense of our children's freedom to choose their futures.
Conservatives have a problem understanding the overt and heavily-funded position of the teachers' unions in opposition to school choice, and refuse to understand or accept the NEA and AFT leadership's covert position of support. The unions would be pretty stupid not to support vouchers when they know that the international education agenda calls for such "choice" in order to implement the global workforce training agenda and that their membership will be called upon to staff the training sites. It is the average traditional classroom teacher who opposes school choice for obvious reasons, some of which are cited in this article. The following quotes substantiate the above conclusion:
The late Albert Shanker, President, American Federation of Teachers - "It may be that we can't get the big changes we need without choice."
President George Bush, Sr. - "Choice is the one reform that drives all others."
Former U.S. Secretary of Education Lauro Cavazos - "President Bush and I are determined to use the power of choice to help restructure American education."
To illustrate how the promoters of this totalitarian agenda know full well what they are doing, one need go no further than to the writings of major education change agent Chester Finn, who was once opposed to school choice but is presently a supporter of the concept. (Finn assisted in the development of the National Institute of Education in 1970, served under Secretary William Bennett as Assistant Secretary, Office of Educational Research and Improvement in the mid-eighties, and was the author of America 2000, renamed Goals 2000 during the Clinton Administration.
Finn also serves on the National Governing Board for the National Assessment for Educational Progress. The NAEP is the tool for measuring accountability to politically-correct government viewpoints (60 percent of the test items measure political correctness and school-to-work readiness). The NAEP, which President Bush mandated be administered in all schools, will determine not only curriculum, but compliance with accountability standards and therefore will be essential in the determination of which private schools and home schoolers will receive vouchers. That is the reason this decision will do away with private and home schooling education as they are presently constituted.
In an article he wrote entitled "Public Service, Public Support, Public Accountability", March, 1982, National Association of Secondary School Principals' Bulletin, p. 69, Finn said:
"Some to be sure, like to think they can have it both ways; i.e. can obtain aid without saddling themselves with unacceptable forms of regulation. But most acknowledge the general applicability of the old adage that he who pays the piper calls the tune, and are more or less resigned to amalgamating or choosing between assistance and autonomy."
And, in American Education, May, 1982, "Public Support for Private Education." Part 1, p. 5, Finn said:
"Short of scattering money in the streets or handing it out to everyone who wants some, the funding agency must define eligible recipients...This means, in a word, 'regulation,' the inevitable concomitant of public financial support."
The other side of the coin, Finn says, is "the obligation of private schools to recognize certain limits to their differentness and certain ways they must conform to the norms and expectations of a society that values and supports them..."
In returning to this most bizarre Supreme Court Decision, something comes to mind. Why did Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor recently attend a conference in Europe to familiarize herself with World Court decisions and how they might play out in the United States, under our present Constitution? Could this school choice decision, in the future, have anything to do with world court decisions, universal/global education, public private partnerships, global work force training, etc.?
Remember, it was Karl Marx who called for a "combination of education with industrial production." And the global government being implemented today is nothing more nor less than what Lenin called for: international socialism.
Why did the majority of our elected officials in Congress and appointees on the Supreme Court allow these radical changes to take place, changes which will forever affect the futures of our children and the special nature of the greatest, freedom-loving country in the history of the world?
Because they no longer represent the best interests of their constituents. Their allegiance is to the global elite at the United Nations and elsewhere, from whom they receive their marching orders. Or, especially in the case of our elected officials, they have been so dumbed down in the public schools that they didn't even know what form of government and economy they swore to uphold when they assumed office.
Our government, through this latest decision, has placed the last nail in the coffin of "freedom". This decision finalizes the exchange of our highly successful free market system and republican form of government for a failed 'ism' form of government. Whether our new form of government will be corporate fascism, socialism, or communism (all of which differ only in minor ways), remains to be seen.
Note: Credit for some of the research in this article goes to Barbara M. Morris who wrote the indispensable book on the dangers of school choice: "Tuition Tax Credits...A Responsible Appraisal", 1983, and to Billy Lyon who wrote a fascinating treatise "Connections and Conflicts of Interest (Or, There Ought to Be an Investigation!) 1992, which documents the role of conservatives, liberals, corporations. foundations, etc. in the promotion of school choice and the school-to-work agenda.
Read more articles by Charlotte Iserbyt.