Beverly Eakman on the effects of the psychologized classroom; Dangers of Public Education

Beverly Eakman is education's whistleblower. Here is her website.

Discover Who The NEA Is Connected To

This website is an excellent web resource whereby you can see who and what is connected in society. This link takes you right to the page where you can see who the NEA is connected to.

The Movie, "Inherit The Wind" VS The Real "Scopes Trial"; The Trial On The Teaching of Creation VS Evolution In Public Schools

After watching the above video demonstrating Hollywood's blatant falsifying of history, here is the hollywood version that has been used in public "education".

UNESCO; The World Core Curriculum and Global Spirituality

This is one of a full series called "Know Your Enemy" the series is posted here.

A full article with more video clips and quotes on this subject called "The World Core Curriculum And Your Children is posted here.

The Educational Establishment versus Civilization

John W. Robbins
Streaming audio of full lecture

Download the PDF version of this review.

Almost sixty years ago, Walter Lippmann delivered an address titled “Education versus Western Civilization” to the American Association for the Advancement of Science. As his title indicated, Lippmann clearly understood the threat to civilization that the educational establishment in America posed. In his address, he propounded several theses on education:

First: That during the past forty or fifty years those who are responsible for education have progressively removed from the curriculum of studies the Western culture which produced the modern democratic state;

Second: That the schools and colleges have, therefore, been sending out into the world men who no longer understand the creative principle of the society in which they live;

Third: That, deprived of their cultural tradition, the newly educated Western men no longer possess in the form and substance of their own minds and spirits the ideas, the premises, the rationale, the logic, the method, the values of the deposited wisdom which are the genius of the development of Western civilization;

Fourth: That the prevailing education is destined, if it continues, to destroy Western civilization and is in fact destroying it; .†.†.

And finally: What is now required in the modern educational system is not the expansion of its facilities or the specific reform of its curriculum and administration but a thorough reconsideration of its underlying assumptions and of its purposes.

The educational establishment that Lippmann saw destroying civilization in 1940 has not only continued, it has grown and flourished. There has been no thorough reconsideration of its underlying assumptions and purposes. Instead, its curriculum has been reformed innumerable times, and its facilities have been vastly expanded.

But while the educational establishment has grown, moral and academic standards have all but disappeared. The evidence of abandoned academic standards, if not so dramatic as the evidence of abandoned moral standards, should be equally sobering: falling SAT scores, functional illiteracy, not merely of students but of teachers as well, and a vacuum of cultural and theological ignorance among both teachers and students. The decline of American education has been reported in dozens of books over the past half century. The entire American educational establishment, from kindergarten to university, is in collapse. This is the generation that must begin all over again....remainder of article posted here.

The Masonic Connection To Using Public Schools To Replace American Culture With Their "New Age" Religion

Why Are Freemasonry, the New Age and Mormonism So Determined To Promote Public Schools while Resisting Christian Schools, Private Academies and Home schooling?

In the September, 1950 issue of New Age magazine, that most influential and prestigious of Masonic journals, all this was summarized perfectly. (Keep in mind that the "God" spoken of in Freemasonry is "Hiram Abiff", also known as Lucifer the Light Bearer.) In the September, 1950 issue of "New Age" magazine, an influential and prestigious Masonic Journal,C. William Smith wrote in his article, "God's Plan in America", the following:

"As stated before, God's Plan in America is a nonsectarian plan. Our Constitution is nonsectarian. Our great American Public Schools . . . God's chosen schools . . . are nonsectarian. The Great Spirit behind this great nation is nonsectarian. Our great American Public Schools have never taken away from any child the freedom of will, freedom of spirit or freedom of mind. That is the divine reason that Great God our King has chosen the Great American Public Schools to pave the way for the new race, the new religion and the new civilization that is taking place in America."

Details can be found in this footnoted article by Tom McKenney

"[Lodges] have frequently become the rendezvous of innovators in religion and politics, and other disturbers of the public peace. In short, I have found that the covert of a Mason Lodge had been employed in every country for venting and propagating sentiments in religion and politics, that could not have circulated in public without exposing the author to great danger. I found, that this impunity had gradually encouraged men of licentious principles to become more bold, and to teach doctrines subversive of all our notions of morality--of all our confidence in the moral government of the universe--of all our hopes of improvement in a future state of existence--and of all satisfaction and contentment with our present life, so long as we live in a state of civil subordination. I have been able to trace these attempts, made, through a course of fifty years, under the specious pretext of enlightening the world by the torch of philosophy, and of dispelling the clouds of civil and religious superstition which keep the nations of Europe in darkness and slavery. 


I have observed these doctrines gradually diffusing and mixing with all the different systems of Free Masonry; till, at last, AN ASSOCIATION HAS BEEN FORMED for the express purpose of ROOTING OUT ALL THE RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS, AND OVERTURNING ALL THE EXISTING GOVERNMENTS..." - John Robbins, M.A.,  "Proofs Of A Conspiracy" (full text)

The War On Parents

Valedictorian On Being Educated Into Imbecility

Using Math Assignments For Indoctrination

Using math and other assignments as vehicles for propaganda.

The Fruits Of Public Schooling In The "Socializing" Of Your Children

This Is What The Public School System Has Unleashed On America

The "Healthcare" industry in the US is being turned into a tool of "Democide". This Doctor, who read the Obamacare health bill, explains that he will be forced to administer treatment via a government formula, and not base treatment on his own expertise, or face a $100,000 fine on the first violation. The second violation would call for a prison sentence. If this isn't stopped, we will lose almost half our Doctors when this goes into enforcement, as early as 2013.

This is a mis-application of law in America. America is constituted on the unchanging logic of "natural law"; murder can never become legal under the US constitution and punishments are only for committed crimes. A doctor helping a sick person get well is never accepted as a possible crime in Western constitutional culture. This can only be a crime in a Socialist, or Communist, (global) culture. 

Only by subverting Western culture through the practice of stupefying its citizenry with "global indoctrination" with Marxist philosophical thinking, called "praxis", can make this proposed irrationality acceptable in western constitutional culture.

Socialist governments are constituted on "arbitrary man"; their laws can be changed by those in power; enforcements are based on expediency, logic is irrelevant, chaos helps government retain and increase power, murder can become legal and punishments are for "dissenters", not people who commit actual violence. Government imposed irrationality proliferates only if the citizens minds have been "washed of the belief they can know right from wrong" (brainwashed).
Using knee-jerk "consensus" teaches the irrational "tolerance" of the Hegelian or Marxist dialectic. This irrationality induces "chaos" into the individual life, the family and society. This replacement of rational thinking enables Socialism. Socialism requires brainwashing, the destruction of the concept of "goodness", the destruction of the family, the destruction of freedom; "peace" is redefined as "not opposing socialism", Socialism's chaos and tyranny renders life unlivable.

Please note the shameless power-grab and irrationality of this system. "Zero Tolerance" is a good example of the dishonest, irrational, power-abusing nature of Socialism. Notice the power-play, bereft of logic and honesty; its logical outworking being only mindless, cruel intimidation of a person completely  innocent of any real crime. Logic begs the question; would a true perpetrator, with a plethora of available devises,  ever select a "butter knife" as a weapon of choice? You will see this same pattern of "shameless power-grab combined with irrationality" in all socialist ideology (gay education for children-same pattern); that is how you can recognize it, point it out to others, and let those who succumb to this deception know that this is "subversion" and not American.

Credentialing Renders A Person "Indoctrinated", Not "Educated"; A Demonstration

Sadly, I recently learned about the deceptive practice of "astroturf", whereby someone with money hires protesters then calls the news to do a story to "look at the outrage" when, in fact, it is planned deceit. Can our "credentialed" friend discern "grassroots" from "astroturf"; let's find out:


Why did this teacher say the audience's standing to pledge-in-unison was "presumably planned"? Below is a video of a fake protest Andrew Breitbart exposed as being "staged" by "Organizing for America".  Unbelievable; I would have never suspected Americans of this "astroturf" deception if it were not for these "useful idiots" getting  busted on video.  Maybe this is why this teacher presumed the outburst of patriotism was fake.

Wait a minute, wasn't our friendly teacher a member of "Organizing for America"? HMMM...

She did say she teaches "German". Ah yes, Germany; the birthplace of "Political Correctness", "The Will To Power", "The Nazis", and "The Frankfurt School". And don't forget Marxism's "Communist Manifesto" which was the precursor to John Dewey's "Humanist Manifesto" that formed and still guides US public schooling to this day.

Funny, if you look at the first 100 words of the "Declaration of Independence" and compare it to the first affirmation of Dewey's manifesto, if one knows Dewey's history, they can immediately identify him as a traitor of the worse kind. He and his friends wrote books and essays about Dewey's plan and tactics of using our country's school system to undermine US sovereignty, freedom and our patriarchal (hence the term "patriotic") culture.

Maybe in preparation for Dewey-and-friend's decision to usher OUR children out of our respectable, Truth-based culture, and over to the deceptive, immoral, PC Weirdness of Global citizenry, Kathy Tate-Bradish should learn a little "Russian" too, starting with the communists' meaning of their phrase "useful idiot". Aesopian language is so "multi-cultural".

The Hand That Rocks The Cradle

AGENDA: Grinding America Down (Trailer) from Copybook Heading Productions LLC on Vimeo.

“America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism (patriarchy), its morality and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.” -Joseph Stalin

The late comrade Andropov, the former head of the Soviet KGB, called this war of Communist aggression, "the final struggle for the MINDS and hearts of the people."  Interesting comment, since Jesus pointed out that the greatest commandment was that the Heart and Mind belongs to God.

Though communist Russia fell, communism didn't end; it's aggressors spilled onto American soil, escalating the spread of it's aggression using our institutions to rot our society from within. To find out how to recognize and help stop this spread, Dean Gotcher's site authorityreasearch.com has a team of researches that provide information in different areas of "social engineering" that are very interesting and eyeopening.

Dean Gotcher, the son of a school teacher, while working on his own teacher's credential noticed his faith waning and began looking deeper into what he was being taught at teachers' college.  He discovered that the work of respected names in the teaching profession, such as Freud, Maslow, Bloom, Rogers, Marcuse, Horkheimer, Russell, Fromm and especially John Dewey, were used by, or were part of, a thinktank called "The Frankfurt School".

The Frankfurt School was created in 1923 to effect a Marxist cultural revolution.   “When Hitler came to power, the Institut was closed and its members fled to the United States and migrated to major US universities - Columbia, Princeton, Brandeis, and California at Berkeley.”   Proposing a solution to ‘organise the intellectuals and use them, member Willi Munzenberg said, "We will make the West so corrupt that it stinks’.” Only then, after they have corrupted all its values and made life impossible, can we impose the dictatorship of the proletariat’”

“To further the advance of their ‘quiet’ cultural revolution - but giving us no ideas about their plans for the future - the School recommended (among other things):

“1. The creation of racism offences.
2. Continual change to create confusion.
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children.
4. The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority.
5. Huge immigration to destroy identity.
6. The promotion of excessive drinking.
7. Emptying of churches.
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime.
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits.
10. Control and dumbing down of media.
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family.”

Because the Marxist dialectic (diaprax - dialogue plus praxis) is such a prolific tool of corruption, Gotcher's research, "Diaprax Exposed", is extremely helpful in recognizing and exposing indoctrination through this practice. Being aware of such movements help us to make sense of the rapid degeneration of the West, and lets us know that our freedom and culture is under serious attack. 

Did You Know This About Harvey Milk?

I didn't find out Jim Jones was not a Christian till around 2005. I just found out that he was not only a Communist, but one witness who worked with him testified, in this youtube clip, that he had the mass suicide planned before he ever went to Guyana. Note the name of his organization was the Aesopian wording of  "The People's Temple" (simililar to the deceptive communist label of "The People's Repulic"), which should have raised my suspicion long ago if I was paying proper attention. Well, I know now.

Can you imagine the look on the face of any public school teacher who might have a child dig this up and present this before their elementary school class in honor of "Harvey Milk Day".

Indoctrination Of Children And Teachers In The "School" System Makes Subversion By Globalists Possible

Propaganda

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country." - Propagandist, Edward Bernays 1928

Beware The International Baccalaureate Curriculum

This radio program  (Scroll to the Aug 4, 2010 show), discusses the blatant subversion of US sovereignty and culture through the International Baccalaureate Program. One caller expresses their dismay that nearly all high school and college age people he discusses these topics with have unknowingly embraced communism. I have the same issues with teachers unknowingly indoctrinating children with communism and all paid for by tax dollars and now in hundreds of US schools that comes through UNESCO or The United Nations into US classrooms.  For more info on the dangers of UNESCO, watch the "Charlotte Iserbyt - Deliberate Dumbing Down" video in an older post below.

Social Engineering for Global Change By Carl Teichrib - 2004 www.forcingchange.org

Index to Carl Teichrib's  articles

---

"Fifty years is ample time in which to change a world and its people almost beyond recognition. All that is required for the task are a sound knowledge of social engineering, a clear sight of the intended goal - and power." -- Arthur C. Clarke, Childhood's End. (1)  

"A world society cannot be haphazard. Since there are no precedents, its cannot be traditional at this stage in its development. It can only be deliberative and experimental, planned and built up with particular objectives and with the aid of all available knowledge concerning the principles of social organization. Social engineering is a new science." -- Scott Nearing, United World (2)

---

Without question, one of the greatest tools for social engineering is in the realm of public education. This is not a blanket statement downplaying the role of education per se, but a judgment call recognizing the tremendous influence that the educational system can play in creating "social change."  

Consider this statement from Naresh Singh, a program director at the International Institute for Sustainable Development,

"Education has been advanced as significant in bringing about changes in attitudes, behaviour, beliefs and values...In order to redirect behaviour and values towards institutional change for sustainable development there is a need to investigate strategic options in relation to educational philosophies, scope for propagation and adoption, and groups most likely to be susceptible to change." (3)

All of this points to a radical shift now taking place - a shift which emphasizes "global thinking" and "planetary norms." According to the IISD literature, "the task of education for the immediate future is to assist in activating an ethic of planetary sensitivity...We must pass from a human-centred to an earth-centred sense of reality and value." (4)

This "global-shift role" for general education is a foundational platform for UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. The first Director General of UNESCO, Julian Huxley, clearly laid out UNESCO's educational scope,  

"In general, Unesco must constantly be testing its policies against the touchstone of evolutionary progress. A central conflict of our times is that between nationalism and internationalism, between the concept of many national sovereignties and one world sovereignty...  

"The moral of Unesco is clear. The task laid upon it of promoting peace and security can never be wholly realised through the means assigned to it - education, science and culture. It must envisage some form of world political unity, whether through a single world government or otherwise...However, world political unity is, unfortunately, a remote ideal, and in any case does not fall within the field of Unesco's competence. This does not mean that Unesco cannot do a great deal towards promoting peace and security. Specifically, in its educational programme it can stress the ultimate need for world political unity and familiarise all peoples with the implications of the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world organization."

 ...(more - This is a very good article on how the different UN programs fit together.)

NEA: Let's celebrate communism!

BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS
Teachers' union promotes Mao's launch of 'People's Republic'

---

By Michael Carl © 2010 WorldNetDaily

Editor's note: After this report appeared, the reference to the founding of Chairman Mao's "People's Republic" was removed from the NEA website.

The National Education Association is suggesting its teachers and NEA-connected schools celebrate China on the anniversary of the repressivecommunist regime's violent founding.

The NEA's website has a page called Diversity Events and lists Oct. 1 as the day to celebrate Chairman Mao's successful revolution.

University of North Carolina–Wilmington criminal-justice professor Mike Adams says the NEA's position is borne out of intellectual arrogance.

"Well, the next thing you know they'll be celebrating the birth of Nazi Germany, but certainly that would be anticlimactic, because communist China has killed more people than Nazi Germany," Adams said.

"I think the only one way to describe the arrogant hubris of these pseudo-intellectuals is that they're 'holier than thou,'" Adams said.

The author of "Welcome to the Ivory Tower of Babel" says the Oct. 1 entry on the NEA's website calendar reveals the NEA isn't really interested in true diversity.

"I think this really shows they're not dedicated to the principle of diversity. You know the diversity scheme has always been an example of cultural Marxism," Adams observed.

Worldview Weekend President Brannon Howse says the NEA is also advocating multiculturalism.

"Today we call it political correctness, but the real term is cultural Marxism. It's also multiculturalism, which is a denigration of the foundational Western worldview," Howse explained.

Adams believes the NEA's willing advocacy of cultural Marxism means it is anti-Western.

"It just shows they're contrarians and they'll celebrate anything that is contrary to our Judeo-Christian principles and our capitalistic society. It's just another example of identity politics," Adams stated.

Howse agreed with Adams on the basic point. He says he's not surprised that the NEA would celebrate communism.

"I'm appalled but not shocked because of the National Education Association's long love affair with communism," Howse said.

"Most Americans are going to be shocked but this helps us understand who the National Education Association really is. The NEA is a group of radicals who are opposed to parental authority, opposed to accountability, and they're not for traditional education," Howse added. ...(more)

When communists "liberate" a society "for the people" it doesn't mean what an average Westerner might think. Consider this testimony by former Communist and KGB defector, Yuri Bezmenov, (aka Thomas Schuman), in his essay "Love Letter To America" as he describes communist "liberation":

Bezmenov writes: "I know what I am talking about, because I was on the side of the aggressor before I decided to take YOUR side. I do not believe-- I KNOW that in this war no one is being "liberated, decolonised or made equal," as Soviet doctrine proclaims. You may notice, if you give yourselves the trouble to observe, that the only "equality" and "liberation" this war produces is the equality of death and the "liberation" from freedom. Look at Russia, Poland, Hungary, Afghanistan-- would you say the people of those countries celebrated and rejoiced when the Soviets brought them equality and liberation? Of course not. We must take a clear and honest look at what Soviet "liberation" actually means.

This war of Communist World Aggression is not fought against some mythological "capitalists" as Communist propaganda claims. No, my dear friends, this war is fought against YOU-- personally.

Communist wars of world aggression are not fought for liberty and equality. We have thousands of unequivocal examples of the horrendous human suffering, torture and mass death that occur after a Soviet "liberation." The final stage of Communist aggression-- military confrontation-- has very little to do with rivalry for territorial or geopolitical gains in order to free and liberate. Communist world aggression is a total war against humanity and human civilization. In Communist propaganda terms, this is "the final struggle for the victory of Communism."

The driving force of this war has very little to do with natural aspirations of people for better lives and greater freedoms. If at all, these aspirations are being used and taken advantage of by the manipulators and progenitors of the war. The real driving force of this war of aggression is IDEOLOGY-- something you cannot eat, wear or store for a "rainy day." An integral part of this war of ideology is IDEOLOGICAL SUBVERSION-- the process of changing the perception of reality in the minds of millions of peoples all over the world. The late comrade Andropov, the former head of the Soviet KGB, called this war of Communist aggression, "the final struggle for the MINDS and hearts of the people.""

I also have another website titled "Change" with works from Bezmenov and other writers dedicated to exposing how communist ideological warfare is going on today through our educational system and other US institutions.

Change Agent's Techniques in Mind Control

Bertrand Russell spills the beans on Mind Control
by Jeffrey Steinberg

The $9 billion a year video-game industry in America, which contributed mightily to the carnage at Littleton, Paducah, and Jonesboro, is far more than the mere commercial exploitation of techniques and technologies developed as ``legitimate'' training instruments for the military and law enforcement agencies. To understand the roots of this new form of ``Manchurian Candidate'' programmed terrorism, it is necessary to go back to World War II and the immediate postwar period, when there was a concerted effort launched, by the Frankfurt School and the London Tavistock Institute, to use the Marxist/Freudian perversion of psychology and other social sciences, as instruments for mass social control and brainwashing. The two pillars of the assault on the American intellectual tradition were cybernetics and the drug counterculture.

At that time, a number of prominent social scientists openly spelled out their goal, of using the wartime-tested techniques of mass psychological manipulation, to pervert and control the American people. And in most instances, their emphasis was on children, and the need to destroy the fabric of family life.

Lord Bertrand Russell, who joined with the Frankfurt School in this effort at mass social engineering, spilled the beans, in his 1951 book, The Impact of Science on Society. He wrote:

"Physiology and psychology afford fields for scientific technique which still await development. Two great men, Pavlov and Freud, have laid the foundation. I do not accept the view that they are in any essential conflict, but what structure will be built on their foundations is still in doubt. I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology.... Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called "education." Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one; the press, the cinema, and the radio play an increasing part.... It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment.''

Russell continued, ``The subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship....The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. ...(more)

If you are interested in more information on "social engineering", "The Frankfurt School", "Brainwashing" or "Marxism", I focus on these topics in my Youth Ministry USA website.

Are Public Schools Harming Our Children?

If you doubt what Mr. Blumenfeld is stating in this video, be sure to watch his other videos posted online; this video is merely his conclusionary statements. Also, google the "Frankfurt School" and the "Fabian Society" and do some research into the blatant statements by known social engineers such as Benjamin Bloom, John Dewey, and the various "Fabian Society" members. You will find more than a handful of educational founders and leaders, some whose names you are already familiar, who admittedly hate Western culture's concepts of "goodness", "family", and individual rights. They want to replace our Western constitution & freedom with Socialism which not only requires the destruction of family and property rights, Socialism requires brainwashing; the removal of the individuals ability to discern right from wrong resulting in the eradication of the concept of "goodness" from culture. To do this, they have designed, and continue to use, the public school system for the destruction of Western culture by using "free education" as a "lure" to dumb-down and corrupt a trusting citizenry.



The original Samuel Blumenfeld playlist I had posted here titled "Is Public School Harming Your Children", has been taken down from the internet.

How Schools are used for Psychological Warfare

Partial Transcript:


ED GRIFFIN: Well, you spoke before about "ideological subversion" and that's a phrase that I'm afraid some Americans don't understand. When the Soviets use the phrase "ideological subversion" what do they mean by it?

1. YURI BEZMENOV: Ideological subversion is the process which is legitimate and open. You can see it with your own eyes.... It has nothing to do with espionage.

I know that intelligence gathering looks more romantic.... That's probably why your Hollywood producers are so crazy about James Bond types of films. But in reality the main emphasis of the KGB is NOT in the area of intelligence at all. According to my opinion, and the opinions of many defectors of my caliber, only about 15% of time, money, and manpower is spent on espionage as such. The other 85% is a slow process which we call either ideological subversion, active measures, or psychological warfare. What it basically means is: to change the perception of reality of every American that despite of the abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.

It's a great brainwashing process which goes very slow and is divided into four basic stages. The first one being "demoralization". It takes from 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years required to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy exposed to the ideology of [their] enemy. In other words, Marxism-Leninism ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generation of American students without being challenged or counterbalanced by the basic values of Americanism; American patriotism....

The result? The result you can see ... the people who graduated in the 60's, dropouts or half-baked intellectuals, are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, and educational systems. You are stuck with them. You can't get through to them. They are contaminated. They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern [alluding to Pavlov]. You cannot change their mind even if you expose them to authentic information. Even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still can not change the basic perception and the logic of behavior.

In other words [for] these people the process of demoralization is complete and irreversible. To rid society of these people you need another 15 or 20 years to educate a new generation of patriotically minded and common sense people who would be acting in favor and in the interests of United States society.

ED: And yet these people who have been programmed and as you say [are] in place and who are favorable to an opening with the Soviet concept - these are the very people who would be marked for extermination in this country?

YURI: Most of them, yes. Simply because the psychological shock when they will see in [the] future what the beautiful society of EQUALITY and social justice means in practice, obviously they will revolt. They will be very unhappy [and] frustrated people, and Marxist-Leninist regime does not tolerate these people. Obviously they will join the [ranks] of dissenters; dissidents. Unlike the present United States there will be no place for dissent in future Marxist-Leninist America. [Now] you can get popular like Daniel Elsburg and filthy rich like Jane Fonda for being a dissident [and] for criticizing your Pentagon. In [the] future these people will simply be [he makes a squishy noise] squashed like cockroaches for criticizing the government. Nobody is going to pay them nothing for their beautiful [and] noble ideas of EQUALITY. This they don't understand and it will be the greatest shock for them, of course.

The demoralization process in the United States is basically completed already for the last 25 years. Actually, it's over fulfilled because demoralization now reaches such areas where not even Comrade Andropov and all his experts would even dream of such tremendous success. Most of it is done by Americans to Americans thanks to lack of moral standards. As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who was demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him, even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents and pictures. ...he will refuse to believe it.... That's the tragedy of the situation of demoralization.

The next stage is destabilization.... It only takes 2 to 5 years to destabilize a nation. This time what matters is essentials; economy, foreign relations, [and] defense systems. And you can see it quite clearly that in some... sensitive areas such as defense and [the] economy, the influence of Marxist-Leninist ideas in the United States is absolutely fantastic. I could never believe it 14 years ago when I landed in this part of the world that the process will go that fast.

Most of the American politicians, media, and educational system train another generation of people who think they are living at the peacetime. False. United States is in a state of war; undeclared, total war against the basic principles and foundations of this system. And the initiator of this war is not Comrade Andropov of course - it's the system. However, ridiculous it may sound, [it is] the world Communist system, or the world Communist conspiracy. Whether I scare some people or not, I don't give a hoot. If you're not scared by now, nothing can scare you.

ED: Okay, so what do we do? What is your recommendation to the American people?

YURI: Well, the immediate thing that comes to mind is, of course, there must be a very strong national effort to educate people in the spirit of REAL patriotism, number one. Number two, to explain [to] them the real danger of socialist, communist, welfare state, Big Brother government.... The moment at least part of [the] United States population is convinced that the danger is real, they have to FORCE their government... to stop aiding Communism.

Charlotte Iserbyt - Deliberate Dumbing Down of the World

The full text of Charlotte Iserbyt's book "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of america"

Humanism & Public Education

By Dr. Samuel L. Blumenfeld

Back in 1849, when the organized Protestants of Massachusetts debated whether or not to support the public school movement, which was then being strongly promoted by the Unitarians, they decided in favor of support, but with some very thoughtful reservations.

"The benefits of this system, in offering instruction to all, are so many and so great that its religious deficiencies -- especially since they can be otherwise supplied -- do not seem to be a sufficient reason for abandoning it, and adopting in place of it a system of denominational parochial schools," they wrote.

"If after a full and faithful experiment, it should at last be seen that fidelity to the religious interests of our children forbids a further patronage of the system, we can unite with the Evangelical Christians in the establishment of private schools, in which more full doctrinal religious instruction may be possible."

No one can doubt that for the last 150 years the public schools have had that full and faithful experiment, and that the spiritual effect on Christian children has been disastrous. In several schools around the country, Christian children have even been murdered by fellow students possessed by satanic beliefs. How much worse can it get?

In fact, during the last 20 years, thousands of Christian parents, without knowledge of the debates that took place in 1849, have removed their children from the public schools and have either placed them in private Christian schools or are home-schooling them. They have done this despite the fact that many well-known Christian leaders have not yet sounded the alarm and, in many instances, have urged Christians to stay in the public schools and work to reform them.

But the simple fact is that the present government education system has as its foundation an anti-Christian philosophy known as Secular Humanism. All one has to do to confirm this is read the two Humanist Manifestos. The first, written in 1933 by young Unitarian ministers, asserted that the spiritual power of orthodox religion was in decline and that it should be replaced by a rational, man-centered, non-theistic religion.

"Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values," they wrote. "Religious humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. ...

"Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the modern world."

In other words, humanism is the only religion in America that has as its purpose and program the reconstitution of the institutions, rituals, and ecclesiastical methods of other religions. This is an overt declaration of war against biblical religion.

Forty years later, Humanist Manifesto II stated, "As non-theists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity. We can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species. ... No deity will save us, we must save ourselves."

In the January/February 1983 issue of The Humanist magazine, a young scholar by the name of John J. Dunphy expressed the aim of humanists in education with these very blunt words:

"I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects that spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of educational level -- preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new -- the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent in its promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of "love thy neighbor" will finally be achieved."

Mr. Dunphy did Christian parents a great service by telling them exactly what humanists want to accomplish in the public schools. Humanists are forever paying lip service in asserting the separation of church and state when it comes to keeping Christianity out of the schools. But when it comes to humanism, they are strangely silent. As a result, humanism has become the establishment religion in our schools, and no one in the federal government or the Congress has seen fit to do anything about it.

Obviously, from a Christian point of view, the experiment of government education has been a colossal failure. In place of God, the public schools offer evolution, multiculturalism, transcendental meditation, situational ethics, drug education, death education, sex education, sensitivity training, gay studies, condoms, whole language, behaviorism, magic circles, and other humanist teachings.

These programs are creating the new nihilists, the amoral barbarians and the followers of Satan that are devastating the lives of thousands of families. There is hardly a Christian family that has not had to cope with a child lost to drugs, promiscuity, abortion, venereal disease, and pure unadulterated devil worship.

What will it take for the majority of Christian parents to realize that the public schools have become a spiritual danger for their children? Those Christian children who are strong in their faith still have to contend with the Satanists among the student body who may wish to harm them. The parents at Columbine could not conceive of the notion that perfectly normal American kids could become murderers, killing for the sake of pleasing Satan. That sort of stuff is supposed to belong in horror movies, not in middleclass, suburban families.

This is something that has never happened before in America, and it is the result of a spiritual disease called moral relativism which teaches that everyone is entitled to their beliefs, no matter how weird or anti-social, and that no one can judge anyone or anything else. That is why no one at Columbine High felt morally obligated to stop the future killers from expressing their views as wildly and openly as they wished. No one at Columbine took them seriously, because no one there believed that the pure power of evil could take hold of the lives of normal kids.

The lesson is painfully simple: When a nation abandons moral absolutes, it opens the door to unbridled evil.

Public Schooling is Killing America

The Un-Neighborly Neighbor

by Vicki Brady

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine moving into a new neighborhood with your family and immediately having your children invited to the neighbor's house on the corner.

Everybody in the neighborhood raves about this family. You notice that they live in the biggest and most expensive house on the street and pay someone to mow their lawn. One day you take time to visit this family and discover that they are actually pretty nice. Not only that, you notice that almost all the kids in the neighborhood come to their house on a regular basis, so after some consideration you finally agree to let your children spend some time there like everyone else.

The first few visits seem to go nicely. Your children come home all excited about the fun things they got to do and the really neat playmates your neighbor has. They talk for hours about what they did, who they met and how much they like the neighbors.

But after awhile you begin to notice a change in your children. It seems that following each visit with the neighbors, your children come home a little more morose and a little bit withdrawn.

Eventually, when you ask them what they did at the neighbor's house each day they just shrug their shoulders and say, "I don't know."

Now, time you used to spend together in the evening is spent alone. Your children's free time is taken up working on projects your neighbor has asked them to do. Even your weekends are interrupted by games and parties your neighbor has planned for them without consulting you. To make matters worse, your neighbor has begun to ask you to chip in for the expenses he has had as a result of your children's visits.

One day you are having a meal with your children, and you remind them of church the next day. Suddenly, your son blurts out, "I don't want to go to church anymore. Our neighbor says there is no God. He says people who believe in God are morons and that they will believe in anything, even fairies and leprechauns."

You are shocked and cannot believe what your child has just told you. You then ask, "Just what else is our neighbor filling your heads with?"

For the next two hours they tell you.

Your neighbor doesn't believe in creation; he believes that people evolved from slime. The earth, according to your neighbor, is a living, breathing god that must be worshipped and cared for at all costs, even if it inconveniences or hurts the human population.

He believes that there is no right or wrong, no absolutes and no such thing as judgment. He has told the children that they alone must make their decisions and choose what is right or wrong in their own eyes, no matter what anyone else thinks, including their parents.

He believes being married is an old fashioned concept and that sex apart from marriage is the sensible approach. "How else," he argues, "can you be sure that you are compatible?"

He even believes that sex is fine with anyone, anytime and anywhere. And if that isn't enough, he has been telling your children that men having sex with men and women having sex with women is perfectly acceptable. He has even encouraged your children to think of it as a viable option for themselves!

When your children have expressed opinions contrary to your neighbor's or questioned his belief system, he has informed them that they are narrow thinkers and intolerant.

As a matter of fact, during several of their visits, your neighbor was kind enough to use a banana to demonstrate to your sons and daughters how to use protection when on a date. He has offered counseling, free products and finally, his generosity overflowed as he offered to drive them to an abortion clinic and get them an abortion if ever the protection broke.

What would you do if you were the parent? Would you ever let your children go near his house again? Of course not!

Then why are we sending our children to the public school? The very scenario I described takes place every day in the public school system, subjecting our children to a daily dose of this "neighborly" kindness.

I am convinced that parents love their children—so why would they tolerate this abuse of not only their children, but their family autonomy and parental authority?

Is it because they have gotten used to the free time they have had while their children are at "the neighbors"?

Has convenience won over common sense and moral outrage?

Having our children visit this neighbor daily provides some undeniable benefits. Parents can use this time to shop, go back to school themselves and even get a job to bring in some extra money to spend on their kids.

They can fill up this time with charity work and provide extended family care to their own parents. There are benefits to be sure. Yet, there is a price.

Even when parents realize that the friendship and bond they shared with their children before they started going to the neighbors has been systematically destroyed, they refuse to cut off the visits.

Just the thought of keeping the children at home and away from the neighbor is unsettling because parents realize their children are strangers to them.

The affection and devotion that was once reserved for only the parents is now poured out on "the neighbor" and the many playmates that daily gather in his home. They don't communicate well anymore. They don't see eye to eye on major issues anymore.

There is a wall or barrier between the parent and the child that seems impenetrable and the thought of trying to break it down is frightening.

What's more, for years the "neighbor" has convinced parents that the time spent with them is superior to what could be accomplished if the children spent the same time with their parents.

So the easiest thing is to ignore what your "neighbor" is doing to your children and hope for the best. And that is not too difficult to do. After all, they are "nice people" who mean well!

How could you hope to compete with such a wealthy neighbor? You can tell yourself that by letting your children go to your neighbor's house today, they might someday get an invitation to an even bigger and better neighbor's house further away.

And you convince yourself and them that going to your neighbor's house is the only way they will be able to get a good job when they are adults.

You rationalize, justify and moralize until there is a "Columbine" and nothing could have prepared you for this. Children are screaming, parents are searching, SWAT teams are positioning and administrators are backpedaling.

As you watch the images of children lying in their own blood on the sidewalk and being dangled out a second story window of their neighbor's house you thank God that nothing like that has happened at your neighbor's house... yet.

For the weeks and months that follow you listen to the experts. Surely they will give you answers. Instead, this is where common sense gives way to the ridiculous.

The experts recommend metal detectors, tougher gun laws, armed police stationed at every door in your neighbor's house and the solution to beat all solutions: mandating that the neighborhood kids who visit the neighbor must wear pants with a waist size not to exceed two inches of their actual waist.

"This!" declares the experts, "will protect our children while they are spending time with 'the neighbor.'"

Has it occurred to anyone that it might be time to stop letting our children visit the neighbor's house?

Our children have been massacred for years at our neighbor's house with the systematic destruction of their moral, spiritual, emotional and sexual beings, but we did not see it until there was blood.

Has it occurred to anyone that it is time to end this 150-year-old experiment with our children?

For thousands of years families successfully educated their children at home without a "neighbor."

And with the advent of the Internet, correspondence schools, satellite schools and hundreds of curricula to choose from, parents are without excuse.

* * *

On the 'sin' of sending kids to public school

Author shares harsh campus realities, urges parents to pull children © 2009 WorldNetDaily.com

The man who helped push the issue of public education onto the national agenda of the Southern Baptist Convention has written a new book that blows the lid off government schools, showing parents the kind of worldview and values their children are influenced by 180 days a year.

Bruce Shortt, author of "The Harsh Truth About Public Schools," presents myriad reasons why government institutions are failing America's children and thumbing their noses at parents with a religious worldview.

As WorldNetDaily reported, last year Shortt helped spearhead an unsuccessful effort to have the Southern Baptist Convention pass a resolution urging its members to remove their children from public school.

In "The Harsh Truth About Public Schools," Shortt, writing from a biblical perspective, presents rigorous research about the agenda and effect of government schooling on the nation's young people.

Shortt especially wants to educate Christian parents, millions of whom send their kids off to public school every day.

"Contrary to what many Christians have been led to believe, there is no such thing as a 'neutral' education," Shortt writes. "All education is religious and conveys a worldview, and there is no more important decision that we make as parents than how we educate our children."

Continues Shortt: "Unfortunately, Christian parents allow an aggressively anti-Christian institution to form the minds of their children, and the fruit of that choice is bitter. The overwhelming majority of children from evangelical families leave the church within two years after they graduate from high school; only 9 percent of evangelical teens believe that there is any such thing as absolute moral truth; and, our children are being forcibly indoctrinated to believe that homosexual behavior is acceptable."

While Shortt wants Christian parents who use the government schools to read the book, he also encourages homeschooling parents to read it.

"Homeschool parents must have this book to minister to their Christian friends and neighbors, pastors and skeptical relatives. Our government-school habit is sowing the wind, and unless Christians turn from this gross sin we will reap a whirlwind that is unimaginable," Shortt says.

In the book, Shortt documents the pitfalls of public schools, saying the anti-Christian thrust of the governmental school system produces inevitable results: "moral relativism (no fixed standards), academic dumbing down, far-left programs, near absence of discipline and the persistent but pitiable rationalizations offered by government education professionals."

Shortt also urges pastors to read the book so they might "understand why the church can no longer abdicate its historic role in the education of our children."

Says Short: "'The Harsh Truth About Public Schools' makes it clear why no Christian child should be left behind in government schools. Our Christian children are perishing because parents and pastors lack knowledge. The information in this book exposes the 'salt and light' and the 'our schools are different' rationalizations for educating Christian children in pagan schools for the contemptible falsehoods they are.

"Any parent or pastor who genuinely desires to be faithful in the education of Christian children needs to find out what the public schools are actually doing, rather than relying on what they are saying they are doing or on memories of the public schools as they may have existed 10, 20 or 30 years ago."

Shortt makes his argument by citing a school district in Texas.

"There is no public school district in the country that has more Christians in the community or in the schools than that of Plano, Texas," he said. "In fact, the largest and most powerful church in the state of Texas, Prestonwood Baptist, is located in Plano. Yet, it took a court order to force the Plano schools to allow Christian school children to privately give classmates Christmas gifts that had a Christian message. Moreover, the school district had even prohibited schoolchildren from bringing red and green napkins to the school 'holiday' parties for fear the colors might remind someone of Christmas.

"The truth is that the public school policy and curriculum decisions that matter to Christians are not made locally. They are largely dictated by federal and state court decisions, federal and state legislation and regulations, and the teachers' union and other professional associations connected with the public schools."

But what about reforming the public schools? Isn't that a solution?

Responds Shortt: "Public schools cannot be reformed to provide a Christian education, and the evidence is overwhelming that even conventional secular reforms to reinstate traditional academic and moral standards will continue to fail. But even if you think that we should nevertheless try to reinstate traditional academic and moral standards in the schools, taking your children out is the most effective thing you can do to help the children whose parents have left them behind in the public schools. Only the threat of a collapse of the entire public school system offers even the remotest prospect of positive change. Traditional reform efforts are a waste of time.

"Even if you believe that there is nothing wrong with institutionalizing Christian children in public schools, you need to read this book because you may be wrong. Remember, you only get one chance to educate your children. There are no do-overs."

How Teachers Are Poisoning Our Children

National Education Association, Saul Alinsky, Reveille for Radicals, Rules for Radicals

By Jim O'Neill Saturday, November 7, 2009

“The goal of socialism is communism.”
“A lie told often enough becomes truth”
—Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924)

The NEA (National Education Association) is the largest professional organization, and labor union in the United States. It represents public school teachers, support personnel, college and university faculty and staff, and college students preparing to become teachers.

The NEA has over 3 million members. According to Wikipedia, “the NEA describes itself as a ‘professional employee organization,’ although it is often categorized as a labor union with strong leftist and liberal leanings…”

On their official web-site, the NEA is currently promoting the radical anti-establishment doctrines of Saul Alinsky. The NEA is actively, and openly, advocating the overthrow of capitalism, free enterprise, and conservative (read that , pro-American) values.

The NEA is recommending that teachers familiarize themselves with Saul Alinsky’s books “Reveille for Radicals,” and “Rules for Radicals.” They then can then pass the seditious information on to their students—our children.

The NEA web-site contains numerous quotes from the Alinsky books—whether to educate those who might not read the books, or to whet the appetite of potential readers, I can’t say.

Here is a sample quote of Alinsky’s from the NEA web-site:

“Society has good reason to fear the Radical. Every shaking advance of mankind toward equality and justice has come from the Radical. He hits, he hurts, he is dangerous. ...Radicals are most adept at breaking the necks of Conservatives.”

Agitate + Aggravate + Educate + Organize
The NEA concludes: “Alinsky was hated and defamed by powerful enemies, proof that his tactics worked. His simple formula for success…‘Agitate + Aggravate + Educate + Organize”

Permit me to suggest that the conservative parents of America have a duty to put a stop to this type of insidious propaganda. It is poisoning the minds of our children.

This treasonous indoctrination must be stopped, and replaced with pro-American, pro free-enterprise, pro-capitalism, pro-TRUTH classroom studies. We must stop allowing our children to be indoctrinated, and return to educating them.

Approximately 80% of America’s teachers are “liberal.” This means that, for generations, conservative values have been downplayed, ridiculed, and dismissed. It’s killing our country.

Approximately 70%-80% of Americans hold conservative values, but our children are being educated to despise the very traditions that we hold dear.

There can be no doubt about this. There is no debate. It’s a fact.

It’s past time to get active, folks.

If you would like to get a more in-depth look at what Alinsky advocates, I’ve included below a shortened, edited version of an article I wrote for Canada Free Press, about half a year ago.

Rules for Radicals: A Blurred Vision (Revisited)
“Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.” Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910)

“The “guardrails” that have guided our culture towards moral and civil behavior have been removed, and the lines between right and wrong have become blurred.”
Senator Joseph Lieberman (From the foreword to Richard Land’s “The Divided States of America?”)

Saul Alinsky’s book “Rules for Radicals,” first published in 1971, has been read and assimilated by a number of those who espouse a Far Left agenda. Our current Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, wrote her senior thesis on Alinsky while at Wellesley College. The following excerpt is from that paper.

“Much of what Alinsky professes does not sound ‘radical.’ His are the words used in our schools and churches, by our parents and their friends, by our peers.”

Perhaps in your world, Madam Secretary—certainly not in mine.

The point here is that “Rules for Radicals” has had a far reaching impact, especially on “community organizers” from Chicago—Alinsky’s home turf. America’s current POTUS, for example, is no doubt familiar with Alinsky’s “blurred vision.” This is a term I’ve taken from the book, where Alinsky describes the organizer’s mental map as a “blurred vision of a better world.” Blurred indeed.

Running throughout “Rules for Radicals” is a whiny refusal to take personal responsibility for anything. It is always “their” fault.

Who “they” are, and what “their” faults are, changes from scenario to scenario, but one thing is constant—the “haves” are to blame for the state of the “have-not’s.”

It’s a perpetrator/victim, dualistic mythology, straight out of Marx and Lenin. This “professional victim” mind-set caters to the infantile narcissistic ego, at the expense of spiritual and emotional growth, integrity, and character building.

But I’m getting ahead of myself, let me start at the book’s beginning.

Alinsky begins “Rules for Radicals” with a dedication to Lucifer “...the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom.”

Right at the start of the book we get a foretaste of the vapid illogic that permeates “Rules for Radicals.” Alinsky, an avowed atheist, inadvertently implies God’s existence.

After all, in the Luciferian mythos, who does Lucifer rebel against?

God, of course. A God that doesn’t exist according to Alinsky. So God doesn’t exist, but Lucifer, who opposes God does? You figure it out, I can’t.

This is as good a time as any, to point out that Alinsky’s book promotes what is sometimes called the “Luciferic inversion”—where good is bad, morality immoral, and ethics unethical—and one might add, where thinking is thoughtless. More about that in a bit.

In order to get to the essence of the subtle venom that infests “Rules for Radicals,” I would like to bring attention to one of the more poisonous heroes in the Alinsky pantheon—Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527).

Machiavelli’s book “The Prince” has the distinction of being perhaps the most evil book ever written. Stalin, who was responsible for the deaths of many millions of his country’s men and women, kept a copy of “The Prince” on his nightstand—just the thing for bedtime reading.

Alinsky knew his Machiavelli so well (so he thought), that he felt qualified to point out Machiavelli’s weak spots—where Machiavelli dropped the ball, so to speak.

“Machiavelli’s blindness to the necessity for moral clothing to all acts and motives,,,was his major weakness,” Alinsky says.

Au contraire Saul, Machiavelli had it covered. In “The Prince” Machiavelli writes that actually having morals and ethics was to be avoided like the plague, but the appearance of having such values (moral clothing) should be assiduously cultivated.

“[It is] not necessary for a prince to have [mercy, faith, compassion, honesty, and spirituality], but it is necessary to appear to have them. ...Having them…is harmful…appearing to have them is useful.”

Compare that to Alinsky’s tenth rule of Ethics of Means and Ends, “You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.”

In other words, appearance is everything. The lies must be cloaked in glamour, verbal legerdemain; smoke and mirrors. Sound like any politicians you know?

Alinsky quotes Machiavelli in support of his (Alinsky’s) position regarding selfishness, (after quoting that renowned advocate of egotism, Jesus Christ).

“Machiavelli with whom the idea of self-interest seems to have gained its greatest notoriety, at least among those who are unaware of the tradition, said, ‘This is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, fake, cowardly, [and] covetous…”

Charming. Alinsky’s point here is that Machiavelli is notorious only among us clueless sheep who don’t comprehend the great value of the “tradition” of self-centered megalomania. Tradition? How about an infantile narcissistic pathology.

(An aside here. Freud called this sort of self-centered grandiosity the King Baby. A human infant, unable to fend for itself, comes to expect that all its needs will be taken care of – food, milk, diaper change, etc. This is all well and good so far as it goes, but when the infant grows into a child, and then an adult , and still expects the world to cater to his or her every need, then we have a problem – the King or Queen Baby. Such people invariably have a God complex—more about that in a moment. For now, back to Alinsky).

Regarding egotism Alinsky says, “Ego, as we understand and use it here, cannot be even vaguely confused with, nor is it remotely related to egotism.” (Methinks he doth protest to much).

In the very next paragraph he writes, ” The organizer is in a true sense reaching for the highest level for which man can reach—to be a great creator, to play God.” So sayeth Saul “Not Vaguely Remotely Egotistical” Alinsky.

I’m speechless before such transparent duplicity. I’m not sure whether to drop my jaw in awe before Alinsky’s outrageous chutzpah, or shake my head in pity at his delusional blindness.

Machiavelli promotes another vile dictum—the end justifies the means. Combine an ego “playing God,” with an “end justifies the means” mentality, and you have the recipe for disaster.

Karl Marx combined these two attitudes; as did Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot—to name a few. (Did I hear someone say “Don’t forget Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jung il, and…all the others?”).

Combined, these individuals have been responsible for the deaths of around 100 million people. This unholy pathological mentality is known as “malignant messianic narcissism.” Sounds like something you definitely don’t want to step in. Alinsky not only steps in it, he wallows in it, and urges his “organizers” to follow suit.

Does the end justify the means to Alinsky? You bet. This is from his book, where he quotes Bertrand Russell, “...obviously nothing has any value as a means unless that to which it is a means has value on its own account. It follows that intrinsic value is logically prior to value as means.” Actually, Bertrand, it doesn’t follow at all.

When you cut through Russell’s pretentious verbiage, what he’s saying is that the end is of more importance than the means—the goal is more important than the means you use to get there. This is akin to saying that it doesn’t matter how you get from New York to San Francisco—flying or crawling—getting to the destination is what is of paramount importance.

After about a week of crawling, you might change your mind about that.

Contrary to what many might believe, (especially in circumstances involving moral values), the means used to get to an end, are of vital importance to one’s emotional, mental, and spiritual health.

Alinsky’s stance regarding the ends being more important than the means is rather odd, because earlier in his book Alinsky states that the organizer’s raison d’être—a secular utopia—is a non-attainable end.

“If we think of the struggle as a climb up a mountain, then we must visualize a mountain with no top. [Like Sisyphis we are] pushing a boulder up an endless mountain.”

So the “end” in Alinsky’s blurred vision is nonexistent—but the end justifies the means? You figure it out, I can’t.

All glibness aside, the whole “end justifies the means” attitude can, and has, lead to horrendous consequences.

Lenin and Stalin justified their brutal regimes by claiming that all the horror they inflicted upon their “comrades” was done in order to bring into existence a worker’s Utopia. If you were suspected of being a hindrance to the realization of this utopian pipe-dream, then you were shot, or sent off to the gulags. No joke.

Alinsky would excuse such behavior, because “...in action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent with both one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind. The choice must always be for the latter. He who sacrifices the mass good for his personal conscience…doesn’t care enough for people to be corrupted for them.”

According to Alinsky, people like Hitler and Pol Pot must have been extremely caring people indeed. Gives me a warm fuzzy feeling, thinking about how caring they were.

What else can we add to this poisonous Machiavellian mix? Let’s throw in some relativism—why not?. Alinsky writes, “All definitions of words, like everything else, are relative.”

“Like everything else”—got it?

Which doesn’t stop Alinsky from quoting dictionaries when he wants to define words in “Rules for Radicals.” You figure it out, I…never mind.

Alinsky quotes Lewis Carroll in his book, and I’ll swap quotes with him.. Here’s my quote by Carroll, “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.”

Carroll was ridiculing such nonsense; Alinsky takes such nonsense as gospel.

When Alinsky says “like everything else,” he means everything. He writes, “[The organizer] knows that all values are relative, in a world of political relativity.”

It is such an attitude that enables Alinsky to write, “[Knowing] the universal principal that the right things are always done for the wrong reasons…the organizer…should search for and use the wrong reasons to achieve the right goals. He should be able to use irrationality…to progress toward a rational world.”

That doesn’t even look good on paper—let alone as a blueprint for a cultural utopia. Let me see if I have this right. An organizer uses the wrong reasons, and irrational thinking, in order to achieve a rational, but nonexistent goal? Oy vey.

Remember when I mentioned “thinking is thoughtless?” Well, although Alinsky was intelligent and widely read, he was no friend to logic and reason. In fact, as might be obvious by now, they were barely on speaking terms.

You won’t find me ever accusing the Far Left of being rational. Clever, duplicitous, and often intelligent? Yes. Rational? No.

He writes in “Rules for Radicals,” “...a revolutionary or a man of action does not have the sedentary frame of mind that is part of the personality of the research scholar. He finds it very difficult to sit quietly and think…. He will do anything to avoid it.”

Alinsky is speaking of himself. Lest we miss the point, he underlines it by writing “...the fact is that I did not want to come to grips with thinking. I welcomed…excuses to escape the ordeal of thinking.”

Ordeal indeed, if “Rules for Radicals” is anything to go by.

The logical fallacies that keep cropping up in “Rules for Radicals” are so numerous that one comes to expect them at every turn, and begins to feel something is amiss if a page or two goes by without some sort of bogus premise.

Alinsky’s view of the “man of action,” or uber mensch (Alinsky admiringly quotes Nietzsche), as being superior to the person who thinks things through before acting, is infantile at best—and despite Alinsky’s portrayal, being reasonable and logical does not automatically condemn one to wearing milk-bottle glasses, tweed jackets, and parsing ancient Greek.

But let me return to relativism. This is a topic that is of paramount importance. It’s a subject that is convoluted, complex, and has a long historical background, so it would not be possible for me to refute relativism within this article, and I will not attempt to do so. But permit me another (lengthy) aside.

(If you care about your children, your country, civilization, or the planet; then you will educate yourself regarding this subject, and do your best to put an end to its noxious influence. Make no mistake, any technologically advanced civilization without moral absolutes is doomed to extinction.

Essentially, academics who promote relativism, have worked backwards from an amoral, narcissistic pathology which was rationalized, justified, and then clothed in pseudo-intellectual jargon (moral clothing). This pseudo-sensible tripe has been, and is being, passed along to students in our grade schools, colleges and universities.

It is not by mistake that the radical William Ayers ended up in teaching. He, and many of his ilk took up residence in the halls of academia after the 1960s—the better to spread their propaganda. Much of the nonsense that passes for knowledge in our schools today is unconscionable mental, emotional, and spiritual toxic waste.

For some decades now students have not been educated, so much as indoctrinated. You can see the results most visibly in the precipitous decline of journalistic ethical standards, but the impact goes much farther than that.

You might want to read Alan Sokal’s paper “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity” in order to get an idea of the pretentious trash that influences many elements of academia, and through them our children. It’s pretty amusing reading, when you realize that this pseudo-scientific gibberish was taken seriously, and printed in an esteemed university’s academic journal. Amusing, but also frightening.


Okay, back to “Rules for Radicals).

Alinskyin, who is no friend to thinking, advises his protégées to get arrested periodically, so as to force themselves to gather their thoughts. Good avuncular advice.

Alinsky writes that being thrown in jail is good because, 1) It gives you that extra caché that every “revolutionary about town” needs, and 2) you have no option but to think, so you may as well write a book.

We’re not talking about any serious jail time, Alinsky warns—just enough to give you a certain je ne sais quoi, and maybe write a bestseller. Why not? It worked for Hitler.

Speaking of Hitler—Adolf wrote “Mein Kampf,” while serving jail time (as per Alinsky’s instructions), after a failed putsch, or revolution. Given Alinsky’s description of what makes a good revolutionary—sorry, “organizer”—you would think he’d be praising Herr Hitler from the roof tops, as the ideal organizer template.

Hitler inflamed, agitated, organized, and was a rabble rouser par excellence—and to top it off, he overthrew the establishment! He’s a pitch perfect example of Alinsky’s man of action, the uber mensch! But nary a word about Adolf in “Rules for Radicals.” Go figure.

Moving on…but, before I move on, I should forewarn you that the next few paragraphs may be “lewd, rude, and crude” to some readers. If so, please accept my apologies in advance, and feel free to skip ahead a bit..

Now moving on, let’s talk about some of the s—t Alinsky tried to pull. I mean literally, as in his aborted (thank you Lord for small favors) plan to tie-up the restrooms at Chicago’s O’Hare airport in order to extort some concessions from the city.

Alinsky associated with Chicago’s criminal element, and it shows in his extortion-racket tactics. He envisioned the proposed O’Hare technique as “...the nation’s first ‘s—t in’.” Ha, ha.

He also writes about another plan that never materialized, that revolved around a bunch of his followers eating huge quantities of beans, and then attending a black-tie affair where they would commence a “fart in.” Ha, ha.

Alinsky says that the planned “fart in” didn’t happen because, “The threat of this tactic was leaked (there may be a Freudian slip here…so what?).” Ha, ha.

Alinsky’s rapier-like wit never fails to send a trickle down my leg—sorry, “thrill up my leg.” Ha, ha.

We’re not out of the excrement yet. In “Rules for Radicals” we read that “The one thing that all oppressed people want to do to their oppressors is s—t on them.” So sayeth Saul “Poo Poo” Alinsky. Thanks for the visual Saul.

One can’t help but wonder what type of unfortunate potty training young Alinsky suffered through in order to have such a scatological view of life. I think that Saul had some unresolved “issues” to deal with.

Be that as it may, we now come to the actual “rules” in “Rules for Radicals.” Here they are, all 13 of them, from the chapter “Tactics:”

1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. Never go outside the experience of your people.
3. Whenever possible go outside the experience of your enemy.
4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8. Keep the pressure on.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a
constant pressure upon the opposition.
11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its
counterside.
12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

I’m not going to go into each of these rules, one by one. There is ample information on the internet for those who wish to delve into them. I do, however, wish to discuss a couple of them.

First, a few words concerning Rule #5—“ridicule.” The radical Left has taken this one to heart, and polished it to a fine sheen. Alinsky calls ridicule humorous, although it usually is not. It is most often a mean-spirited venom that masquerades as humor, and its pernicious effects permeate our culture.

Ridicule in its most common guise, is expressed in vitriolic ad hominem attacks. Ex-President Bush and Governor Palin are two of the best known recipients of such “humor.”

(A short aside: One of the few bright spots to emerge from the unprecedented and vociferous attacks against Governor Palin has been the “outing” of the women’s movement. Their blanket silence in the face of the attacks against Palin is extremely telling—you can hear the crickets chirp, and the grass growing).

That’s enough about Rule #5 and ridicule. The key rule in “Rules for Radicals” is Rule #13: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

I say it’s key, because Alinsky spends a minimum amount of time explaining all of the other rules—sometimes giving no explanation at all, and at most a paragraph or two. But with Rule #13 he spends several pages describing it. Clearly he felt it was important, so I’ll take some time discussing it.

“Pick a target” is basically self-explanatory. By “freeze it” Alinsky means to, well, pick a target (see prior sentence). By “personalize it” Alinsky means to give a “face” to your enemy, and hopefully a derogatory nickname as well. That is, he wouldn’t attack the Republican party as such, he would attack George W. Bush, or Sarah Palin, and he would call them snide names and ridicule them. Say, that sounds familiar.

By “polarize it” Alinsky means to ignore any “common ground” you might have with the enemy, and paint him or her all black, and yourself all white. As he writes, “[The organizer must be] a well-integrated political schizoid. [He] must be able to split himself into two parts—one part…polarizes the issue to 100 to nothing, and helps to lead his forces into conflict, and the other part knows that when the time comes for negotiations that it really is only a 10 percent difference….”

“Polarizing” in Alinsky’s view is brain washing your followers into believing that they are 100 percent on the side of the angels, and the enemy is 100 percent aligned with evil. But, and here’s the truly diabolical part, the organizer himself doesn’t buy into any of it. He’s not concerned with political ideology – he’s above such things.

Alinsky continues, “[The organizer] has a strong ego, one we might call monumental…[though] clearly differentiated from egotism. ...Having his own identity, he has no need for the security blanket of an ideology….”

Listen up, kool-aid drinking o-bots. Alinsky’s “community organizer” uses his followers as dupes, “useful idiots,” to do his bidding, while remaining outside of such nonsense as ideological beliefs and causes. “He has no need for the security blanket of an ideology….”

So if we connect the dots in Alinsky’s portrait of the uber mensch, the ideal revolutionary/organizer, what do we see?

A nihilistic schizophrenic, with a monumental ego (who is NOT, however, vaguely, or remotely egotistical), who uses the wrong reasons, irrationality, and any means necessary to reach a nonexistent goal.

Yikes. People buy this garbage? You bet—and they passionately and vociferously promote this nonsensical insanity.

Some readers may have noticed that I’ve been using Alinsky’s techniques of ridicule and polarization throughout this article—just following the rules, you know. The truth be told, Alinsky has some good ideas, and intelligent observations sprinkled throughout his book.

It is this very mixture of the sensible with the illogical that makes his book so insidiously dangerous. There’s a name for such a mixture of truth and falsehood—propaganda. Hitler’s henchman Goebbels was a master at it, and so was Alinsky.

“Rules for Radicals” is a clever trap for the naïve, the idealistic, the gullible, and the unwary. And it’s a clarion call for the nihilistic, the arrogant, the greedy, the self-centered, the amoral, the chronically malcontented, and those with an anti-social mind-set.

Mankind’s long climb from the caves of pre-history to civilized governments has been a slow, painful process (and very much an ongoing process).

Alinsky’s cavalier dismissal of “the establishment” as evil; is puerile, inane, and socially irresponsible—to put it mildly. One need only look at the Machiavellian antics of ACORN to witness where the teachings espoused in “Rules for Radicals” lead.

It’s a sad fact that a number of people who thought ACORN was a legitimate avenue to better themselves and their neighborhoods, have systematically been barred from any true positions of power in the organization. I’d bet big money that the ones who are pulling the strings behind the scenes are “going by the book.”

In closing, I mentioned earlier that Alinsky quotes Jesus, and indeed he does—more than once, but there’s one quote in particular that I wish to address. I’ll include the sentence immediately before, and a few words that follow, in order to put it in context.

“The importance of self-interest has never been challenged; it has been accepted as an inevitable fact of life. In the words of Christ, ‘Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.’ Aristotle said in “Politics…,” and on Alinsky goes.

I mention this in order to show how spiritually clueless Alinsky was. He quotes a verse about love and self-sacrifice in order to support his “me first,” pro-selfish stance. How ignorant is that?

Atheists are ipso facto spiritually naïve, and Alinsky is no exception. In another part of his book he writes, “No organization, including organized religion, can live up to their own book of morality and regulations. This is what that great revolutionary, Paul of Tarsus, knew when he wrote…‘Who also hath made us able ministers of the New Testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter killeth’.” [Cor. 3:6]

Great, an atheist explaining scripture to me. Jesus wept.

Alinsky would have done well to have contemplated the verse immediately preceding the one he quotes: “Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God, (II Cor. 3:5).

At any rate, Paul’s words are about the importance of experiencing an inner spiritual transformation; as opposed to merely following outward formulas and customs by rote, while leaving the inner self unchanged.

It’s the same issue Jesus raised with the Pharisees. e.g. “Blind guides; who strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel! ...For you cleanse the outside of the cup…but inside…they are full of robbery and self-indulgence.” Matt. 23:24,25).

I believe that Paul would agree that the most important thing that we can change and improve is ourselves, our inner selves, and that’s the absolute truth.

Laus Deo.