What am I doing? What does it matter? My writing has done more to alienate me from something I care deeply about than anything else. These thoughts echo through my mind every Sunday morning when I sit at my desk, attempting to share the information I think people should know. The pages of my website, while not aesthetically pleasing to the eye, are full of citations and references that show how the American people are being manipulated, and what it is the manipulators know about behavior. The one thing I have learned through the years is that the majority of people are content simply reading something that reflects their personal beliefs without questioning the foundation of that belief. Why do people believe the things they do about daily events and politics? Mostly because it was a major story in the news, and the media, whether people care to research it on their own or not, dictates what the public thinks about every day. I have driven on with the belief that if I repeat the same truths over and over, it will eventually be accepted for what it is. It certainly works with the big lie, but on that point, I digress.
One of the fundamental arguments I have been making is that the course can’t be corrected without a basic understanding of how we set sail. We are being attacked on so many levels, and the agenda is to break us down and keep us overwhelmed, not knowing what to do in defense of our own liberty. Whether people realize it or not, we have all been conditioned, for the most part, to follow the government. This is true for conservatives and liberals. Both sides, respectively, simply follow their chosen candidate while demonstrating a willingness to accept corruption that they wouldn’t accept from the opposing party. This is something the pollsters and message crafters know all too well. The public schools have been working to create the ideal, passive, non-resistant population that would be ready to accept a global dictatorship since the beginning of the twentieth century. Yet, many people are just now awakening to what is happening in our education system. This is mostly due to the radical, perverse direction it has taken with the transgender agenda being implemented as early as kindergarten. While this does appear to have awakened a large portion of the American public, they remain blissfully unaware of how their own education has been touched by the same agenda, and what we are witnessing is more of a culmination – as opposed to – a beginning of this perverse attempt to implement social change.
The transgender movement, otherwise known as Queer Theory, can be traced back to, (just as CRT can) the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School. What I think people need to understand is that, despite being founded in Frankfurt Germany, Critical Theory’s final development stages can be traced back to when Max Horkheimer, Theodore Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse were brought to America, with the help of John Dewey no less, to help develop a social critique of what was viewed as “oppressive social norms and gender roles.” It was the work of Herbert Marcuse and his ideas that people could be liberated if their basic sexual desires were just set free, and people could act them out without the restrictions set against them by America’s normative views, that theoretically, led us down the path we are now on. What does John Dewey’s involvement have to do with anything? Well, the left considers him to be the father of modern education. Dewey wrote that the purpose of public schooling should be to eliminate as “far as possible, the unworthy features of the existing environment from influence upon mental habitues. It establishes a purified medium of action. Selection aims not only at simplifying but at weeding out what is undesirable”(Dewey, Democracy, and Education). I don’t mean to beat a dead horse but I believe this to be of great consequence. What Dewey is arguing is that the school should exist to eradicate what the Marxist left considers to be, undesirable traits in our children that prevent the functioning of a healthy social environment. These traits are of course individualism, patriotism, and anything considered to be a normative societal value.
While I find it fascinating at times to take a deep dive into the tenets of Critical Theory, it can be a bit overwhelming. If there were a source worth taking the time to thoroughly read and study, aside from my own website of course, I would say it is Charlotte Iserbyt’s The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America: A Chronological Paper Trail. Why? It literally is as the title suggests. A Chronological paper trail highlighting the decade-by-decade changes that were incorporated in our schools pushing us down the road we are now on. It didn’t happen overnight. It didn’t start with Obama, stop with Trump, and start again with Biden. It has been going on for a century. If there is a definition of implemental, gradual, unnoticeable change, this is it. For example, in my last article, I discussed Chapter Five and the implementation of B.F. Skinner’s operant conditioning. I have attempted, through the years to draw people’s attention to Skinner’s work because operant conditioning, as a method of modifying behavior, was incorporated in elementary school in the 1960s. How are they trying to modify behavior? Please revisit John Dewey’s quote from above.
Chapter six of Iserbyt’s book goes into greater detail about behavioral modification as source materials that are referenced discuss the idea of changing values, attitudes, and beliefs to make people more inductive into accepting the population control agenda. This is in the 1970s. To put this into greater context, I was born in 1973. Before I even attended my first day of elementary school, operant conditioning had been introduced in the schools as a means of modifying behavior, with the intent of changing the way children see the society in which they live. For example, on page 97 Iserbyt references a paper entitled The International Dimension of Education: Background Paper II Prepared for the World Conference on Education, which was published in 1970. The following is from that paper.
“There is a rich mine of data now on attitude formation, change, and reinforcement
which teachers need to study carefully and apply to this dimension of education as well as
to others. For example, we know that most basic attitudes are learned very early but that
attitudes can be changed at any age. We know that times of personal and societal crisis are
the best times to bring about change. But we also know that people must not be threatened
by changes.”
If you have followed my writing for any time at all, you know that attitude change and persuasion are one of the topics I continually focus on. What does this have to do with the transgender agenda? Well, maybe nothing, directly. On page 106 Iserbyt references a government report entitled “Revised Report Of Population Subcommittee: Governor’s Advisory Council On Environmental Quality.” Admittedly, I haven’t been able to find this one. Given the fact, however, that some of her sources can be found, along with the basic knowledge of what is being referenced can be seen occurring today, you have to give its credibility some consideration. The report itself discusses an educational agenda that focuses on changing attitudes and values toward population size. How do they do this? By changing the way our cultural values are viewed by young people. No one could argue that marriage rates are down, and the traditional family has come to be viewed as an “oppressive social norm.” Well, guess what? That plan was implemented in the 1970s.
“Two types of cultural changes are needed in order to reduce the population increase: reduce
the desired size of families, and reduce the social pressure to marry and have a family.
Large families can be changed from an economic asset to an economic liability if all
members of society can be offered the prospect that through work, saving, and deferred
spending they can achieve economic security for themselves and their children. For the
the already affluent middle class, larger families can be made an economic liability by increasing
the incentives for and the costs of advanced education for their children. Cultural changes to reduce the social pressure to marry and have a family can be pursued by changing educational materials that glorify married life and family life as the only
“normal” life pattern, by granting greater public recognition to non-married and non-family
lifestyles, by facilitating careers for single women.”
It is hard to argue that these changes in attitude haven’t taken place, considering what we see happening in modern society. Theoretically speaking, the transgender movement is just an extension of this attempt to remake society into something more conducive to accepting a global government. If that isn’t enough, the idea of abortion being used as a population control device was discussed as well. From the same report – “One regulative type policy that is now in effect and which allows population increase is the law forbidding abortion. Restrictions
against abortions should be removed to allow individual choice in the use of this backup method of birth control.” Remember, this report is from 1970, three years before Roe v Wade. To put it into simpler terms, education was used as a means of getting students to look at abortion as a human rights issue when in reality, the agenda was to brainwash students into accepting a population reduction agenda without realizing it. This is how they change attitudes and values, by lying. Is it possible that the introduction of homosexuality in the 90s, and its transgression to what we are now witnessing is a part of the same agenda? I would say there is a good possibility.
There is a great deal more to be learned by reading Iserbyt’s book. The point I am trying to make, and I know I speculate as much as I provide credible information, is that this agenda isn’t new. Operant conditioning has been used in our schools for decades to reshape the values and attitudes of our children. It is great to see the schools being challenged by parents, unfortunately, many of these parents don’t understand how this agenda has affected them as well. They treat the school board as a legitimate authority when in reality, they only have the authority you give them. This is because, in school, we have been conditioned to obey authority figures. They have zero authority to impose any values or attempt to change attitudes which oppose what parents are attempting to teach them. The real problem we are dealing with here is that we ceded our rightful authority to the school system, and because we put so much emphasis on career, making money, and keeping up with the Jones’, we trusted our educators were looking out for our children without realizing that in the 70s, the attitude change agenda went full tilt in its attempts to change the way we see our country. If you are a parent who went to school in the 80s or 90s, I would say it is imperative for you to read this book not just so you can understand what modern educators seek to do to your children, but how your teachers may have been influenced by this and how it affected you.
