EDUCATING FOR THE NEW WORLD ORDER by Catherine Simons. An article from Nexus Magazine Oct/Nov 1994

Is there a hidden agenda within our education system to indoctrinate rather than educate?

Compiled by Catherine Simons - The Gary Null interview with Beverly Eakman is from the free airwaves of the People's Pacifica Radio Network, Station WBAI-FM (99.5), New York, USA. Extracts from Beverly Eakman's book, Educating for the New World Order, by permission of publisher, Halcyon House, PO Box 8795, Portland OR 97207-9795, USA.

Federal Government Mind-Control programs subvert US education

Gary Null (GN) (interviewer): There's a lot in our educational system that we're not teaching that should be a part of the curricula. I've invited someone who is now on the line. My guest is Beverley Eakman. She's an author. She's an educator. She is a person concerned in the areas of politics, education and public affairs. She has served as the chief speech-writer for such figures as Richard Carlson, the Director of The Voice of America, and Chief Justice Warren Burger. She has also written for various publications.

Welcome to the program Bev. Let's go to some allegations. And I'd like you to address them in detail, with documentation for each allegation.

Beverley Eakman (BE): Alright. The allegations in my book, Educating for the New World Order, first and foremost are that the [US] Federal Government is developing and establishing curriculum in violation of federal law. The state governments have the right to establish curriculum, not the federal government. Secondly, that testing and curriculum are connected to each other, and that both are coordinated and funded using federal dollars (and that is what took four years to uncover) in such a way that the federal government would pick up on it.

Thirdly, that the US Department of Education is in collusion with the Carnegie organisation - primarily with the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (there are others and they all trade money back and forth) - and that they are also in collusion with state education agencies, which they have revamped and restructured, so that they could help turn around the educational system in a completely different fashion, dedicating it to totally different ends.

That brings me right into the fourth allegation: Privacy Act violations are rampant, particularly with regard to the computerisation of testing and survey devices in conjunction with the use of social security numbers and other identifiers which permit data to be linked with the federal and state computer systems. And, of course, that does lead to this dossier-building capability. The fifth allegation is that state and federal education agencies are fraudulently passing attitudinal, psychological and behavioural surveys, studies, tests and curricula as academic and substantive learning. In fact, Bob Gray of the Privacy Office up there in Washington, said that our best case was probably fraud. He had the fraud hotline, as a matter of fact. And he said that it was one of the best cases of fraud he'd ever heard.

The sixth allegation is from the professional literature associated with the testing and survey devices that we found via computer. Those learning programs - when you get the administrative literature and the interpretative literature - state plainly what the thrust of the materials are. But this information is kept from parents and the casual investigator. In other words, when they came out of the computer, if they were psychological therapy, it said so. But nothing like that is stamped on the material once the teacher has it in hand or when the parents get hold of it.

The seventh allegation is that in the process of refining these attitudinal, psychological and behavioural strategies that are being used in the classroom, the government, through its tax-supported labs and centres (which is where a lot of this stuff comes out of), is supporting a policy of irresponsible scientific experimentation. That is, the government is subsidising the practice of medicine without a licence, in effect. The experiments are poorly controlled, the repercussions are not fully understood, and the strategies themselves are often not fully accepted by professionals in the field.

And finally, the last thing: the book alleges that a political weapon is being created, wittingly or unwittingly, as the result of computerisation, which allows personal information to be linked in such a way as to generate dossiers on individuals and families, demographic, religious and ethnic groups. The way I weave the story together is through a Pennsylvanian woman named Anita Hoge who basically uncovered it because of the complaint that she lodged back in 1986. And what we found is that the state bureaucracies, the state education agencies, the way they are configured today, are serving the fall guys. They are really taking the heat off the federal government by making it look like these are decentralised policies - that these are state initiatives when they're really not.

These initiatives, for instance, to do testings and to set goals according to behavioural objectives - these are federal mandates, and you have to go very far into it to find that and really hold that over their heads. And then finally they will admit, yes there were federal mandates. Yes, we had to do this.

GN: Alright. Let's look at this in a larger context. What you seem to be saying is that the federal government have taken it upon themselves to have a special agenda in education - in effect, creating a curriculum that would allow a whole group of people to be educated based upon what they consider 'right thinking', 'right philosophy', 'right attitudes'. Now, of course, those are going to be 'right', based upon the people who created them.

BE: Exactly.

GN: And they are not taking into consideration individual, cultural and religious differences. They are simply saying: "We all should think the same way to serve a particular political agenda." In effect, we are creating a nation (in a lesser form) of a "Manchurian Candidate" attitude.

BE: Yes, that's correct. That's a good way of putting it.

GN: In other words, we want everyone to be in line so that whoever may be in control economically and politically - whatever they would suggest, whatever policies, programs, platforms or laws they would pass - there would be no opposition to it because the education system would have kept people on 'the right side' of the issue, which is their side.

BE: That's correct. And another thing that they want to do is to choose the 'right people' to be in positions of authority. You don't want these kids coming out of school and having the 'wrong' attitudes, but then, to make matters worse, going into the 'wrong' fields where they have a lot of influence.

It's sort of like how we choose our potential Olympic champions. We look for them among the young. And this is, more or less, what these people are doing too. They're scouting, in many ways, through these tests. And those are the ones who are going to get into the best colleges and universities. They do track this information on up to your college years and beyond. Now they can do it even beyond. They haven't so far, but they can, as of the past couple of years.

In fact, they want to wipe out religion, it seems, as much as possible. They don't care what religion it is. All religion is fair game because that, apparently, does not go along with their agenda at all. But when you say a 'political agenda', we're really saying that a political weapon is being created. No one knows who is going to be sitting at the helm of world affairs in another twenty years. We can't look into the crystal ball and predict that with real accuracy. And these people want to be sitting at the head of world affairs in the next twenty years. This is what they have in mind. They want to be controlling world affairs, even if they are not physically sitting in that seat. They want to be able to control that seat.

 

Home