In my previous post, Social Engineering: Creating A Ruling Elite While Undermining Society’s Ability To Think, I explained how our schools have been co-opted by people who wish to create what they see as a model or ‘perfect’ society. In this post, I will present just a fraction of what these same people have left us where they openly state that this is their goal: the intentional creation of a ‘perfect’ society and how this goal has led to the State claiming ownership of our children. I start again with John Dewey, who offers one of the most open, honest and clearest assertions that this is what he and his fellow Progressives were trying to do:
“I believe that the community’s duty to education is, therefore, its paramount moral duty. By law and punishment, by social agitation and discussion, society can regulate and form itself in a more or less haphazard and chance way. But through education society can formulate its own purposes, can organize its own means and resources, and thus shape itself with definiteness and economy in the direction in which it wishes to move.”
— John Dewey, My Pedagogic Creed, January 1897
Since changes are going on anyway, the great thing is to learn enough about them so that we will be able to lay hold of them and turn them in the direction of our desires. Conditions and events are neither to be fled from nor passively acquiesced in; they are to be utilized and directed.
As you can see, Dewey wanted society to design itself. What’s more, he believed it proper to use the full force of government to force people to comply with this designed evolution. Now, if one reads Dewey’s words superficially, one might be convinced – as it would appear he was, himself – that Dewey is saying the mere use of law and social agitation are actually detrimental to this designed evolution. However when taken into consideration side-by-side with the establishment of Kindergarten so as to get to work changing our children as early as possible, and in conjunction with the government using the force of law to mandate that our children go though these State indoctrination centers Dewey called schools, we see that Dewey has actually blended the two. Rather than leaving the formation of society to chance as a result of law and social agitation, Dewey worked with government to use law and social agitation to force our children into schools, where he could then use those same forces to dictate the curriculum, thus insuring that the majority of the graduates these indoctrination centers produce will conform with his model of the ‘ideal citizen.’
Under Common Core, this reach will now extend to home schooling, as well. In fact, unless one passes the Common Core tests, it will soon be impossible to attend a public university. And when we consider how intricately college education is linked with professional jobs in our modern society, and we add the re-enforcing support of political correctness to the mix, we can see how people are being forced to conform to this model of the ideal citizen or face the consequences of their actions. In this case, that is slave labor work in manual and menial jobs because the system has been built to exclude anyone who does not conform. And who does not conform? Those who think for themselves – because they are most likely to recognize what is being done and why, which means they are also the most likely to object. Once again, John Dewey recognized this:
Anyone who has begun to think, places some portion of the world in jeopardy.
Again, while this may sound reasonable on the surface, when you consider what it means more carefully, you realize this is a false statement asserted as fact. The refutation to Dewey’s assertion is found in the modern Libertarian movement. While I disagree with large parts of the movement, those who actually live it think for themselves, but the only people they jeopardize are those who seek to control others. True Libertarians are content to leave people alone, letting them live their lives as they see fit. There is no one jeopardized by that, yet it requires one to think for themself. Thus, Dewey actually suggests that the people jeopardized by free thinkers are those seeking to turn others into ‘model citizens’ through government mandated ‘education.’
But there is a problem with Dewey’s plan. Even with government force, the family unit still represents a strong bulwark against his plan to use education to indoctrinate our children into becoming his ‘model citizen.’ SO long as the family retains primary authority over their children – especially where religion is concerned – Dewey’s plan would have little chance to succeed. But here again, Dewey recognized this. It is one of the primary reasons he pushed the Kindergarten program. And, once again, he got the idea from the people running the system he so admired and wanted to bring to the United States:
Destroy the family, you destroy the country.
I might add, if you destroy the family, and the government then raises the children, you will not actually destroy a belief in God; you will replace Him in the hearts and minds of the children with the image of the State. But then, as I shared with you in the first part of this series, Dewey not only understood this, it was what he wanted, and he saw the teachers role as that of a prophet in forming this new religion where man (i.e. the State) is his own god:
The teacher is engaged not simply in the training of individuals, but in the formation of the proper social life…. In this way, the teacher always is the prophet of the true God and the usherer-in of the true Kingdom of God.
Once you know the history I am trying to share with you, and you start to understand that these people were and are serious, you should start to see signs of this agenda behind the news stories that – previously – didn’t make much sense. You read or watch them, and you listen to the explanations that are given, but – deep down – you sense that those explanations are not the Truth. Well, if you accept what I am telling you as the Truth, and you start to consider these same stories in this new light, I suspect you will find the explanations I am suggesting make a whole lot more sense. Especially when you understand that this notion of government ownership of your children – for the purpose of directing their development into ‘model citizens’ – is the motivation behind things such as this:
Your Kids Belong to Us: Another Example of the Left Admitting who and what they are
Or Hillary Clinton’s, “It Takes a Village,” which is a justification for the government takeover of anything dealing with the rearing of our children. Or Bill Ayres book, “Teaching Toward Freedom.”
You must understand that “the community” is a euphemism for the State. You also need to understand that the State has been using our children as a weapon against us. Conduct an experiment for yourself: start looking for how often children and education are linked with the idea of freedom. Also, pay attention to something I hit on in a related series: pay attention to the language they use. Look at how the language is structured to lead you to the same conclusion they are pushing, and to isolate and ridicule anyone who might object – no matter how sound their reasoning for objecting. You will find that you are being forced into a box where you have to agree with the State or you are ‘against the children.’ When you find these connections — and you will find them – consider them against the totality of the information I am trying to present in this series and the one related to the manipulation of language. They are inseparably connected.
[NOTE: there are two more points that I will explain as I continue this series. The first is that these people honestly believe their goal and their methods are based in science. The second is that the ends justify their means because their superior and ‘scientific’ understanding imparts a moral imperative to save all of humanity from itself – especially those ‘backward’ people who refuse to be ‘educated.’]
6 thoughts on “Social Engineering: Justifying The State Takeover Of Our Children”
Excellent info. http://blackstoneinitiative.com/2013/06/27/the-good-in-common-core-ii/.
The basic sin seems to be the desire to hold power over the lives of others. The first 5 commandments define where power properly lies, the second 5 are examples of the illegitimate ways in which people of an early society might have sought such power. Sadly, our candidate-selection process seems to favor power-seekers
I would agree. And I would add that one of the primary ways people seek to gain power over others — aside from out-right force — is through deception. And isn’t deception the ‘spirit’ of Satan and of Satan’s nature?