CHAPTER 6: “An Unaware and Compliant Citizenry”
Space Is No Longer the Final Frontier—Reality Is [upcoming release April 2024]

Globalism is a replacement ideology that seeks to reorder the world into one singular, planetary Unistate, ruled by the globalist elite themselves. The globalist war on nation-states cannot succeed without collapsing the United States of America. The long-term strategic attack plan moves America incrementally from constitutional republic to socialism to globalism to feudalism. The tactical attack plan uses asymmetric psychological and informational warfare to destabilize Americans and drive society out of objective reality into the madness of subjective reality. America’s children are the primary target of the globalist predators.

Educators become agents of social change – to make their pupils unaware and compliant

We have discussed the weaponization of education in American schools and its sinister political objective to eliminate high literacy, individual agency, and independent intelligence. Dr. Dennis Cuddy, historian and political analyst, wrote an extraordinary article published on NewsWithViews, April 26, 2021, “An Unaware and Compliant Citizenry.”ⁱ

Cuddy documents the seismic shift in public education’s mission, from teaching basic skills and foundational knowledge to teachers acting as agents of social change and teaching political activism. The following are excerpts from the article:

The Clintons’ and others’ efforts to “produce an unaware and compliant citizenry” began with the National Education Association (NEA), whose President Catherine Barrett wrote in the February 10, 1973 edition of SATURDAY REVIEW OF EDUCATION:

“Dramatic changes in the way we will raise our children in the year 2000 are indicated, particularly in terms of schooling…. We will need to recognize that the so-called ‘basic skills,’ which currently represent nearly the total effort in elementary schools, will be taught in one-quarter of the present school day…. When this happens—and it’s near—the teacher can rise to his true calling. More than a dispenser of information, the teacher will be a conveyor of values, a philosopher…. We will be agents of change.”

Via values clarification techniques, the values of students were to be changed to situation ethics…. In the 1980s, Hillary Clinton along with David Rockefeller, Jr. and others became Board members of Carnegie’s National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE), with Mario Cuomo chairman and N.C. Governor Jim Hunt vice-chairman. The president of the NCEE was Marc Tucker, who right after Bill Clinton won the presidency in November 1992 wrote a letter to Hillary Clinton saying this would give them a chance to implement their “cradle-to-grave” plan for all Americans.

The following year, at the July 2–5, 1993 NEA’s national convention, President Clinton addressed the delegates and thanked the NEA for “the gift of our assistant secretary,” referring to long-time NEA activist Sharon Robinson, who became U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education for the Office of Education Research and Improvement (OERI, where I had worked in the Reagan administration). President Clinton went on to say that he believed his goals for America closely parallel those of the NEA, further stating: “And I believe that the president of this organization would say we have had the partnership I promised in the campaign of 1992, and we will continue to have it…. You and I are joined in a common cause, and I believe we will succeed.” On December 15, 1993, EDUCATION WEEK reported that “Debra DeLee, the former director of governmental relations for the NEA, has joined the Democratic National Committee as its executive director.”

During the 1990s and the Clinton presidency, Outcome-Based Education (OBE) was being emphasized. Its father was William Spady, who said OBE took three forms: Traditional (not very different from former educational practices), Transitional (where education would transition to the final goal of), Transformational Education, which emphasized changing children’s values.

As parents became more aware of what OBE was trying to do, it ran into increasing disfavor, and the planners of our future had to come up with a different tactic. Therefore in 2008, the Hunt Institute (named for formerly mentioned N.C. Governor Jim Hunt) at N.C. State University began to develop what would come to be known as the Common Core (CC) curriculum. It would not take long for parents to realize that CC was not benefiting many students, causing them to not reach proficiency on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. The population would become increasingly “dumbed down” as former Reagan administration OERI member Charlotte Iserbyt called them. This has resulted in “an unaware citizenry,” which has become more and more manipulable or “compliant” (giving up some freedoms after the 9/11 attacks, and now taking COVID-19 vaccine shots apparently every year, etc.).

Education is a business, and every business has a business model. When the business of education in America functioned from its original mission of teaching basic skills and foundational knowledge, it had meritocracy as its infrastructure, competency and achievement as primary objectives, and the protection and preservation of our constitutional republic as its goal.

The weaponization of education for political gain is facilitating former president Barack Obama’s pledge to fundamentally transform the United States of America. Obama’s Marxist business model completed the shift of American education, institutionalizing government schools as the agents of change committed to transforming America from a constitutional republic to a socialist society.

From socialism to globalism – not such a giant step

The globalist social engineers in charge of America’s education business model will then use socialism’s centralized government control to move America from socialism into globalism’s totalitarian planetary Unistate, 21st-century feudalism. How will this be accomplished? The answer lies in an extraordinary unclassified report from the Defense Documentation Center for Scientific and Technical Information. The report, written by Don D. Bushnell, submitted on March 27, 1963, is titled “The Effects of Electronic Data Processing in Future Instructional Systems.”ⁱⁱ It is a stunning document and an essential reference. The report is available in its entirety online.

Please keep in mind that Bushnell was reporting on the future capabilities of computer technology for education and its potential application to change attitudes. Bushnell’s 1963 report forecast the exploitation and weaponization of American education today.

Of particular interest for our discussion are pages 3 and 4 under the heading “Effortless Learning, Attitude Changing, and Training in Decision Making”:

In 1960, Dr. S. Seshu, Professor of Electrical Engineering at Syracuse University, conceived of the penultimate teaching machine as an electronic transducer or input system which transfers factual information stored on punched cards or magnetic tape directly into human memory. This would be accomplished without preliminary processing of the information by the visual or aural senses. “All that we need to do,” suggests Seshu, “is find the input terminals in the human brain and the necessary code––the gadgetry is trivial.” His contention is that the basic trouble with the teaching machine or any modern learning method, is that the input is fed in at the wrong place. When the input to the brain arrives visually or aurally, it is often distorted or lost in the transference process. What is needed is a transducer capable of transferring information to the human memory with the same ease and accuracy of data being transferred into the memory of an IBM 7090. Recognizing the major barriers yet to be surmounted by the physiological psychologist, it is conceivable that such a machine may eventually exist. The question arises: should the effortless learning machine teach beyond the limits of factual data? IF the student can assimilate information without error, shouldn’t the teacher also steep him in the culture, train him in the proper professional attitudes, and thoroughly ground him in the scientific method as a way of life? It is difficult to know where the responsible instructor would leave off in the use of this effective tool.

Another area of potential development in computer applications is the attitude-changing machine. Dr. Bertram Raven, in the Psychology Department at the University of California at Los Angeles, is in the process of building a computer-based device for changing attitudes. This device will work on the principle that students’ attitudes can be effectively changed by using the Socratic method of asking an appropriate series of leading questions logically designed to right the balance between appropriate attitudes and those deemed less acceptable. For instance, after first determining a student’s constellation of attitudes through appropriate testing procedures, the machine would calculate which attitudes are out of phase and which of these are amenable to change. If the student was opposed to foreign trade, for example, and a favorable disposition were sought, the machine would select an appropriate series of statements and questions organized to right the imbalance in the student’s attitudes. The machine, for instance, would have detected that the student liked President Kennedy and was against the spread of communism; therefore, the student would be shown that JFK favored foreign trade and that foreign trade to underdeveloped countries helped to arrest the communist infiltration of these governments. If the student’s attitudes toward Kennedy and against communism were sufficiently strong, Dr. Raven would hypothesize that a positive change in attitude toward foreign trade would be effectively brought about by showing the student the inconsistency of his views. There is considerable evidence that such techniques do effectively change attitudes. The question arises: what is the appropriate subject material, or “attitudes,” in this instance, with which to indoctrinate the student?

One further example: At the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., a psychological research program is underway to study the problems of training a student in decision-making skills. A special purpose computer and display equipment will present the student with a series of numerical problems designed to test the student’s ability to make good decisions at maximum speed.

Admittedly, training in decision-making skills is a legitimate goal of education in this age of automation, but the problem remains––does the educator know what values to attach to the different outcomes of these decisions? What about the students whose values are out of line with the acceptable values of democratic society? Should they be taught to conform to someone else’s accepted judgment of proper values? Training in decision making is ultimately compounded with training in value judgment and, as such, becomes a controversial subject that needs to be resolved by educators before the tools can be put to use. Progress must be made not only in data-processing technology, but in our knowledge of educational requirements. Automation requires a clear, operational statement of objectives to be accomplished by the system being automated. The research must be directed toward discovering optimal combinations of instructional techniques to produce these behaviors.

Bushnell documented how computers could be used to propagandize students and teach them what to think, rather than how to think. That is precisely what is being done in schools across America today, beginning in preschool and extending to advanced degrees in graduate programs.

For sixty years the programs and algorithms have been refined to the precision instruments they are today. The computerized education students receive today is programmed to persuade them to reject Americanism and embrace socialism.

From Pundicity.com; appears by arrangement – Ed.

i An Unaware and Compliant Citizenry

ii The Effects of Electronic Data Processing in Future Instructional Systems