Lord Bertrand Russell, who joined with the Frankfurt School in this effort at mass social engineering for the purposes of destroying man’s creative powers as well as wreck European and American cultures, 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. Various results will soon be arrived at.
First, that the influence of home is obstructive.
Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten.
Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective.
Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. But I anticipate. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much
====Tavistock Institute: Social Engineering the Masses (Estulin, Daniel)
Bruce Deitrick Price
The larger pattern is clear. Each year, traditional education has less influence on public schools. Meanwhile, the theories and methods generally called Progressive grow more dominant. Progressives insist that their ideas are superior. What we know for sure is that they are taking over, like killer bees flying up from Brazil.
Another thing is clear. Our Education Establishment is brilliant at concocting attractive jargon and clever marketing slogans, even for the most destructive practices. Who could oppose such melodious proposals as whole language, student-centered learning, higher-order thinking skills, experiential education, cooperative learning, project-based learning, constructivist instruction, Bloom’s taxonomy, Common Core, reform math, whole language, discovery teaching, digital literacy, social-emotional learning, and so many more?
The big question for all of these pretty phrases is elemental: do any of them work as promised? Or is each other attack wrapped as a gift?
Let’s look quickly at some of the more harmful inventions:
Literacy: Children must learn to read with sight-words (even though this approach won’t work except for children with photographic memories). Progressive instruction has created 50 million functional illiterates. That’s our big national catastrophe.
Common Core Math: Endlessly hyped “reform” methods prevent children from mastering even simple arithmetic. Fewer children are able to pursue STEM subjects. A bust.
Constructivism: Teachers are now called facilitators and can no longer teach. Children must create their own new knowledge. So we have millions of kids who know nothing about their own culture. Constructivism nullifies the whole purpose of schools.
Memorization: Often demonized and treated as irrelevant. But why? If you can’t use your facts in conversation or debate, you don’t really possess those facts. The bias against memorization makes education more difficult. (The most inane sophistry in our society is this: all the information you might want is on the internet, therefore you need not bother learning anything. That is just stupid.)
Spelling: There are no rules, according to “invented spelling.” And no grammar, either. Children don’t need to be taught any of this dull stuff; they will absorb it from the air. Do even professors believe this claim? (Listen to people talking Japanese for a year; find out if you can read Japanese. Not likely.)
No cursive: Cursive is scorned, but it has many advantages. Children are forced to deal with individual letters, which accelerates reading. Furthermore, cursive is often a child’s greatest and perhaps only contact with precision, design, and aesthetics. Cursive encourages practice and discipline and is thus a good antidote to the general slackness found in K–12.
Student-centered classroom: Curiously, this phrase ends up describing a classroom that is teacher-centered, because the teacher’s rules must always be followed — in particular, the injunction against traditional approaches. John Dewey makes lack of structure its own structure, its own prison. Kids need structure.
Experiential Learning: Everything has to flow through the child’s experiences. But what about the experiences of the parents, the family, and the larger society? If the child’s experiences are all that matter, the child’s reality is very limited.
Permissiveness: Progressive thinkers like to eliminate rules and boundaries. A lot of children end up dazed and confused. If children want to eat candy and watch TV all day, should they be able to do it?
In general, almost every Progressive idea is like telling children, Don’t bother tying your shoelaces. You’ll be all right. They won’t be all right. They will trip and fall at a much higher rate. That’s the story of Progressive education in the U.S.