The Deliberate Dumbing Down of American Education [Charlotte Iserbyt] (NotebookLM Deep Dive)

View the Full Article Here

Click Here to Submit a Deep Dive Recommendation

This compilation, The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, argues that a radical and costly agenda has systematically dismantled traditional academic education in the United States, replacing it with a focus on behavior modification and workforce training. The author contends that foundational philanthropic organizations, influential educators, and governmental initiatives, dating back to the late 19th century, have deliberately implemented behaviorist methodologies, like Mastery Learning and Direct Instruction, often influenced by Soviet and socialist ideologies, to control values and attitudes rather than foster independent thought. This transformation, allegedly leading to a decline in academic proficiency and a loss of local control over schools, is presented as a global movement toward a planned economy and a redefinition of citizenship for a "sustainable" world, where individuals are essentially viewed as human capital for a global workforce.

Episode Transcript

(00:00):
Imagine a system designed not just to educate, but to
fundamentally reshape society bysubtly, deliberately undermining
foundational skills and values. It sounds like something pulled
straight from a dystopian novel,doesn't it?
It really. Does.
But what if some argue this isn't fiction, but the hidden,
unfolding story of American education?

(00:21):
Why do some assert that our schools aren't just struggling,
but are deliberately doing just that, risking our children's
academic and moral future? It's a profoundly unsettling
question and one that for many, I think, challenges the very
core of what we believe about our public institutions, You
know, their benevolent intent. Absolutely welcome to the deep

(00:42):
dive. Today we're plunging into an
incredibly expensive and, let's be clear, highly controversial
work. The Deliberate Dumbing Down of
America by Charlotte Iserbeat. A massive undertaking, that
book. It really is.
Our mission with this deep dive is to meticulously unpack the
author's core arguments, trace the historical connections she
draws, sometimes across centuries, and uncover the often

(01:04):
surprising, certainly provocative insights she
presents. We're here to understand what
this source says is happening, and why the author believes it
profoundly matters for the future of society.
This isn't about endorsing or refuting, no, absolutely not,
but about truly understanding the intricate tapestry of claims
Iserbeat weaves. Indeed, it's crucial to remember

(01:24):
that our goal is really just to explore Iserbeat's claims, the
web of evidence she presents allowing you, the listener, to
engage with these ideas directlyfrom her perspective.
The author herself frames her work as a vital call to
awareness. She specifically wrote this huge
book for her children, grandchildren and great
grandchildren. It's quite a dedication.

(01:46):
It is her explicit purpose is for them to understand the often
overlooked small town wars, these quiet, persistent
struggles fought by those who dared to tell the truth against
all odds about the direction of American education.
She sees it as a legacy really, a warning and empowerment.
OK, so let's begin by truly unpacking the author's core
thesis. At its heart, Charlotte Izzerbee

(02:08):
argues there's a deliberate dumbing down of America's
children. And she contends this isn't an
accidental by product of policy or funding, but an intentional
process, one risking them academically and morally.
She's not merely pointing to falling test scores.
No, it's deeper than that for her.
She's identifying specific educational programs and

(02:28):
methodologies that in her view are actively, maybe even
designedly, creating huge learning problems.
That's a crucial distinction shemakes, yeah.
Acer B points to a number of pedagogical approaches she
claims are key components of this alleged dumbing down.
Like what specifically? Or, for instance, she highlights

(02:48):
whole language. You know, the reading method
that kind of downplays phonics, teaching kids to recognize whole
words or guess from context. OK.
She also singles out mastery learning, where students don't
move on until they've supposedlymastered something, often
through lots of drills. Repetitive.
Yeah. Then there's direct instruction,
which is very structured, very teacher LED, and perhaps most
controversially, Skinnerian operant conditioning.

(03:11):
Skinnerian like BF Skinner behaviorism.
Exactly Applying behavioral psychology principles
reinforcement to shape student behavior, Izerbid argues these
methods, even though they seem different, lead to widespread
academic attrition. And she connects this to things
like ADD. Yes, manifesting in issues like
attention deficit disorder and, controversially, she claims, the

(03:33):
widespread drugging of children with Ritalin.
It's a stark picture she paints,suggesting academic deficiency
isn't a failure of the system, but a direct intended
consequence of these methods. And her critique extends far
beyond just academics. Right.
You mentioned the moral dimension.
Absolutely. The author raises A profound red
flag regarding what she calls moral decay in education.

(03:55):
She zeroes in specifically on the teaching of moral
relativism. Meaning no right or wrong.
Essentially, yeah, a philosophy asserting there are no right, no
wrong ethics. But this isn't just some
abstract philosophical debate. It's a deliberate erosion of
traditional moral foundations. She's particularly critical of
the push by what she calls the Radical center, this supposed

(04:18):
often unseen alliance of left wing liberals and right wing
conservatives. An unlikely pairing.
Right. But she argues they push for
common ground character education.
The author views this as simply warmed over values education
stuff she says has been resistedby alert parent groups for
decades. So old ideas repackaged.

(04:39):
Exactly. For Ezerbid, this alleged
manipulation of public opinion to accept previously rejected
ideas is the perfect example of the Hegelian dialectic at work.
OK, the Hegelian dialectic. Can you unpack how she uses that
concept at? Sounds important to her
framework. It's really central, easier.
Bit uses the Hegelian dialectic constantly to explain how
seemingly opposing forces are, she believes, manipulated to

(05:02):
achieve a predetermined synthesis, often without the
public catching on. How does it work in practice
according to her? She describes how a thesis,
let's say traditional conservative moral values, and
an antithesis, maybe more progressive views on ethics, are
brought into conflict, often through public debate or maybe
even manufactured crises. OK, thesis versus antithesis.
Then this radical center emerges.

(05:24):
With a synthesis like that common ground character
education we mentioned. It looks like a reasonable
compromise, right? A third way.
Seems plausible. But in Easterbet's view, this
synthesis subtly but effectivelypushes society further towards
the radical agenda she claims was planned all along.
She argues this process allows changes that would face huge

(05:46):
resistance if presented directly.
It sort of subverts genuine public consensus.
Interesting. So connecting this back
historically, she argues these aren't just recent issues.
She makes this really profound claim about the foundation of
the whole government education system tracing back to Prussia
in the 1840s and 50s. Yes, exactly.
A Prussian import, she calls it.And for Izerbit, this isn't just

(06:09):
some historical footnote. She sees it as the blueprint for
everything that followed. How does she back that up,
connecting mid 19th century Prussia to today's issues?
Well, she dives into historical records, arguing that figures
like Horace Mann observe the Prussian system and really push
for its adoption here in the US.She contends this Prussian
model, unlike say, education focused on individual academics

(06:30):
or classics, was designed specifically to install
obedience, conformity and valuesneeded for a highly structured
state. So less about learning, more
about compliance. That's her argument.
She traces how Hegelian philosophy, with its focus on
the state as the ultimate moral authority.
Izerbeat quotes Hegel believing the state was God walking on

(06:52):
earth got embedded in this imported.
System wow. The state as God.
Yeah, for Izabet, it wasn't justabout building efficient
schools. It was a direct philosophical
lineage intended to shift allegiance from individual
liberty and maybe religious principles towards state
supremacy. Laying the groundwork,
basically. Laying the ideological
groundwork for what she calls a juggernaut toward a socialist

(07:14):
fascist system. Building a centralized system
meant for social engineering, not intellectual freedom.
That is a truly unsettling vision for the purpose of public
education, and stemming from that, her proposed solution is
equally radical, isn't it? Oh, absolutely.
She argues for nothing less thanrestoring educational freedom
directly to parents and systematically removing all

(07:35):
federal government coercive policies.
So get the federal government out entirely.
Pretty much for her, the billions spent by the federal
government aren't just inefficient, she claims, they
are actively destroying educational freedom and
perpetuating this alleged dumbing down and brainwashing.
She connects the cost directly to this agenda.
Very directly, Isser be argues that providing basic academic

(07:58):
skills shouldn't be that expensive.
So the sheer escalating cost of the current system, especially
with federal involvement, is forher a strong indicator of a
radical agenda. Meaning the money isn't going to
academics. Right, she states, the purpose
of which is to change values andattitudes.
Brainwashed. That is the costly agenda, she
argues the huge spending isn't for academic excellence, but for

(08:20):
societal manipulation. In essence, she claims Blaine
washing by our schools and universities is what is
bankrupting our nation and our children's minds.
A direct link. Financial strain and cognitive
or moral erosion. OK, let's dig deeper into what
Izerbeat identifies as some of the early seeds of this alleged
transformation. She prominently points to

(08:40):
figures like John Dewey. Dewey, a central figure in her
critique. Right.
She identifies him not just as an influential educator, but
specifically as a psychologist, A Fabian socialist, and the
father of progressive education.She claims Dewey used
psychological theories from Wilhelm Vunt in Germany.
Theories focus solely with experience to basically birth

(09:04):
behavioral psychology. Izerbeat's portrayal of Dewey is
absolutely pivotal to her argument.
She describes his approach as fundamentally aimed at
conditioning students for a new social.
Order like Pavlov's dogs. Much like Pavlov's famous
stimulus response experience, that's the parallel she draws.
For her, this wasn't about fostering individual critical

(09:25):
thinking in the traditional sense.
It was about systematically altering behavior and attitudes
to fit a predetermined societal model.
How did he propose doing that? She highlights Dewey's radical
recommendation to build curriculum not around
traditional academic subjects, history, literature, advanced
math, but primarily around occupational activities and peer

(09:46):
interaction and socialization. So more like job training and
getting along. That's how Easterbeat interprets
it, a deliberate shift away fromacademic rigor towards
vocational training and social conditioning, preparing
individuals for specific roles in a collective rather than
empowering them for independent.Thought.
And here's where it gets really unsettling, I think.
Offering insight into her view of this agenda.

(10:08):
She makes the surprising claim that Dewey, the father of
progressive education, actually wanted to change traditional
academic skills and high literacy.
Right, this is a key point. Why?
Because, she asserts, high literacy produced independent
intelligence, which he saw as basically antisocial.
Think about that. Yeah, the very notion that

(10:28):
critical thought, advanced reading, intellectual
independence could be seen as negative, as antisocial for some
new social order. What does she argue this
implies? Precisely For Izerbit, this
isn't just about new teaching methods.
It's a chilling insight into what she sees as a deliberate
attempt to reshape the cognitiveand social.

(10:49):
How so? She argues that fostering
antisocial independent thought and high literacy would prevent
the smooth integration of individuals into a preordained
collective in a new social orderwhere conformity and group
identity are prioritized over individual autonomy.
So the insight is the intent. The alleged intent exactly, from
her perspective, to create a populace less capable of

(11:12):
independent critical analysis, less likely to question
authority, making the more amenable to external control and
a specific vision for society. The goal wasn't to elevate
individual intellect, she claims, but to manage and direct
it. OK to connect this vision to
institutions. Izerbit also ties this alleged
agenda to early philanthropic and socialist movements.
She points to the General Education board, the GEB.

(11:34):
Right, Rockefeller funded. Incorporated by Congress in
19-O2. Endowed by John D Rockefeller
Senior. Its stated purpose was to
experiment with early innovations in education.
But Izerbit suggests these innovations were far from
benign. She meticulously details
connections, noting the foundingof the Intercollegiate Socialist
Society ISS in 19 O 5. By figures like Upton Sinclair.

(11:57):
Upton Sinclair, Jack London prominent socialists This group
later became the League for Industrial Democracy LID and
significantly, she highlights that John Dewey himself.
It's the same Dewey. The very father of progressive
education, she critiques, becameits president in 1939.
For Izurbit, this isn't coincidence.
It's how she directly links major education reform and

(12:20):
influential figures to specific socialist ties and an agenda she
believes aimed at societal transformation through
education. So the GEB was Rockefeller's
educational laboratory for theseaims.
That's her interpretation, yes. Testing grounds for broader
socialist goals, as she sees it.Moving into the philosophical
underpinnings of control is a bit doesn't just focus on Dewey.
She also links the Montessori method from 1912 to deeper,

(12:42):
maybe more esoteric roots like Theosophy, Hinduism, the New Age
World Core curriculum. Yes, this is a really
interesting and often overlookedpart of her analysis.
She asserts that a significant portion of Maria Montessori's
work was actually printed by theTheosophical Publishing House.
Really. Yeah, and, she notes, Montessori
herself lived with Theosophists in India for a time.

(13:05):
Izzerbeed quotes sources praising Montessori's cosmic
education for its popularity among Hindus and Theosophists,
suggesting it aligned with theirspiritual frameworks.
So, a hidden spiritual agenda. Well, she goes as far as citing
Robert Mueller, a big figure in the New Age movement, author of
the New Age World Core Curriculum, who apparently
claimed the Montessori method would greatly benefit global

(13:27):
children for the New Age. For ISRB, this implies that what
looks like an innovative teaching technique is actually
subtly embedding specific spiritual and philosophical
ideas, ideas that align with a globalist New Age vision, rather
than, say, traditional Western or judeo-christian values.
A deliberate infusion of specific beliefs into education.
And this alleged dumbing down isn't just general skills or

(13:50):
morals. And it's not ancient history.
She tells this really shocking anecdote about modern math.
Ah. Yes, the math story.
She recounts a 1940s school philosophy committee meeting a
member of the Communist Party ofRussia supposedly said, and this
is a quote she provides. That is what we want, a math
that the pupils cannot apply to life situations when they get

(14:13):
out of school. It's a bombshell quote if
accurate. What does Iserbee argue this
reveals about the intent behind curriculum changes?
For Isabet, this anecdote is like a smoking gun.
It reveals the alleged deliberate intent behind
specific curriculum changes. That statement, she argues,
highlights a conscious desire tomake math impractical,

(14:34):
disconnected from the real world.
So the goal wasn't better math, but less applicable math.
To disable students ability to use math for independent problem
solving or practical life. That's your claim.
Potentially making them less self-sufficient, more reliant on
external systems. Did this change happen?
These are by claims that despitesome initial resistance, people
finding it too radical. This worthless, radical change

(14:56):
in math education was introducedin 1952.
And the result. She points to the outcome,
current high school graduates not knowing any math, and
concludes the results are supposed to be worthless.
For Izabeth, this isn't an accidental failure of reform.
It demonstrates that academic deficiency in core subjects is
in some cases an intended and achieved outcome, a deliberate

(15:19):
plan. OK, let's shift from the
historical foundations to what Izzerbee describes as the actual
mechanisms of transformation. She focuses heavily on
behavioral control in education here.
Yes, this is a major part of herargument.
She pinpoints the late 40s, early 50s, forty 8 to 53 as
crucial, citing BF Skinner, Alfred Kinsey and Benjamin Bloom

(15:40):
is what she calls deconstructiontools.
Let's start with Skinner operantconditioning.
How does she present his theories?
Izzerbee really digs into Skinner's theories, especially
from his big works like Science and Human Behavior and Beyond
Freedom and Dignity. She highlights Skinner's strong
claim, which she finds deeply unsettling.
The individual does not initiateanything, and she quotes him

(16:01):
further. Any time man is freed from one
kind of control, he merely comesunder another kind of control.
For Ezerbit Skinner score, belief that all behavior is
determined not from within but from without is foundational to
the dumbing down agenda. So no free will, we're just
programmed. That's how she interprets his
philosophy. It fundamentally denies free

(16:22):
will, portrays humans as entirely programmable, a perfect
philosophical basis. She argues for a system designed
to manipulate behavior. So is your bit, argues Skinner,
reduces humanity to just external conditioning, no
individual agency. Pretty much, yeah.
Negating individual agency and inherent worth.
And she takes this chilling ideafurther, looking at Skinner's

(16:43):
fictional community. Walden 2.
His utopian novel. Right, but she sees it as a
literal blueprint for societal control.
She asked what specific details support her claim that it's a
real world plan for behavior management by the unchosen.
What details does she highlight?It's crucial for her.
She sees Walden, too, not as just a thought experiment, but

(17:03):
as a chillingly precise blueprint she claims is being
implemented. How so?
She details specific things Skinner envisioned children
reared by the state, separated from parents early on, ensuring
no love or affection to do with blood is fostered.
State raised children. History, she notes, is honored
only is entertainment stripped of its lessons or critical

(17:24):
reflection. The people are constantly always
thinking of the whole group and inherently opposed to
competition. Groupthink basically.
For either bit, these aren't just story details.
She sees this whole fictional world as a direct real world
plan for behavior management by the unchosen, where individual
autonomy, family bonds, history,competition are all

(17:45):
systematically eroded to create a compliant collective society.
Total control through conditioning, not overt force.
It's quite a vision. She paints not just what's
taught, but how and the outcomes.
And she connects this to Benjamin Bloom, another key
figure. Yes, Bloom in his Taxonomy
Mastery learning. How does she to great Bloom's
work into this narrative of behavioral control?

(18:06):
Historybeat states that BenjaminBloom, often called the father
of mastery learning, believe something she finds deeply
problematic for traditional education.
She quotes Bloom. The purpose of education is to
change the thoughts, actions andfeelings of students.
Change thoughts, actions, and feelings.
Yes, for Sir Beat that goes way beyond just imparting knowledge

(18:28):
or encouraging critical thinking.
It's about direct, intentional reshaping of a students inner
world. Cognition, Behavior, Emotions.
So social engineering through education.
She argues it aligns perfectly with Skinners ideas about
external control. Framing education is a tool for
engineering specific human outcomes, not fostering
individual growth or intellectual freedom.

(18:50):
And then there's Alfred Kinsey. This connection might seem less
obvious. How does Iserbeat link Kinsey's
very controversial work on sexuality to this broader grand
scheme? This is where Iserbeat
synthesizes different fields into her argument.
She links Kinsey's influential sexual behavior in The Human
Male from 1948 to what she callsa grand scheme to loosen
traditional moral constraints around sexuality.

(19:11):
So not just a scientific. Stuff not in her view.
She claims it was strategically designed to advance a eugenic
future envisioned by elite scientists of the new biology.
She argues that by normalizing and cataloging a wide range of
sexual behaviors, Kinsey's work served to undermine traditional
family structures, moral codes, individual responsibility, and

(19:33):
sexual matters. A deliberate disruption.
This loosening, in her view, wasa deliberate step towards
disrupting societal cohesion, making individuals more
susceptible to control, less anchored to traditional values.
What's fascinating is how she brings these 3, Bloom, Kinsey
Skinner together. How does she argue their
combined impact led to what she calls future moral chaos?

(19:55):
She concludes their combined work provided the ingredients
for future moral chaos for Iserbitt.
Each chipped away at the traditional God fearing,
educated man of the early 20th century.
How so? Skinner provided the behavioral
control tools. Bloomed to find the educational
goal is changing students, interstates and Kinsey, she
argues, started the systematic erosion of moral boundaries

(20:16):
around sexuality. A3 pronged attack.
She argues their combined impactsystematically removed the
metaphysical, spiritual, traditional moral anchors from
education and society, leaving no place for the human soul or
inherent spiritual worth in thiskind of science.
The result, she says, is a deliberate path toward a society
unmoored from traditional ethics.

(20:37):
And to really drive home the philosophy behind this alleged
control, she cites Bertrand Russell's 1951 book Impact of
Science Upon Society, a chillingquote.
Education should aim at destroying free will.
Stark statement. That after pupils are thus
schooled, they will be incapablethroughout the rest of their
lives of thinking or acting otherwise than as their

(20:58):
schoolmasters would have wished.He is powerful and Russell, as
quoted by Ezerbeat, elaborates on the techniques like what he
suggests methods like versus setto music and repeatedly intoned,
implying repetitive, almost hypnotic indoctrination.
He also talks about making children believe that snow is
black, an extreme example of shaping perception against

(21:18):
reality. Controlling thought itself.
For Isabeed, the goal here, as Russell envisioned it, is
complete control without armies or policemen.
She sees this as a direct philosophical precursor, an
explicit endorsement of the extensive use of behavior
modification techniques on students today.
So these techniques aren't just classroom management.
Not in her view. They're about systematically

(21:41):
preparing students to submit to what she sees as totalitarian
controls later in life, making them incapable of independent
thought or resistance. This brings us to what ISRB
calls the gradualism and semantic deception strategy
essential to how these changes get implemented, she claims.
Yes, the boiling frog analogy comes up a lot here.
Right, the frog in gradually heating water.

(22:02):
She says. This gradualism works through
created crises and the Hegelian dialectical process, leading us
to accept more radical change than we would ever otherwise
accept. Can you elaborate on this
gradualism? ISRB emphasizes that the radical
changes she identifies are rarely rolled out suddenly or
transparently. They're implemented
incrementally, slowly, subtly tominimize public resistance.

(22:25):
Like the frog not noticing the water heating up.
How do created crises fit in? She claims created crises,
manufactured problems, or perceived urgent needs are often
used to justify these changes. Then the Hegelian dialectic
kicks in. Present a problem thesis,
provocal reaction antithesis. Offer a solution synthesis.

(22:45):
And the solution moves the agenda forward.
Exactly. The solution, while seeming to
fix the crisis, actually pushes the agenda further towards the
predetermined, more radical goal.
For Iserbide, gradualism and crisis management are key
strategies to overcome public resistance and achieve societal
transformation without a big fight, lulling people into

(23:06):
accepting changes they'd otherwise reject.
And a core part of this is semantic deception using nice
sounding language to hide controversial agendas.
Can you give an example like with values clarification?
Absolutely. Values clarification programs
are a prime example for her. She describes how programs that
were initially highly controversial, facing rejection
from parents and school boards for perceived moral relativism,

(23:27):
were simply rebranded. Given a new name.
Right, presented under a new, less threatening name, like a
decision making program or critical thinking skills.
For iserbeat, this is a deliberate strategy, relabeling
to overcome resistance, introducing the same content
under a more palatable disguise.So the public accepts something
they already rejected. She argues they often

(23:49):
unknowingly accept programs containing the very elements
they opposed just because the language used sounds acceptable,
sanitized. Another example she uses is
parent school partnerships. Sounds great, right?
How does she argue this is also semantic deception, especially
with technology involved? I submit asserts that while
terms like parent school partnerships sound admirable,
cooperative, they are, in her view, superb examples of

(24:12):
semantic dissection. How so?
She argues that as technology, especially computers, gets more
integrated into education, it removes the human element from
many interactions. This tech shift, she contends,
facilitates a more standardized,controlled environment.
Parental input becomes less about real collaboration or
about complying with systemic goals.
So partnership really means compliance.

(24:34):
She suggests these partnerships can become a mechanism for
schools to dictate parental behavior at home, rather than
being a truly reciprocal relationship.
The benevolent phrasing for her masks A deeper agenda of control
and standardization. Parents are subtly Co opted into
supporting a system they might otherwise question.
This leads directly to her critique of the rise of

(24:56):
scientific education and accountability.
She presents Mastery learning, ML, Direct instruction, DI and
Outcome Based education OBE as basically interchangeable terms.
Yes, she lumps them together. As key components of workforce
training and attitude and value change all rooted, she claims in
Skinnerian methodology, optimum conditioning for predictable

(25:18):
results, how does she elaborate on that connection?
Izerbead consistently argues these methods, whatever their
names, share that common Skinnerian foundation.
Mastery learnings focus on isolated skills and drills,
direct instructions, scripted lessons, Outcome based
education's focus on predetermined behaviors over
academic content. They aren't primarily about
learning, in her view. Not about fostering deep

(25:40):
understanding or critical thought, No, she claims they're
designed for workforce training and attitude and value change.
Fraser bit these are tools for conditioning students to produce
predictable results. Results that fit.
Results that align with the needs of a planned economy and a
specific social order, she argues, not about nurturing

(26:01):
independent individuals. She sees them as instrumental in
turning children into compliant human resources.
So it's not just what is taught,but how it's taught.
And she argues that payment for results and outcome based
education lead directly to teaching to the test.
A major criticism of. Her How does she critique that
practice? She sharply criticizes payment

(26:22):
for results and OBE, arguing they inevitably lead to teaching
to the test. This narrows education
significantly, she says, reducing complex subjects to
just testable facts and skills. What about the impact on
teachers? For teachers, she points out, it
creates immense pressure. They're judged and paid
according to students test scores, shipping their focus
from real teaching to just getting high scores regardless

(26:46):
of true understanding. And for students?
Is Your Beat states quite forcefully, chanting back what a
teacher chance is not learning, it is training.
She argues this approach reduceschildren to raw resource, to be
prepared and molded as a productfor some predetermined future,
instead of nurturing their curiosity or potential.
It's dehumanizing, she says, driven by the need for

(27:08):
measurable, controllable outcomes.
She also critiques the emphasis on the science of education, the
focus on quantifiable, measurable and scientifically
demonstrable performance. She argues this ignores the
human soul metaphysics. Right.
For Izerbeat, this push for education to be purely
scientific and measurable is deeply troubling because it

(27:30):
excludes crucial parts of human experience.
Like what? By focusing only on
quantifiable, measurable performance, she argues,
psychology and education dismissed the human soul, free
will, metaphysics, anything you can't empirically measure.
The scientific reductionism rooted in Skinner views humans
not as complex individuals with inner lives, spiritual
dimensions, but is mere inputs and outputs in a system.

(27:51):
And she sees evidence of this shift.
She points to a 1994 legislativedescription that actually called
basic academic skills and the emphasis on repetitive drill and
practice in elementary school a disproven theory.
She implies this was a deliberate move away from
foundational methods seen as toounscientific regardless of past

(28:11):
effectiveness, part of redefining human potential in
purely utilitarian, measurable terms.
And the shift in accountability is a core concern, too.
Traditionally, accountability meant the state providing
resources, input, like funding teachers.
But now, she says, it's about the state guaranteeing
achievement or output individualstudent success measured by

(28:32):
standardized metrics. What are the implications of
that shift in her view? Easter Beach sees this shift is
profoundly significant, moving control from local input to
centralized output. What's really unsettling for her
is her interpretation of the word assess.
Assess, she argues Assess historically means assigning a
value for tax purposes. This leads her to theorize that

(28:53):
within this new accountability framework, children's potential
worth to society will eventuallybe measured and their future
life roles projected, and they would be limited by that
assigned worth. Wow, so assessments aren't just
about learning, but about pricing individuals for society?
That's the provocative claim shemakes, not just evaluating

(29:15):
learning, but categorizing and predetermining an individual
societal role based on their measurable worth.
She takes that claim even freer,suggesting a value added tax
process linked to education. Yes, painting a chilling
picture. A system that will deduct from
an education supervoucher a tax for every level of achievement
skill a student achieves. A tax on learning.

(29:36):
And she claims this system will track students and families with
penalties for non achievement. It's a vision of education
deeply integrated into controlling economic and social
system. Seems extreme.
Indeed, Isabit views this as thelogical end of the scientific
approach, total quantification and control.
This proposed value added tax isn't just financial, it's a

(29:56):
system of constant surveillance and punishment, she argues.
Deducting a tax based on achievement, tracking families,
penalties. It suggests A deeply
centralized, intrusive system. The ultimate commodification.
For Izurbid, it's the ultimate expression of children as raw
resource. They're worth future financial
standing determined by a state controlled assessment system,

(30:19):
the complete commodification of human potential where every
skill is assigned of value for systemic control.
OK, let's broaden the lens now to the interconnected web.
IS Orbit describes global federal corporate influence
converging on education. Right, the bigger picture
connections she draws. She traces this back
significantly to post WWII internationalism and a push for

(30:39):
centralization, citing the Federal Council of Churches in
1942 promoting a new order of economic life and even a duly
constituted world government andthe Chamber of Commerce
supporting A unified controlled world economy.
What does she argue this early post war convergence reveals?
Isopede sees this as crucial evidence of a coordinated long

(31:00):
term agenda. She asks why were these
different groups a religious body, a business lobby, both
pushing for centralized globalist visions so early?
For Ezerbeat, it's because they were aligned with an overarching
agenda that would need a restructured education system to
prepare citizens for this new order.
It wasn't just post war rebuilding, but a deliberate

(31:23):
shift towards global governance where national sovereignty and
local control diminish. And education was the tool.
Education, in her view, because a primary vehicle for instilling
the values and attitudes needed for this unified, controlled
world economy and world government.
And it wasn't just statements from organizations.
She points to a specific 1961 government publication.

(31:43):
Yes, the Health, Education and Welfare publication.
A federal education agency for the future.
She calls it a blueprint for complete domination and
direction of our schools from Washington.
That's strong language. What does she highlight from it?
Acer Beat argues this 1961 document laid out a plan for
centralizing control. She highlights its emphasis on

(32:05):
federal activity and formulatingeducational policies, a direct
assault, she says, on local control.
The document discusses international education projects
in cooperation with UNESCO, showing a global, not just
national, focus. And, significantly, it points to
social scientists as key advisors in shaping policy.

(32:25):
So not just federal involvement,but international and expert
driven. For ACE or BEAT, it's a
systematic takeover. Washington, guided by
international bodies and social scientists, dictates curriculum,
pedagogy, philosophy, transforming schools into tools
for national and international policy, not local community
service. Building on that, she points to
Eisenhower's Commission on National Goals in 1960, and it's

(32:46):
report, Goals for Americans is Pushing the Planned economy.
Yes, another step in that direction, she argues.
And then the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ECIA of
1965. She marks this as the turning
point, the end of local control and the beginning of
nationalization, internationalization of
education. Why was ECIA so pivotal for her?

(33:08):
Easter Bid sees ECIA in 1965 as the legislative hammer that
cemented federal control. Before ECIA, federal involvement
was minimal, mostly advisory. This act brought significant
federal funding, and with it. Strings attached.
Federal mandates and regulationsthat she argues effectively
bypassed local school boards andstates.

(33:28):
For Easterbin, it wasn't just about providing RE forces.
It was about establishing a direct pipeline of federal
influence over curriculum standards accountability.
Transforming education structure.
Transforming it from a communitydriven enterprise into a
nationally and eventually internationally directed system.
Paving the way, she claims, for the broader planned economy and
global agenda. And connecting this to

(33:48):
centralized control, she brings up the planning, Programming,
Budgeting system, PPBS applied to education in 67.
Right, PPBS. She calls it a management tool
of political strategy, essentially the same as TQM,
Total quality management leadingto centralized control.
How is a bureaucratic system like PBS a mechanism for

(34:08):
political control? Easterbeat interprets PBS and
things like TQM later as Industrial Management Tools.
Co opted for political ends in education.
These systems require quantifying outcomes, setting
measurable objectives. A top down centralized approach
to planning and budgeting. So a business model for schools?
Applying such a rigid business like framework to education, she

(34:31):
argues, inevitably leads to centralized control.
It's shifts decision making awayfrom local flexible human
approaches towards a standardized results driven
model dictated from above. Mirroring industry.
She contends a mirrors industrial management, where
individuals are resources to be optimized for specific outputs,
aligning perfectly with her claim that education is being
geared towards creating compliant workers for a planned

(34:53):
economy, not fostering independent thought.
Easterbeat also draws direct, often unsettling parallels with
the Soviet Union. She quotes Bellavy Dodd, a
former high-ranking US CommunistParty member.
Yes, the Dodd quote. Dodd stated that the Communist
Party as a whole adopted a line of being for progressive
education. What's the significance of this
convergence according to Isurbit?

(35:14):
This is critical for her argument about the alleged
underlying unity of seemingly opposing forces.
The fact that the Communist Party supported progressive
education, the very movement ledby figures like Dewey, who she
also links to socialism, revealsfor her a deeper shared agenda
beyond political labels. Meaning, she suggests, both
systems, despite ideological differences, saw the power of

(35:38):
progressive education to shape social values in still
collective thinking, prepare citizens for a centrally planned
society. Whether communist or, as she
argues, A socialist fascist system developing in the West,
the methods of control and social engineering transcend
traditional politics, hinting ata hidden common goal.
What's particularly striking is her detailing of US Soviet

(35:58):
education agreements in the 1980s.
Yes, under Reagan and Gorbachev.Not just government agreements,
but also parallel ones between the Carnegie Corporation and the
Soviet Academy of Sciences involving specific actions,
exchange of educational and teaching materials, including
textbooks, syllabi and curricula, and joint research on
the application of computers in early elementary education.

(36:21):
What did she argue was the purpose here?
These are Beat views these agreements as profoundly
significant, a deliberate harmonization of educational
systems across the Cold War divide.
For her, exchanging textbook syllabi and curricula indicates
a systematic effort to align educational content and
philosophy. In the computer research.
That's particularly concerning to her.

(36:43):
She sees computer assisted learning as a key tool for
behavioral conditioning and datacollection.
She argues these collaborations weren't just academic exchange.
They were about that, achieving a global educational consensus
to facilitate a new world order.Even under a conservative U.S.
President. That irony is something she
often points out, suggesting theagenda transcended traditional

(37:03):
politics driven by powerful, unelected entities like
foundations. And she quotes doctor David
Hamburg, then president of Carnegie Corporation, suggesting
foundations can operate in areasgovernment may prefer to avoid.
The very telling quote in her view.
Implying a bypass of democratic processes.
And just two years later, 1987, she cites Gorbachev declaring we

(37:26):
are moving toward a new world, the world of communism.
We shall never turn off that road.
What's the chilling implication she draws from these statements
together? For Izerbit, Dr. Hamburg
statement is a direct admission of what she sees as a subtle
subversion of public accountability.
Foundations operating where government may prefer to avoid
reveals, she argues, a strategy to push controversial agendas

(37:49):
through private channels, bypassing public debate and
oversight. And Gorbachev statement.
When coupled with Gorbachev's emphatic declaration about
moving toward the world of communism after these
collaboration agreements, Iserbeat sees a clear,
unwavering trajectory. She finds it telling that even
after the Berlin Wall fell, Gorbachev remained prominent,
even speaking at GOP fundraisers.
So the agenda persisted. For Iserbeat, it illustrates the

(38:12):
underlying agenda for global transformation through education
persisted, transcending geopolitics and parties,
pointing to a deep, often hiddenalignment of influential actors
towards a predetermined future. Isterbeat further highlights
international models she believes served as blueprints,
citing articles from 1976 about Cuban children, combined studies

(38:34):
work, and Communist Chinese education as a model for US
education. How are these used?
She emphasizes how these foreignmodels, particularly from
communist nations, presented education not as academic but as
a means of social and economic integration.
Like the Cuban example. The Cuban model explicitly
combined studies with work, implying education's main

(38:54):
purpose was preparing kids for the workforce and collective
economy from a young age. And the Chinese model.
Similarly, in China, she highlights how cultural
activities were designed to provide a vehicle for
transmitting new social values. Iserby draws a Direct Line from
these practices to similar goalsin US schools, like where the
use of leisure or citizenship education.
So seemingly innocent terms maska deeper agenda.

(39:17):
She argues these terms mask an agenda to integrate children
into a collective, planned society rather than fostering
individual pursuits or traditional academics.
These foreign examples for her show a shared global vision for
education as a tool of social engineering.
So it's not just federal and international influence, but
also significant corporate and private sector integration.

(39:39):
She dissects initiatives like Goals 2000 and America 2000.
Right. Largely driven, she claims, by
the Carnegie Corporation's restructuring agenda.
Plans, she says, were proposals to radically restructure
American Society. America 2000 envisioned schools
open 12 hours a day year round for Athens to 18 year olds.
Yes. The brand new American School

(39:59):
would be year round open from 6:00 to 6:00 for children three
months to 18 years. What does she argue is the
deeper intent behind such sweeping proposals and corporate
involvement is Orbit views Goals2000 and America 2000 not just
as education reforms, but as part of a larger corporate
driven restructuring of society.That six to six year round
school vision is alarming to her.

(40:21):
She interprets it as total institutionalization of children
cradle to grave, effectively taking over traditional family
roles. The deep involvement of
corporations, often via foundations like Carnegie,
signifies a shift where education's purpose aligns with
business needs, transforming schools into training grounds
for a specific workforce, not centers of liberal arts or

(40:42):
individual development. A move towards cradle to grave
control and conformity, she argues.
And the restructuring goals explicitly demand student
outcomes should meet employability criteria suggested
by business and industry. A direct link education's
purpose tied to workforce needs.She notes plans to build a
coalition of business, community, education and

(41:03):
political leaders to bring external pressure on the
education system for productive change.
How does she view this coalition?
For Izerbit, this coalition is adeliberate consolidation of
power designed to exert irresistible pressure.
By bringing together business, community, education and
political leaders, she argues, it bypasses democratic processes
and public input. And the focus on employability

(41:26):
criteria, that focus as the primary measure of student
outcomes, signifies for her a profound shift in education's
purpose from fostering intellectual growth and civic
engagement to merely producing aworkforce compliant with
corporate demands. A top down, unelected body
dictating educational success. Eroding local control and

(41:48):
academic freedom. Aligning education with a
planned economy. This leads her to a pointed
critique of choice and vouchers,often championed as empowering
parents. But Esterbeat argues they are
taxpayer funded and consequentlygovernment control, citing the
childcare industry's regulation after tax deductions came in.
Why is she so skeptical? Why beware of choice proposals?

(42:10):
Her skepticism comes from her belief that any program funded
by taxpayers, even if it looks like choice, will ultimately
lead to government control and regulation.
Like the childcare example. It's exactly initial tax
deductions were followed by increased government regulation
of childcare facilities. For her, it shows a pattern.
Funding follows control, she argues.
Choice and vouchers, while seeming to empower parents, will

(42:33):
inevitably lead to private schools and alternatives
becoming subject to the same federal mandates, curricula,
assessments she critiques in public schools.
So true freedom requires financial independence from
government. That's her argument.
Otherwise, the illusion of choice just expands the reach of
centralized control. What's truly unsettling and core
to her argument about total systemic control is her

(42:55):
description of the Community Learning Information Network.
Clin from 1992. Yes, CLAN.
She describes it as a system to link every public and private
school, as well as every institution of higher education
and corporate and industrial training sites.
A vast network. With the stated goal, she claims
for CLAN to not have to worry about citizens who resist goals.

(43:17):
With 2000 reform using tech liketwo way interactive video,
networked computer assisted learning, interactive cable and
electronic mail, what's the ultimate purpose of such a
network? Izerbit presents LA as the
technological backbone of the whole dumbing down and control
agenda. This vast network is far more
than just information sharing inher view.

(43:39):
What is it then? It's stated goal to not have to
worry about citizens who resist goals. 2000 reform is for her a
chilling admission of its true purpose.
Create an environment where descent or nonconformity is
eliminated or made irrelevant Bylinking every educational and
training site using advanced interactive tech, Userbeat
argues Len is designed to standardize curriculum,

(44:01):
disseminate approved content, facilitate behavior
modification, and track individuals within a
comprehensive controlled learning ecosystem, a key
mechanism for creating a completely managed society where
education is tightly integrated with workforce needs and social
engineering, and individual resistance is systemically
neutralized. OK, let's dive into the real
world impact she describes and the resistance she details.

(44:23):
Controversial curricula startingwith Project Read from 1968.
Carnegie funded. Yes, the reading program
examples. She claims it's programmed
textbooks, had images and captions inciting arson and
guerrilla warfare. Can you describe these
provocative examples? Is her bit provides specific
shocking examples. She describes images like a
porch on a porch next to a caption that she interprets

(44:47):
leads a child to identify a man who deliberately commits the
criminal act of setting a home on fire.
Other examples? Other unsettling juxtapositions,
comparing an American flag to a rag showing people kneeling in
church next to a horse being taught to kneel, implying
references just condition behavior.
A boy throwing darts at a companion.
What does she say these signify?For Izerbit, these aren't

(45:09):
accidental. She sees them as clear instances
of tragic indoctrination into antisocial ideas that alienate
children from mainstream American middle class values.
She argues these materials were just teaching reading but
undermining traditional norms and instilling destructive
behaviors. And there's the survival game
from 1974, part of a curriculum on meeting modern problems.

(45:31):
Right, the shipper game. Students decide who is worthy of
survival, the the lawyer, the pregnant mother, angry teenager,
etcetera. Izerby calls this pure
humanistic curricula. What's her critique?
Izerby views the survival game as a chilling example of pure
humanistic curricula deliberately undermining
traditional morals and conscience.

(45:52):
Forcing children to make life ordeath decisions based on
subjective worthiness. Teaches moral relativism and
utilitarian ethics, she argues, meaning the idea that lives can
be weighed and sacrificed for the greater good.
For her, this chips away at the inherent sanctity of life,
encourages a cold, calculated morality rather than empathy or
absolute principles, a deliberate attempt, she

(46:14):
believes, to shape values for a new social order where
individual worth is determined by utility.
What about the fifth grade classroom experiment?
She describes the psychosocial approach.
The blonde brown haired experiment, deeply disturbing as
she recounts it. Where blonde children sit in the
back, isolated, not permitted toparticipate, while brown haired
students were told to pick on, insult, make fun of or taunt the

(46:36):
blondes. All to teach about prejudice.
Yes, Izerbeat directly compares this to Russian and Chinese
brainwashing. Why such a strong comparison?
She presents this as irrefutableevidence of manipulative,
psychologically damaging methods.
Not genuine education, but direct behavior modification and

(46:57):
psychological manipulation, creating artificial
discrimination. Forcing kids into victim
tormentor roles, she argues, traumatize them and instill
division. So like brainwashing?
But her comparison isn't light. She believes these tactics
breakdown resilience, foster collective guilt or conformity,
make children more susceptible to external control and

(47:17):
emotional manipulation. A demonstration, she says, of
how deep psychological control has become in education, moving
beyond academics into coercive social engineering.
She also raises concerns about brain based learning, using
snakes, dimming lights, playing soft music, questioning the
scientific basis. Is Her Beat looks at these brain
based learning practices skeptically.
While seemingly innovative, she questions their true scientific

(47:39):
grounding and more importantly, their potential to distract from
core academics or even manipulate student states.
Using live snakes, Dim lights, soft music might be presented as
in engaging different brain parts or creating relaxation,
but Izzerbeat implies these methods, divorced from academic
rigor, could be part of the broader agenda to shift

(48:00):
education from intellectual content towards sensory
experience. Emotional conditioning maybe
even a form of non transparent control.
Examples of an experimental, possibly manipulative approach
prioritizing conditioning over cognitive development.
And she critiques methods like red words and success for all as
kids, chanting back answers likeparrots.
Yes, we're no such transfer occurs, causing frustration and

(48:23):
dehumanization. Reinforcing her point about
training versus learning. Exactly.
She targets these as prime examples of skinnery in training
disguises, education wrote. Memorization, repetitive drills,
chanting back answers like parrots.
They fail to foster real comprehension or critical
thinking, she argues. The key issue.
No such transfer occurs. Kids aren't internalizing

(48:44):
knowledge or developing independent skills.
They're just conditioned for specific responses.
This leads to profound frustration and dehumanization,
reducing them to raw resource tobe prepared and molded as a
product for a predetermined role, stripping them of
individuality and intellectual agency, turning them into
compliant cogs. Moving beyond the classroom, she

(49:06):
claims significant changes in governance and control, school
based decision making and site based management replacing
elected school boards. Yes, with unelected principals,
teachers and selected parents who support radical changes, she
claims. Operating with minimal
hindrance, not accountable to elected officials, dissenting
parents or the taxpayers sounds like a roading democratic
oversight. Izzerbeed argues this shift is a

(49:28):
calculated move to centralized power while giving an illusion
of local involvement. Replacing elected boards with
hand picked committees bypasses direct public accountability,
she contends. And these committees push the
agenda. These unelected decision makers,
she claims, are often predisposed to support the
radical changes is or be critiques.

(49:49):
The result? They operate with minimal
hindrance, insulated from dissent, allowing controversial
reforms without true democratic oversight, a deliberate
strategy, she says, to dismantlelocal control.
She even quotes a school Superintendent, Daniel B Keck,
describing how the state bypasses elected boards,
creating a direct pipeline to local schools.

(50:11):
Yes, making administrators accountable to whoever sets the
curriculum. Removing checks and balances.
A vivid picture of accountability shifting away
from communities. For Ezerbeat, Keck's quote is a
candid admission of systemic dismantling of local control.
The direct pipeline from the state bypasses the crucial layer
of elected boards, the public's representatives.

(50:32):
So local administrators become implementers.
By making them accountable to whoever sets the curriculum,
which Ezerbeat argues is increasingly centralized federal
and international bodies, the fundamental checks and balances
are removed, policy dictated from above.
Administrators just implement solidifying top down control.
And she points to a plan in South Carolina by M Donald

(50:53):
Thomas suggesting board authority to require parents
guardians to provide services toschools with a $50 penalty.
Yes, she highlights, this is particularly alarming, an
example of eroding parental rights.
Mandating parents provide services even with a small
penalty crosses a critical line for.
Her. How so?

(51:13):
It transforms parents from partners into obligated service
providers to the state's education system, Underscoring
her concern, the parents are being coerced into compliance
with the system, seeking controlover children's upbringing even
outside school hours. Dismantling the Family is an
independent educational entity. This raises deep concerns about
data collection and privacy. She describes NCES handbooks,

(51:37):
like Handbook 8 The Community, as a totalitarian data gathering
system. Yes, containing computer coding
numbers, categories, and specific pieces of information
gathered about anything connected with schools.
Including very personal data. Highly personal data like
attitudes, values and beliefs. Even my new details like oral
health down to number of teeth decayed.

(51:59):
How does she interpret this pervasive data collection?
What's the purpose? Ezerbeat sees this level of data
collection as fundamental to thecontrol agenda, creating that
totalitarian data gathering system.
Collecting info on attitudes, values and beliefs goes way
beyond academics. It's intrusion into the inner
world designed to map and potentially influence

(52:21):
psychological profiles. And tiny details like teeth.
Including granular details like number of teeth decayed speaks
to their concern about the system's desire for
comprehensive, almost medical level survey.
This vast data collection, codedand categorized, enables the
system to track, rofile and ultimately manage individuals
from an early age, ensuring compliance with redetermined

(52:43):
roles, knowing everything to better control everyone.
The scale she describes is unsettling Georgia, implementing
a system tracking every state education dollar down to the
attendance rates and test scoresof every Georgia classroom.
Right, she states. The potential for abuse of power
and thought control is the stuffof science fiction.
How could it be leveraged for such control?

(53:03):
Izerbit views this comprehensivetracking in Georgia as a
terrifying realization of her fears.
Linking every dollar to individual attendance and test
scores creates a complete financial and academic profile
of every student, teacher, school.
Not for accountability. Not traditional accountability,
she argues, but for enabling precise abuse of power and

(53:24):
thought control. She envisioned scenarios where
funding, curriculum, a student'sfuture are dictated by these
data points, allowing targeted interventions or penalties for
nonconformity, transforming education into a mechanism for
total societal management, like dystopian narratives.
And this extends to Tracking Inner Lives, Maine's aspirations

(53:44):
benchmarking initiative. Yes, collecting detailed
informative reports of their students responses.
Providing an assessment of the school dynamics and their effect
on aspirations, motivation and learning.
Explicitly noting disregard for student privacy.
Targeting something as personal as hopes and motivations.
These are be argues this aspirations benchmarking is
deeply intrusive. The system wants to quantify and

(54:06):
manage not just external behavior or academics, but the
students internal landscape, aspirations, motivation,
learning. The disregard for privacy is
key. For her, yes, a key indicator.
It's not about supporting students but gathering
psychological profiles, a tool she sees for identifying and

(54:26):
redirecting students whose aspirations might not fit the
planned economy's needs. Nudging students towards
acceptable paths, not fostering unique dreams.
Integrating educational and psychological surveillance for
societal control. And parents signing parent
compacts, agreeing to do things at home like provide study
space, ensure bedtime. Yes.
So parents are trained, then have to sign an agreement,

(54:49):
another layer of control and data collection, she argues.
Turning responsibilities into mandates.
Izurbeat views these parent compacts as another subtle
encroachment while promoting good home practices.
Making the mandatory and requiring signatures transforms
parental guidance into formalized, enforceable
mandates. But the parents become
extensions of the state. She argues parents are
effectively trained into becoming extensions of the

(55:11):
state's educational apparatus, compelled to conform to specific
home behaviors, aligning with school objectives.
Not voluntary partnership, but compelled participation.
Potential data collection on compliance blurring lines
between private family life and state control, ensuring
conditioning extends beyond the classroom.
Despite all these pervasive changes and sophisticated

(55:32):
tactics, she emphasizes, there has been resistance.
Yes, she consistently points this out.
Alert parent groups have resisted for decades, and she
believes many of America's best administrators and teachers have
been waging a silent war againstthese activities, preventing
complete destruction of public education, a battle still being
fought. Indeed, her narrative isn't

(55:53):
total defeat. She highlights this ongoing,
often unsung resistance is crucial.
She acknowledges the sophisticated change agent
tactics, gradualism, semantic deception, bypassing democracy.
But she praises the persistence of alert parent groups pushing
back for decades. And educators resisting from
within. Yes, she credits a silent war by

(56:14):
many of America's best administrators and teachers who
she believes actively resisted full implementation of these
dumbing down activities, preventing total destruction of
traditional public education. It shows awareness and
opposition can still mitigate the alleged agenda.
She gives specific examples local successes.
Yes, parents stopping the state health education program SHEP in

(56:38):
Maine initially halting a skill oriented curriculum in
Littleton, Co, though it later reverted.
Direct challenges to the mechanism she described.
Exactly, teacher opposition to again, scripted lessons and
recitation and forcing low achieving schools to accept
curriculum based on scripted lessons.
Methods she calls skinnery in and dehumanizing.
So resistance is possible. These instances for Isabit prove

(57:02):
the agenda isn't unopposed. Individual and community agency
can still make a difference. What's fascinating is her
critique of some anti OBE efforts opposition to outcome
based education. She claims some only oppose the
outcomes, but not the Skinnerianmethod itself.
A crucial distinction for her. Why is that distinction so
important? What's the consequence of
partial opposition? It speaks to the subtlety, the

(57:24):
insidious nature of the alleged agenda.
Opposition focused only on OBE outcomes, specific values taught
proficiency levels misses the deeper problem, the Skinnerian
method itself. The method is the real engine.
For easier, but yes, the operantconditioning, behavioral
psychology, reducing learning topredictable responses.

(57:44):
That's the real engine of the dumbing down, she argues.
If teachers are trained in this Skinnerian methodology,
regardless of the stated outcomes, then there could be no
return to academic freedom for teachers or students.
So the method itself limits freedom.
The method itself, she views, inherently limits autonomy and
critical thought. Any reform not addressing the

(58:04):
method at its core is ultimatelyineffective, misleading, a
warning against superficial opposition.
Finally, she uses the Hegelian dialectic again to explain the
radical center in politics. Yes, bringing it back to Hagel.
Describing how left wing liberals and right wing
conservatives are allegedly manipulated to create common
ground character education leading to a politics of the

(58:25):
radical center that ultimately supports socialist programs
initially proposed by the liberals sounds like an
elaborate conspiracy. Izerbit views the radical center
as a masterstroke of political manipulation, using the Hegelian
dialectic to push a predetermined agenda, creating
perceived conflict between left liberals and right
conservatives. Thesis antithesis manufacturers

(58:49):
a crisis needing a solution. And the solution is the
synthesis. This solution, the new kid on
the block, like common ground character education, is
presented as a neutral, balancedsynthesis.
But for Izerbit, this common ground isn't genuine compromise.
It's strategically crafted to subtly incorporate elements of
socialist programs initially proposed by the Liberals.

(59:10):
Disarming genuine opposition? She contends this politics of
the radical center effectively disarms real opposition from
both sides. Each thinks they're getting a
compromise, while the underlyingagenda moving society towards
more centralized socialist programs continues unimpeded.
A continuous, almost invisible shift of the societal Overton

(59:30):
window. So after all that, what does
this all mean for you, the listener?
According to Charlotte Izerbet, her massive work isn't just
history, it's presented as a stark, urgent warning.
Absolutely. She believes the US is living on
borrowed time, facing a perilousslide into what she calls a
totalitarian black hole of a socialist One World government

(59:51):
and an irreversible loss of freedoms.
She offers a truly grim prediction, a timeline, even
stating that by 1998. Right.
Children now in kindergarten will have been through 13 years
of Scanarian World Government brainwash under the deceptive
guise of the New Basics. This underlines her belief that
the process is pervasive and deeply embedded.
And she concludes with a provocative thought about the

(01:00:12):
goal being. Creating little workers, She
says the powers that be must be pretty sure of themselves to so
blatantly refer to education's primary goal as creating little
workers, crystallizing her concern that the true unstated
purpose is utilitarian and aimedat societal control.
Izerbe ends her book with a powerful contrast, a call to

(01:00:34):
individual agency. Yes, a very strong statement.
She states we are human beings, not animals.
We have free will. We can choose and build our
futures, something animals are not capable of doing.
Animals are justified in blamingtheir environment for their
behavior. We as human beings with
intellect, soul and conscience, do not have such justification.
And she leaves you, the listener, with a profound,

(01:00:56):
challenging question, underscoring the moral dimension
of her whole argument. How can we expect our children
to grow up and become responsible citizens and future
leaders if we sanction immorality at all levels of
personal life and government? It's a call for deep
introspection about societal values.
So what stands out to you about these claims as you reflect on
this deep dive into Charlotte Isabitz, the deliberate dumbing

(01:01:18):
down of America? If her perspective has
resonated, what responsibility do you feel to understand what
she calls the hidden designs behind educational change and,
crucially, to assert your own free will and shaping the future
for the next generation?