1

Resistance Grows to UN WHO & Biden “Global Health” Power Grab

** Urgent: Please click HERE to communicate directly with your federal legislators. **

Under the leadership of a Communist Chinese-backed “former” Marxist terror leader, the UN World Health Organization (WHO) and the Biden administration are plotting an unprecedented power grab to build a planetary bio-medical police state. Think Shanghai during lockdown, but worldwide. Leading experts argue that this is truly the emergence of the “New World Order” discussed by Biden and others.

Already, the WHO claims all sorts of draconian authorities, including powers to work with UN member states in quarantining villages or nations, locking down societies, forcing medical “treatments” such as vaccines, and generally crushing medical freedom. When Ebola was spreading, for instance, the Obama administration sent thousands of U.S. troops to help the UN enforce medical martial law in the Ivory Coast.

Now, under changes proposed to the WHO’s “International Health Regulations” by the Biden administration, the dictator-friendly global “health” body would gain the power to carry out its wishes without even the approval or consent of the targeted nation. Not surprisingly, neither the WHO nor the Biden administration plan to consult the U.S. Senate on the matter.

Despite the enormity of the ongoing usurpation, and the drastic implications for freedom and self-government around the world, the establishment media have been largely silent on the issue. Still, concern is growing quickly as more and more experts and activists speak out. Word is starting to spread. But the first major deadline to stop it will arrive in a matter of weeks at a WHO meeting in Geneva starting May 22.

There are two key routes of attack being pursued by the WHO and its allies. In June, a dangerous “pandemic treaty” is set to be considered giving the WHO new “teeth” to enforce its dictates. But the first and most urgent assault on liberty and self-government involves a series of 13 controversial amendments being proposed to the WHO’s so-called International Health Regulations (IHR). The details of the amendments were only released publicly — and very quietly — about a month ago.

The health regime created under the IHR, which was first approved by the World Health Assembly in 2005, is already draconian in its current state. Indeed, these regulations are what supposedly empowered the disgraced global organization to “recommend” the totalitarian policies it deployed worldwide in response to COVID. Much of the leadership in the global war on freedom over the last two years came from the WHO.

But under the new amendments proposed by the Biden administration last month, it would go from bad to catastrophic. Among other concerns, the WHO would acquire new powers to impose its will on nations and peoples against their will. Indeed, the WHO would be able to declare a “health emergency” in any nation, with virtually no limits, going far beyond even actual pandemics, as long as it “could present significant harm to humans.”

One of the most significant changes would remove language from the WHO’s international health agreement requiring a government to consent to the WHO’s determinations before action is taken. Under the new language, all that would be necessary is for the WHO boss to claim there is “a public health emergency of international concern” (PHEIC). Even a claimed suspicion of such an “emergency” would be enough to get the gears turning.

Once it declares an emergency, the WHO would be authorized to partner with a dizzying array of global agencies and organizations such as the UN and more under the guise of protecting “health.” That includes UN agencies overseeing food, agriculture, aviation, the environment, and much more. In short, a full-on assault on a nation by a range of would-be global government agencies is in the cards for defiance of the WHO.

The amendments would accelerate the process of turning the head of the WHO into a global health dictator, numerous critics say. That is especially troubling considering that WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, installed by the regime in Beijing, is a former politburo member of the Tigray People’s Liberation Front, an ethno-Marxist terror group designated a terrorist organization by governments around the world. Countless critics have called for him to be prosecuted for ghastly crimes perpetrated by the terror group he helped lead, and later the brutal Ethiopian regime he served at a high level.

Leading Psychiatrist Speaks Out 

“If passed, the Biden administration’s proposed amendments will, by their very existence and their intention, drastically compromise the independence and the sovereignty of the United States,” warned Dr. Peter Breggin, one of the leading medical voices sounding the alarm about this power grab and author of the best-selling new book Covid-19 and the Global Predators: We Are the Prey.

According to Dr. Breggin, a Harvard-trained psychiatrist, the same threat applies to the sovereignty and self-government of all of the UN’s 193 member states, representing virtually the entire global population. In an interview with The New American, Dr. Breggin suggested this was a major step in the direction of global government, led by a global “predator class.” The proposed changes would put “enormous new powers” in the hands of “unelected technocrats” — powers that “would be exercised whether the target nation agreed or not,” he explained.

“The amendments would give WHO the right to take important steps to collaborate with other nations and other organizations worldwide to deal with any nation’s alleged health crisis, even against its stated wishes,” warned Dr. Breggin, adding that these measures could include economic and financial attacks orchestrated by the WHO and its partners.

These attacks would hardly be limited to genuine pandemics. “Under WHO’s approach, it would be difficult to find any important national issue that was not a potential health problem,” warned Dr. Breggin, pointing out that the Communist Chinese regime and Bill Gates were the largest influences at the WHO. “With the imminent passage of the American-sponsored amendments to the International Health Regulations, WHO will have free reign for using these expansive definitions of health to call a crisis over anything it wishes in any nation it desires.”

If the WHO succeeds in advancing its agenda, he added, the most important use of these arbitrary authorities would be against the United States — at least if the American people were ever to elect another anti-globalist government such as the Trump administration. Under Trump, the U.S. government exited and defunded the WHO, though the Biden promptly reversed that upon taking office.

“We need to face that these American-sponsored amendments are a great step toward America voluntarily forfeiting its sovereignty to the New World Order or Great Reset — and that without strong opposition, the ratification of the amendments is a foregone conclusion,” added Dr. Breggin. “Our success or failure in stopping the ratification of these amendments will establish the pattern for the future, including WHO’s ongoing effort to make legally-binding treaties that rob nations of their sovereignty.”

But it is even worse than a loss of sovereignty. Instead, it amounts to handing power over all of humanity to a global class of predatory elites interested not in health, but in power and money, he said.

“In reality; they will be forfeiting their sovereign powers to the global predators who rule the UN and WHO, including the Chinese Communist Party and supporters of the Great Reset, like Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, and giant foundations and corporations — all of whom benefit from weakening or destroying the sovereignty of the Western nations,” continued Breggin. “Western civilization, and mainly the United States, is all that stands in strong opposition to the globalist takeover of the world, called the New World Order or the Great Reset.”

Already, the WHO and its allies — and the global predators behind the whole machine — have shown their awesome powers. During the COVID crisis, the global agency was the key mechanism for unleashing and coordinating the unprecedented assaults on freedom around the world.

“WHO was highly effective during COVID-19 in implementing the aims of the global predators, led by the groups around Bill Gates and the Chinese Communist Party, in their organized assault and terror campaign against the Western democracies,” Dr. Breggin said. “This purposely resulted in the vast weakening of any potentially anti-globalist, freedom-oriented, patriotic nations, including the U.S., Great Britain, Australia, Canada, and others. That success may explain why the global predators chose WHO to now deliver a major and potentially lethal death blow to the sovereignty of the world’s nations.”

If not stopped, the ongoing power grabs would make all of it orders of magnitude worse, he said.

WHO Insider Speaks Out 

In an interview with The New American, Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger, a prominent epidemiologist and international health scientist in Geneva and a former WHO official turned whistleblower, also warned that the WHO was the leading force behind the tyranny that enveloped the globe during COVID. Already, the situation is dire.

In defiance of its own IHR, which Dr. Stuckelberger taught at the university level, the WHO used fear-mongering to “issue directives that were totally not commensurate to the situation,” she said. If the amendments are passed, it would get even worse. It all shows that the WHO and its backers such as Bill Gates “have moved now, clearly, into global governance,” Dr. Stuckelberger said. “The way they are handling WHO is not like coordinating member states that can decide for themselves.”

The global model truly came into view over the last two years. “Before, in the IHR, we trained [students] that everything should be customized to countries,” she said. But now, “they have brought everybody to obey one governance, to obey a single standard.” “WHO is now more and more taking power of the world together as the only organization to be able … to direct any epidemic preparedness plan or pandemic intervention plan,” she added.

The dystopian developments are moving from rhetoric to reality. At the WHO’s extraordinary World Health Assembly meeting late last year, member governments were given a document headlined “A Guide to a Pandemic Treaty.” Member states voted to accept the procedures to develop that treaty, which is now underway. “They are so sneaky,” she said. “They are going to take the instrument that will be adopted the quickest, and the instrument likely to be adopted the quickest is the International Health Regulations.”

The WHO “Constitution” — something governments have — is likely in place to help turn the agency into a true global authority with governmental powers, Stuckelberger said. And the outfit’s constitution purports to enshrine a “fundamental right” to the “highest attainable standard of health.” It also calls for the “fullest cooperation of individuals and States.” This is basically a blank check for intervention in people’s lives.

In Article 21 of the WHO Constitution, the World Health Assembly is empowered to “adopt regulations” on everything from “sanitary and quarantine requirements” to “standards” for diagnosing diseases. This is what made possible the global tyranny that enveloped the world in early 2020, as well as the unreliable PCR COVID tests that fed the narrative, said Dr. Stuckelberger, who served as president of the WHO’s Geneva International Network on Ageing.

“We have to be liberated from the United Nations,” said Stuckelberger before urging everyone to contact their elected officials, attorneys, and others in a bid to derail the WHO power grab.

Seeking Even MORE Powers 

Another significant WHO threat to medical freedom, national sovereignty, and self-government comes from the proposed “International Pandemic Treaty” being worked on now behind the scenes. Under the guise of controlling future pandemics, this global agreement would also hand vast new powers to the global “health” organization. Advocates of the treaty are proposing to turn the WHO into a global health ministry with vast powers over every person and government on Earth.

Even actual sanctions on nations whose governments defy their would-be WHO overlords are now being peddled. For instance, WHO boss Tedros claimed that “maybe exploring the sanctions may be important.” Meanwhile, German Health Minister Jens Spahn argued “that countries that fail to follow up on their commitments to the WHO should face sanctions.” This sentiment is widespread among global elites.

Indeed, less than a year ago, an “independent” UN panel of high-level globalists convened by the WHO chief claimed the health agency “needs to be empowered — financially, and politically.” This empowering should include making the WHO more independent, creating new “capacities” (powers) at the global level, and establishing a “new international system for surveillance.”

The UN report, which suggests COVID damage could have been mitigated with more global tyranny, also seeks to bring in the “precautionary principle.” Similar to the “climate” narrative, the precautionary principle involves implementing policies — in this case medical tyranny — as a precaution in response to potential dangers rather than in response to a proven threat.

Offering broad insight into the objectives, the report celebrated regimes such as the Communist Chinese dictatorship for their authoritarian response to COVID. Numerous globalist bigwigs working with the WHO and Beijing such as Gates and Schwab have repeatedly praised the barbaric COVID response by Beijing while condemning jurisdictions that respected individual rights and the rule of law. This was all foreseen as far back as 2010 in the Rockefeller Foundation’s “scenario” dubbed Lockstep involving a hypothetical pandemic.

Even as these battles are raging, totalitarians are already scheming on even more draconian powers over basic rights such as free speech. The WHO itself has been working to silence what it considers “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “conspiracy theories” for years. “We’re not just battling the virus,” said WHO Director-General Tedros in the summer of 2020. “We’re also battling the trolls and conspiracy theorists that push misinformation and undermine the outbreak response.” The WHO was “working closely” with Big Tech firms to censor the web, it boasted. Ironically, the WHO has urged health professionals to lie to parents in order to peddle vaccines.

Opposition Grows as Legal Questions Swirl 

In a memo to the WHO, U.S. Health and Human Services Assistant Secretary for Global Affairs Loyce Pace cited almost 50 other governments that support the Biden administration’s proposal. Those include the member governments of the European Union, along with numerous other governments including those in India, Australia, Japan, Canada, the United Kingdom, and more.

Normally, governments would have 18 months to withdraw from the UN WHO scheme. However, in this case, the time period has been shortened to a mere six months. According to experts on WHO processes, if a majority of member governments consent to the amendments, then they will be considered to be part of “international law.” The amendments to the WHO’s regulations are set to be approved by May 28 of this year if not stopped.

Because of the existing international agreement adopted by member WHO member states almost two decades ago, the UN WHO considers any updates to its International Health Regulations to be binding on all nations and all of humanity, legal experts say. Similar machinations were used to impose UN “climate” schemes on the planet without ratification by the U.S. Senate.

However, there are several constitutional issues at hand as far as the United States is concerned. For one, the states that created the U.S. government never delegated these sorts of powers over “health” to the government they established. If the U.S. government lacks a specific authority or power, it certainly cannot hand a power it does not rightfully possess over to another body — at least not without a constitutional amendment.

In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed as recently as 1957 in the case Reid v. Covert that the U.S. government could not grant new powers to itself — or delegate those powers to other bodies — merely by adopting international agreements. Thomas Jefferson, a key architect of America’s constitutional system, understood that as well. “I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty-making power as boundless,” he explained in 1803. “If it is, then we have no Constitution.”

Neither the WHO nor the Biden administration’s Department of Health and Human Services responded to requests for comment.

In an interview with The New American, journalist and commentator James Rogusky, among the first to sound the alarm on these amendments, called on people to resist while it was still possible. “The time to speak out and stand for your rights is now,” he explained, calling on Americans to share the warnings with those in their sphere of influence and to contact their elected representatives.

In an effort to derail the WHO’s power grab, The John Birch Society recently launched a grassroots effort encouraging lawmakers to nullify the schemes at the state level. “Rather than sitting back and being complacent, state legislators must take bold action to nullify any WHO agreement,” the Society said in a mass email to its national membership.

“Nullification of the WHO’s pandemic treaty wouldn’t be the first time the states have taken such bold action,” the organization’s alert continued. “Among multiple other examples, Alabama in 2012 enacted a strong law banning the implementation of the UN’s Agenda 21 (now Agenda 2030) in the state. Multiple other state legislative chambers passed similar bans.”

Urging activists to contact their lawmakers, the group, which has chapters nationwide, called for strong laws to prohibit implementation and enforcement of the WHO scheme. This could include ensuring that no state or local officials can participate in the enforcement of any actions originating from the WHO or under the authority of its illegitimate agreements.

In an interview with The New American magazine, U.S. Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) expressed support for getting out of the UN entirely. “It’s full of dictators, and it’s also something that I don’t think our sovereign government should defer to,” he explained. Legislation to do just that, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act, has been regularly introduced in Congress for decades.

Derailing the WHO’s draconian power grab would be a good step in the direction of neutralizing the ever-increasing threat of globalism and international tyranny. However, over the long term, small victories in battles such as this one will not be enough. A full restoration of sovereignty must be the ultimate objective — and this massive attack on humanity by the WHO may be the perfect catalyst to supercharge the movement to stop globalism for good.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to contact U.S. Senators Dick Durbin, Tammy Duckworth and your federal representative in the U.S. House and urge them to oppose these dangerous amendments and urge them to enact strong legislation fully preventing the implementation and/or enforcement of the WHO’s proposed pandemic treaty.

Read more:

WHO & Global Predators Plot Global “Health” Tyranny

UN Whistleblower: WHO is Tip of the Spear for Global Tyranny

Marxist UN WHO Boss Must Be Put on Trial, Critics Say

Citing Ebola, Obama Boosts UN and Sends Troops to Africa


This article was originally published at TheNewAmerican.com.




A New Eugenics

Written by Julie Tisdale

In the 1880s, Sir Francis Galton coined a new term, “eugenics.” A look at the history is shocking and horrifying because of the speed with which the ideas gained widespread support. In less than 30 years, major philanthropic organizations like the Carnegie Institute and the Rockefeller Foundation were funding the movement, states were passing forced sterilization laws, and state fairs were hosting “better baby” competitions. Even groups like the NAACP were eventually engaged in these activities. Read through the history of eugenics in America, and it seems like just about everyone was buying in.

Of course, much has changed. Eugenics has now been rejected by the vast majority of people, and the ideas are generally considered to victimize racial minorities, the mentally ill, women, and the poor. No respectable person calls himself a eugenicist any longer.

Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean that the ideas and philosophy underlying the sordid history of eugenics in America has gone. For if we define eugenics as “The study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable,” then we’re forced to admit that it is still very much alive and well.

The forms have changed. Forced sterilization is no longer nearly as prevalent as it once was, and state and federal laws have been enacted to largely ban the practice. All too often, though, doctors recommend abortions for women whose babies test positive for “undesirable” traits. Genetic testing of unborn babies for a whole range of conditions is absolutely routine. And if the tests come back positive for something incurable, say Down Syndrome, the recommendation by many is that mothers abort.

The reason that many give for terminating these pregnancies is fear that the child won’t be able to reach the potential of a “normal” kid, that she may not ever be able to live fully independently, that he will be a burden to his family or society at large. And this is where we see the parallels with eugenic policies most clearly. Eugenics advocates used slogans like “Some people are born to be a burden to the rest” to argue that everyone was better off if such people were never born. It is exactly the same logic used with pregnant women today.

That alone is bad enough. The idea that we would deem a person unworthy even of being born because of a genetic condition should deeply offend anyone who believes that all people are valuable, regardless of ability or disability, intelligence, gender, race, or age. It should horrify people of faith who believe that all people are created in the image of God and therefore possess inherent dignity.

But it’s even worse than that, because the tests themselves are unreliable. The Colson Center’s BreakPoint recently reported on a series of studies that show false positive rates of prenatal screenings for various genetic conditions. These false positives range from around 50 percent for Down syndrome, to as high as 90 percent for Prader-Willi syndrome. So, the end result is that many are pressuring mothers into aborting babies who don’t even have the conditions that they think they’re avoiding. These are moms who want their babies, but are convinced by an unreliable test that they’re better off aborting. What a terrible, cruel thing to do to a woman who wants a child.

Years ago, a friend of mine went in for a routine prenatal exam, and her doctor started talking about all the usual genetic tests they were planning to run. My friend stopped the doctor and asked how many of the things they were testing for were treatable in the womb. Were they able to do anything about any of these conditions? Could they, for example, do surgery to correct a heart defect before the baby was born, thereby increasing his chances of survival? The answer, of course, was that the doctor wasn’t planning to test for anything that was treatable in the womb. The only reason to even do the tests was so that the parents could decide whether or not to abort.

This sort of cultural mindset that devalues people because of their genetic traits, because their lives are unlikely to be as economically productive, because they’re likely to require more time and money to care for than their “normal” counterparts, needs to be challenged. We need to see these sorts of screenings for what they are—a new form of eugenics. Instead of falling into the trap of believing that the world is better off without “defective people,” we should remind ourselves that all human beings are fearfully and wonderfully made by God.


This article was originally published by NCFamily.org.




Big Foundations Unleashed Collectivist ‘Revolution’ via U.S. Schools

It may seem counterintuitive, but massive tax-exempt foundations funded by some of America’s most prominent capitalists and industrialists helped foment what congressional investigators described as a collectivist “revolution” in the United States.

The goal was to “so alter life in the United States that it could be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union.” Many tools were used, but the public education system was the most important and effective.

Congress Investigation

In the early 1950s, with growing concerns of subversion and communist penetration surrounding the enormous foundations, the U.S. Congress launched investigations. Investigators for Congress’s Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations, sometimes referred to as the “Reece Committee,” after the chairman, found that there was good reason to be concerned.

According to the committee’s chief investigator, some of the foundations were weaponizing the American education system to enable what was described as “oligarchical collectivism,” or collectivist rule by an oligarchy. This was done by financing the promotion of “internationalism and moral relativism,” among other dangerous “isms,” investigators found.

The chief culprits included some of the largest and most important foundations in the United States. These included the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller foundations, and the Carnegie Endowment. According to congressional investigators, they were showering money on Columbia University, Harvard, Chicago University, and the University of California to advance their objectives through education. And it worked.

Norman Dodd, the director of research for Congress’s select committee, reported that the foundations had even orchestrated a “revolution” in the United States. The revolution “could not have occurred peacefully, or with the consent of the majority, unless education in the United States had been prepared in advance to endorse it,” Dodd told lawmakers in his sworn testimony.

The committee’s final report, released in late 1954, found that “some of the larger foundations have directly supported subversion in the true meaning of that term—namely, the process of undermining some of our vitally protective concepts and principles.” Those same entities have also “actively supported attacks upon our social and governmental system and financed the promotion of socialism and collectivist ideas,” investigators concluded.

Globalism and distorting history were also major priorities. In the final report, the committee noted that the foundations had “supported a conscious distortion of history.” As part of that, they also  “propagandized blindly for the United Nations as the hope for the world,” undermining American constitutional principles and liberty.

One of the experts who testified during the hearings was attorney Aaron Sargent, whose background included special investigations, especially into education and subversion. He told lawmakers that many of the big foundations were actively promoting socialism in the United States, in violation of the law and their charters, and that education was among their key tools.

“First of all, in approaching this problem of foundation influence, the subversive-teaching problem is a foundation problem,” he said, noting that the problem began in the 1890s. “This movement is closely related to Fabian socialism.” These subversives tried to infect America, but found it more difficult than in Britain due to Americanism, a written Constitution, and federal courts capable of protecting constitutional rights.

And so, the radicals “relied upon propaganda and brainwashing,” using the school system to attack patriotism, natural law, and even real history, said Sargent, who was asked to serve as counsel to the select committee but had to decline. “They sought to create a blackout of history by slanting and distorting historical facts,” he testified. “They introduced a new and revolutionary philosophy—one based on the teachings of John Dewey.”

On the educational front, he said, the story actually begins with the Rockefeller-funded Dewey Laboratory School at the University of Chicago, a topic that has already been explored in this series. From there, Dewey “expounded a principle which has become destructive of traditions and has created the difficulties and the confusion … that we find today.” As part of that, “Professor Dewey denied that there was any such thing as absolute truth,” a concept that was “revolutionary in practice.”

Foundations’ Role

In previous articles in this series on the history of public education, the Rockefeller dynasty’s role in funding collectivist “education reformer” John Dewey, widely considered to be the “father” of America’s public school system, was documented extensively. The Rockefeller philanthropies—especially the “General Education Board”—provided millions of dollars to advance Dewey’s quackery around the end of the 19th century and into the beginning of the 20th.

But that would be just the beginning. Rockefeller money also helped resettle the communists of the Frankfurt School at prestigious U.S. academic institutions, primarily Dewey’s Columbia University. From there, their subversive poison infected all of U.S. society, mostly through the public education system.

The Rockefeller dynasty was key in shaping education policy. In 1902, facing an avalanche of bad publicity over his ruthless business practices, oil baron John D. Rockefeller created the “General Education Board.” This ostensibly “philanthropic” venture was used to help fund and eventually control education in the United States.

Rockefeller put Frederick Gates in charge of his “charitable” schemes. And Gates was honest about the agenda. “In our dream we have limitless resources, and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hand,” Gates wrote in “The Country School of To-morrow, Occasional Papers Number 1.”

“The present educational conventions fade from our minds; and, unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive rural folk.”

He was clear that the goal was not to raise up philosophers, scientists, authors, poets, musicians, artists, lawyers, doctors, preachers, or statesmen. There was already an “ample supply” of those, he said. Instead, the goal was to create docile and largely unthinking workers who could be used and controlled by the elites.

The ultimate goal of all this subversion from the mega-foundations, though, was even more horrifying.

Dodd Interview

In an interview with G. Edward Griffin in 1982, chief investigator Dodd dropped a bombshell that should have, and would have, shocked America to the core—at least if it had been more widely known. The goal of the foundations’ scheming in education and beyond was to crush individualism, promote collectivism, and prepare the way for the United States to be merged with the totalitarian Soviet Union.

While investigating, Dodd was contacted by Ford Foundation President Alan Gaither and asked to come to the foundation’s offices in New York. “On arrival, after a few amenities, Mr. Gaither said, ‘Mr. Dodd, we have asked you to come up here today because we thought that, possibly, off the record, you would tell us why the Congress is interested in the activities of foundations such as ourselves,’” Dodd recalled in the interview.

Dodd continued: “Before I could think of how I would reply to that statement, Mr. Gaither then went on voluntarily and stated: ‘Mr. Dodd, all of us who have a hand in the making of policies here have had experience … operating under directives … the substance of which is, that we shall use our grant-making power so to alter life in the United States that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union.’”

In short, the head of the Ford Foundation, one of the most influential in the world, told the chief congressional investigator of a committee investigating foundations that the foundations were helping to pave the way to a merger of the free world with the slave world. And Americans remained blissfully unaware, as the cancer crept in quietly through the school system over a period of generations.

According to Dodd and the congressional investigation, the Carnegie foundations decided after World War I that gaining control of education would be crucial. The leadership’s goal at that time, Dodd said, was to prevent “a reversion of life in the United States to what it was prior to 1914.” But the task was so enormous that it would require help. And so, while the Carnegie Endowment would focus on international education matters, the Rockefeller foundations were put in charge of domestic initiatives, according to documents uncovered by investigators in the Carnegie Endowment’s archives.

“The effect was to orient our educational system away from support of the principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence, and implemented in the Constitution, and educate them over to the idea that the task now was, as a result of the orientation of education, away from these briefly stated principles and self-evident truths,” Dodd said in the interview.

“What we had uncovered was the determination of these large endowed foundations, through their trustees, to actually get control over the content of American education.”

Investigations also found that since at least the 1930s, Moscow decided to infiltrate educational and large foundations in the United States. Following their orders from the Soviet Union, American communists even created a commission focused on infiltrating and taking over foundations.

One of the major successes identified by the congressional investigators was Soviet agent Alger Hiss, who became president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace after playing a starring role in creating the United Nations. He was later exposed as a spy for Joseph Stalin’s mass-murdering regime.

Current State

This work of the major foundations continues to this day. Consider, for example, Microsoft founder Bill Gates pouring billions of dollars into “education reform” and into supporting the collectivist agenda of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). In fact, Gates’s foundation was, aside from U.S. taxpayers, the single largest financier of Common Core, the universally reviled national (and internationally aligned) “standards” imposed on the United States by the Obama administration. More on that in a future piece of this education series.

The Rockefeller foundations also continue to be deeply involved in “education.” And key Rockefeller bigwigs have become increasingly open about their real agenda. In his autobiography, for instance, the late dynasty patriarch David Rockefeller dropped a bombshell.

“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure–one world, if you will,” he wrote on page 405. “If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

When examining these facts, it seems perplexing that the wealth of some of America’s most important super-capitalists would be put to use advancing collectivism, subversion, and even socialism. And yet, it was hardly a new phenomenon. In his important book “Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution,” Stanford historian Anthony Sutton meticulously documented the role of major bankers and financiers from New York City in financing the communist enslavement of the Russian people.

It is time for Americans to completely rethink education or be destroyed. That rethink must involve discarding all of the quackery and subversive influences brought about by collectivists such as Dewey, and the out-of-control foundations that funded and helped them. The future of United States and liberty literally depend on sorting out this mess.


This article was originally published by The Epoch Times, and is one report in a series of articles examining the origins of government education in the United States.