Who is Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt is an American whistleblower and freelance writer who served as the Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education, during the first term of U.S. President Ronald Reagan, and staff employee of the U.S. Department of State (South Africa, Belgium, South Korea).[1][2][3] She was born in 1930[4] and attended Dana Hall preparatory school and Katharine Gibbs College in New York City, where she studied business.[4] Iserbyt's father and grandfather were Yale University graduates and members of the Skull and Bones secret society.

She is known for writing the book The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America. The book reveals that changes gradually brought into the American public education system work to eliminate the influences of a child's parents (religion, morals, national patriotism), and mold the child into a member of the proletariat in preparation for a socialist-collectivist world of the future.[3] She says that these changes originated from plans formulated primarily by the Andrew Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Education and Rockefeller General Education Board, and details the psychological methods used to implement and effect the changes.[3]

In an interview[2] concerning secret societies and the elite agenda she disclosed that in the early 1980s she had a chance to meet with Norman Dodd who had been the chief investigator for theUnited States House Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations commonly known as the B. Carroll Reece Committee. In the video interview she claims that Dodd discussed a 'network' of individuals including Carnegie who planned to bring about world peace by means of rapid changes in society. These changes would be brought about by involving the populace in various wars and military conflicts. She further claimed that Dodd had discussions with Rowan Gaither, the president of the Ford Foundation in which he revealed that directives from the President of the United States compelled foundations related to the Ford Foundation to direct their funding into bringing about the merger of the USA with the Soviet Union.[5][6][7]


Mr. Dodd, all of us here at the policy making level of the foundation have at one time or another served in the OSS (the Office of Strategic Services, the forerunner of the CIA) or the European Economic Administration, operating under directives from the White House. We operate under those same directives… The substance of the directives under which we operate is that we shall use our grant making power to so alter life in the United States that we can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union.

— Rowan Gaither, President Ford Foundation - 1953, Norman Dodd - friend of Iserbyt[8]

Filmed interviews of Iserbyt have her detail her story that lead her from school board trustee/administrator to becoming a Ronald Reagan administration staff in the U.S. Department of Education, and discovering further to her complete disbelief how these policies of a socialist-collectivist nature originated all the way to President Reagan, Vice President George H. W. Bush, and their policy advisers.

Up until 1960 Reagan, a leading member of United World Federalists (whose purpose was to merge America into a world government), was a charter member of Americans for Democratic Action. Reagan was also a member of the National Advisory Council of the American Veterans Committee[9] that was supposedly "under communist influence."

In 1982 Reagan relieved her of her duties after leaking an important technology grant for computerized learning—Project BEST: "Better Education Skills through Technology"[10] brought about by the scholarly writings and a large study by an education specialist named Dr. John I. Goodlad at the Center for Educational Renewal at the University of Washington, originally from British Columbia, Canada.[11] One book of which Iserbyt was critical, "Schooling for a Global Age", edited by Charlotte C. Anderson, James M. Becker, Institute for Development of Educational Activities, New York 1979, Iserbyt cited as having less to do with fostering learning and mainly to do with psychological manipulation of students, possibly against the teaching of the child's parents, for example, in arts classes.[12]


Parents and the general public must be reached also. Otherwise, children and youth enrolled in globally oriented programs may find themselves in conflict with values assumed in the home. And then the educational institution frequently comes under scrutiny and must pull back.

— Dr. John I. Goodlad, Schooling for a Global Age-1979

and again later —


Enlightened social engineering is required to face situations that demand global action now... Parents and the general public must be reached also, otherwise, children and youth enrolled in globally oriented programs may find themselves in conflict with values assumed in the home. And then the educational institution frequently comes under scrutiny and must pull back.

— Dr. John I. Goodlad, "Guide to Getting Out Your Message," National Education Goals Panel 

Community Action Toolkit: A Do-It-Yourself Kit for Education Renewal (September 1994);

Read More

Ethan Hawke (GATTACA) 1080P Full Movie

Read More

Charlotte Iserbyt: Societies Secrets

Read More

Antony Sutton - The Jesuit Order of Skull and Bones

Read More

Charlotte Iserbyt - The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America

Read More

E.C. Mullins - Murder by Injection

Read More

Peace Process Is Doomed To Fail While Israel Stalls For Time

By Jonathan Cook, ICH, October 31, 2013

Whatever happened to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process? You could be forgiven for thinking everyone packed up shop a while ago and forgot to inform you. There’s been barely a peep about it since the revival of talks was greeted with great fanfare back in July.

The negotiations, which have been conducted in a fog of secrecy, flitted briefly back on the radar last week when the US secretary of state, John Kerry, met Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu for what the media called an “unusually long”, seven-hour meeting in Rome.

Much of the conversation was held in private, with not even officials present, but, according to reports, discussions concentrated on the revived peace process. Mr Kerry, concerned about the lack of tangible progress, is believed to have tried to pin Mr Netanyahu down on his vision of where the nine-month negotiations should lead.

Mr Kerry’s intervention follows weeks of mounting Palestinian frustration, culminating in rumours that the talks are on the verge of collapse. After a meeting with Mr Kerry in Paris, an Arab League official, Nasif Hata, added to the desultory atmosphere, saying there were “no positive indications of progress”.

Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, on a tour of European capitals last week in search of diplomatic support, tried to scotch suggestions that the talks were at a “dead end”. They were “difficult”, he admitted, and after nearly three months of meetings the two sides were still “at the beginning of the road”.

But privately his officials have expressed exasperation at Israel’s inflexibility and the miserliness of its opening positions. Earlier this month the Al Hayat newspaper reported that Israel had refused to discuss the key issue of borders, instead focusing exclusively on its own security concerns.

None of this is surprising. At Israel’s insistence, the talks have been entirely shielded from public view. Privacy, Israel argued, would ease the pressure on the two parties and give them greater room to be forthcoming and creative.

The reality, however, is that the lack of scrutiny has allowed Israel to drag its feet. Israel’s lead negotiator, Tzipi Livni, has already warned that the talks’ timetable is likely to overrun.

Similarly, US envoy Martin Indyk was supposed to be Mr Kerry’s eyes and ears in the talks. Instead he spent the first two months locked out of the proceedings, apparently again at Israel’s instigation.

Secrecy, Israel hopes, will give it the cover it expects to need when—as seems certain—the talks end inconclusively, or the Palestinians storm out. Widespread ignorance about developments can be exploited to cast the Palestinians as the treacherous party, as occurred following the collapse of the Camp David talks in 2000.

Whatever Mr Netanyahu told Mr Kerry in private last week, few believe the Israeli prime minister is really ready to seek peace. Earlier this month he set out in public his vision for the talks, in a follow-up to his famous speech in 2009, when, faced with a newly installed US president, Barack Obama, he agreed to a two-state solution.

This time, speaking from the same podium, he sounded in no mood for conciliation. “Unless the Palestinians recognise the Jewish state and give up on the right of return there will not be peace,” he said. He denied the “occupation and settlements” were causes of the conflict, and insisted on Israel’s need for “extremely strong security arrangements”.

It is this kind of uncompromising talk that has discredited the negotiations with those outside the White House.

Last week Yuval Diskin, a recent head of the Shin Bet, Israel’s domestic intelligence service, warned that there was no realistic prospect that “the Israeli public will accept a peace agreement”. Israelis’ distrust of the negotiations is fuelled by the constant opposition of government ministers.

In a further show of dissension, they have backed a bill that would require a two-thirds parliamentary majority before Israel can even broach at the talks the key issue of dividing Jerusalem. If passed, the legislation would turn the negotiations into a dead letter.

On the other side, Hamas has grown emboldened. Ismail Haniyeh, the prime minister in Gaza, has called on Palestinians to renew a “popular uprising”, just as a 1.5km tunnel Hamas had built into Israel was exposed.

In the West Bank, a spate of attacks and killings of Israelis over the past few weeks—after a year without the loss of a single Israeli life from the conflict in 2012—has provoked wild speculation about whether a Palestinian uprising is imminent. A Palestinian driving a bulldozer who went on a rampage through a military base near Jerusalem only reinforced the impression.

Conveniently, Mr Netanyahu has exploited widespread opposition to the next round of Palestinian prisoner releases, due yesterday—the carrot to keep the Palestinians at the negotiating table—to justify plans for yet more settlement building.

All indications are that these talks, like their predecessors, are doomed to fail. The question is whether the Palestinians have the nerve to unmask the charade. If not, Israel will use the peace process as cover while its settlements devour yet more of the Palestinian state-in-waiting.

Jonathan Cook is a journalist based in Nazareth.

Read More

Putin at No. 1: Russian media crows, and complains, about Forbes ranking

By Fred Weir, CS Monitor, October 31, 2013

Moscow—Vladimir Putin is the world’s most powerful person in 2013, according to Forbes magazine, which has taken it upon itself to compile a controversial “most powerful” list every year since 2009.

This year it has 72 names of people who “matter the most,” including 17 heads of state, 27 business kingpins, assorted politicians and bureaucrats, one drug trafficker, one pope and—with a bit of overlap—28 billionaires.

In a breezy explanation of its methodology, the magazine says that top editors consider the extent of a candidate’s power over people, financial resources, influence in multiple spheres, and whether the person’s authority is effectively wielded.

For three of first four years of the list’s existence US President Barack Obama was the anointed No. 1. And rightly so. By almost any calculus, whether GDP, diplomatic heft, or military might, the leader of the United States ought to be pretty much guaranteed that slot every single time. But, perhaps just to mix it up, the editors of Forbes gave the top honor to Chinese President Hu Jintao in 2010.

Russians are already clinking their tea glasses in celebration, seeing in this fairly prominent global ranking a validation not only of Russia’s inexorable rise on the world stage, but also of US decline.

The Kremlin-funded English-language TV network, RT, managed to make all those points while still decrying the lamentable double-standards employed by Forbes editors.

"Apparently, Putin’s first place on Forbes couldn’t appear without ready-made clichés in the description and accompanying articles, with terms like ‘autocratic leader,’ ‘ex-KGB strongman,’ and ‘dictator’ littered everywhere. His counterpart Obama, on the other hand, has been depicted as ‘the handcuffed head of the most dominant country,’ but still the ‘leader of the free world,’" RT complained.

Citing its reasons for promoting Mr. Putin to the top of the list this year, while Mr. Obama fell back to second place, Forbes said that “Putin has solidified his control over Russia and anyone watching the chess match over Syria has a clear idea of the shift in the power towards Putin on the global stage. The ex-KGB strongman—who controls a nuclear-tipped army, a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and some of the world’s largest oil and gas reserves—is allowed to serve another six-year term, which could keep him in office until 2024.”

The most important factor was Syria, where a Russian proposal to put Syrian chemical weapons under international control appears to have shifted the focus from military strikes to diplomacy after Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad was accused of using poison gas against civilians.

In September, Putin penned an influential commentary in the New York Times, appealing to Americans to see the logic of Russia’s position on Syria and forgo their own misguided tendency to see the US as “exceptional.” That brought a testy cold war-style response from US Senator John McCain, who published his anti-Putin polemic in one of the modern successors to the former Soviet Communist Party newspaper Pravda.

Putin’s ability to stand up to the US over the issue of fugitive ex-National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden, to whom Russia granted a year’s refuge despite stiff US objections last August, was another factor in Putin’s rise to the top, the magazine said.

"Even if this rating is subjective, it’s another sign that Russia’s prestige is rising," says Olga Kryshtanovskaya, one of Russia’s top political sociologists.

"I don’t think this changes anything inside Russia. People who hated Putin will go on doing so, those who are loyal to him will be proud of this [new sign of recognition]. But it’s an acknowledgement of the fact that, thanks to Russia, bloodshed in Syria was prevented," she says. "This is a very important fact."

Read More

NSA revelations boost corporate paranoia about state surveillance

By Chris Bryant in Frankfurt, Financial Times, October 31, 2013

On a mild day in late August a German police helicopter buzzed low over the US consulate in Frankfurt, the financial capital of Germany.

On the instruction of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, its mission was to photograph the rooftop of the US outpost, which is located less than 5km from the European Central Bank and Bundesbank.

German media say the BfV hoped to identify the presence of listening antennas and the action prompted an exchange between the US and the German foreign ministry in Berlin.

James Clapper, US Director of National Intelligence, insisted again in September that the US does not use foreign intelligence capabilities “to steal the trade secrets of foreign companies on behalf of…US companies to enhance their international competitiveness or increase their bottom line”.

But ever since Edward Snowden, the contractor turned whistleblower, began releasing his treasure trove of US surveillance secrets, European governments and business leaders are no longer sure whether to take the director at his word.

Reports that the US National Security Agency spied on Brazilian oil company Petrobras and gained access to data held by US cloud providers including Google and Yahoo have ratcheted corporate paranoia about state surveillance to new highs.

The final straw came when it was revealed that Chancellor Angela Merkel’s phone had been bugged, possibly for about a decade. If Europe’s most powerful person can be targeted, then surely business leaders are also potential targets.

German companies believe the US now poses almost as big a risk as China when it comes to industrial espionage and data theft, according to a survey published in July by EY, the consultancy.

The reach and technical sophistication of US spy agencies exposed by the Snowden revelations have come as a shock to some companies who previously thought the biggest surveillance risk was posed by China.

A big shift is occurring in cloud computing where European executives have become more aware that data stored in the US is subject to that jurisdiction and therefore potentially vulnerable.

According to a survey carried out by the Cloud Security Alliance, a trade body, some 10 per cent of non-US members cancelled plans to use a US-based cloud provider after revelations about the US Prism data mining programme.

Jim Snabe, co-chief executive at SAP, says: “We see a new question from customers that didn’t come up a year ago—which is where is my data stored and can you guarantee that it stays physically in that jurisdiction.”

Many German executives argue that the latest reports are simply confirmation of what they already knew: that powerful states want to steal their most prized secrets and these data must therefore be guarded at all costs.

For large companies, the message has long since been drummed home that picking up a free USB stick at a trade fair, or leaving a laptop unguarded in a hotel room are unwise, to say the least.

Ulrich Hackenberg, board member at carmaker Audi, says it has been standard practice for years for mobile phones to be collected before board meetings so they cannot be used as remote listening devices.

Germany’s BfV advises executives to consider using simple prepaid mobiles when on foreign trips because of the risk that smart phones are compromised. The prepaid mobiles are then thrown away afterwards.

However, there is concern that small and medium-sized companies remain vulnerable to hacking and surveillance. In Germany, many of these companies are global market leaders in their particular niche.

"Small and medium sized companies often lack the experience, personnel and financial resources to protect corporate secrets effectively against unauthorised access," the BfV warns in a report.

The US warns its own companies about economic espionage by other countries. The US National Intelligence Estimate in February named France alongside Russia and Israel in a second tier of offenders who engage in hacking for economic intelligence, behind China, according to The Washington Post.

A board member at a German blue-chip company concurred that when it comes to economic espionage, “the French are the worst”.

Bernard Squarcini, former head of the French internal intelligence agency DCRI, was quoted in an interview this month as saying: “The services know perfectly well that all countries, even as they co-operate in the antiterrorist fight, spy on their allies. The Americans spy on us on the commercial and industrial level as we spy on them too, because it is in the national interest to defend our businesses. Nobody is fooled.”

Read More

Dr.Carol Rosin

Read More