Most of us Attended John Dewey’s Socialist Public Schools

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Samuel Blumenfeld and Alex Newman wrote a book back in 2014 called Crimes of the Educators which was published by World Net Daily. In it they devoted considerable space to John Dewey, who I have commented on in recent articles. They noted, at the start of the book that “John Dewey is generally lauded as the father of progressive education. but unfortunately he is the father of much more. In the late 1800s,  he and his socialist colleagues decided to embark on a long-range conspiracy to radically change America by imposing their own utopian vision of a collectivist society…Dewey stated that the only way to undermine the capitalist system was to get rid of the emphasis primary schools placed on the development of high literacy and independent intelligence. Why? Because both of these sustained individualism. What was needed, they believed, was a new curriculum that emphasized socialization and taught children to read by a whole-word method that would lower the nation’s literacy level and make its children more amenable to collectivist values…They considered themselves peerless intellects and socialism a morally superior way of life.”

Bet they never told you any of this about Dewey in any of the books you may have read about him, did they? Today, if you want to see just how “morally superior” socialism is, take a good look at Venezuela or Cuba. Trump, in his State of the Union speech noted how Venezuela had once been a thriving country. Now that the socialists have take it over they can’t even feed themselves. And there are people in our Congress that have plans for this country to go the way Venezuela has gone. Doesn’t that sound just delightful? This is what they have planned for us if we continue to slumber on and don’t watch everything those people try to  pull on us. Think about that.

As far as John Dewey’s educational methods, we ought to consider that all of us who attended public schools since Dewey’s heyday were all educated in John Dewey’s socialist public schools and today’s kids are stills being educated in them. Anyone remember those “Dick and Jane” books they gave us to read in first grade? They were part of Dewey’s “whole word” method, where they teach you to memorize the whole word rather than teaching you the phonics so you can learn to sound out long words on your own. It’s a subtle way of dumbing your kids down so they never really learn to read anything where they can’t pronounce some of the words, hence, they read less and learn less–and that’s the name of the game. Your kids are easier to bamboozle if they don’t know too much. We all suffered under Dewey’s questionable methods, foisted upon us by a socialist “educator.”

I recently read an article on the American Thinker for October 1, 2012, written by a Bruce Deitrick Price, the title of which was John Dewey is a Fraud. Had I not already known as much, his article would have gone a long way toward convincing me.

Price noted: “The problem with the labels is that John Dewey, albeit a genius, was not an educator in the sense that most people use that word…Dewey was not primarily concerned with teaching new information. He was concerned with inculcating new attitudes. John Dewey was a social engineer–one might even say a community organizer. He believed that socialism was the future. His self-appointed mission was to implement the transition to this brave new world. All of his grand theories, his scores of books, and his hundreds of articles can be summed up as a program for making America socialist.” This was his vision for the public education system in this country–making it even more socialist than it already had been under Horace Mann’s Unitarianism.

Price continued: “There is one little problem at this point: almost nobody in America was asking for this transformation. So Dewey was in the awkward position of redecorating your house when you didn’t ask for it to be redecorated, or more precisely seducing your kids when you don’t want your kids to be seduced. Dewey basically had to ignore law, precedent, tradition, legislatures, voters, elections, expectations of families, and needs of society. He attempted an end-run, and thus a conspiracy. His project is best called Socialism on the Sly…He was doing something on the sly because the public didn’t ask for his ideas and would have rejected them if they had had the chance…It’s worth noting that the entire Dewey machine was operating full-speed by 1890, before the Russian Revolution. Far-left ideology was a force, and the United States had homegrown Marxists eager to join Dewey’s crusade.” Some of them were, no doubt, taught by those socialist and communist revolutionaries that came over here in 1848 in their quest for a socialist America.

And Price made another revelatory statement. He said: “John Dewey wasn’t interested in education as you and I understand this term. Everything he did was in fact intended to subvert and diminish traditional education.” Go back and read that one again. Price was right on the money here. Think about what that means to your kids in school today. As I think about what it meant to my generation–it means that when it came to real education, we got stiffed. The potential may have been there, but Leftist propaganda prevailed to cloud our learning processes. I’m not saying there aren’t or weren’t ever any good teachers–there were and are, but their efforts to truly educate have been blunted by the prevalence of Dewey’s socialist vision.

Another article I ran across was on for July 31, 2018 and written by Craig Biddle.  Mr. Biddle observed: “Dewey and the other social engineers in the so-called ‘progressive education’ movement understood not only that politics is downstream from culture–but also that culture is downstream from early childhood education. They knew where to turn and what to do in order to advance socialism big time. They focused on inculcating  socialism in the minds and souls of children.”

Now you can begin to see what public schools have really been all about since the beginning–teaching your kids how to become good little socialists without either you or them being aware of it. I guess you could say that public schools are “stealth socialism.” As such, they are no place for Christians to educate their kids. Their kids, if they can find any other possible way to teach them, do not belong in public schools and if, for some reason, they are forced to attend, their parents need to get them out asap. And don’t think for a New York minute that an hour of Sunday School on the Lord’s Day is going to be enough to combat what goes on in public schools for 30 hours of prime time every week. To do such is to be prone to delusion.

The Founding Fathers of the Public (government) School System in America

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Alex Newman has written an excellent article in the February 4th issue of The New American magazine entitled From Educational Excellence To Mediocrity
in which he brings up several issues I have also dealt with in the past.

He noted that the Puritans in Massachusetts were “outliers in America” in the area of having the government start to enact governmental education laws. For all the good things the Puritans may have done, in this one critical area, the promotion of governmental education laws was a horrible mistake. In fact, labeling it as a grievous error would not be an exaggeration.

Mr. Newman has written: “The first giant step away from traditional, classical, Christian education toward socialistic and humanistic indoctrination and the dumbing down of American education began under Horace Mann. In 1837, again in Massachusetts, Mann was appointed as the first-ever ‘Education Secretary’ of an American state. And as a Unitarian who rejected the Bible as the inspired and inerrant Word of God,  Mann had big ideas about reforming the highly successful educational system that existed at the time. His efforts would ultimately lead to the fundamental transformation of education in America, putting it on course to end up where it is today.”

In fact, one of the reasons Mann and other Unitarians, and socialists as well, wanted to “reform” the educational system in this country so very badly was that they wanted to blunt the effect that church schools were having on students. The fact that mostly Reformed churches influenced the educational efforts of that day ticked them off to no end. So you could say, and not be off-target at all, that they started the public school system to fight against the Christian influence that was being had on education. They wanted the Christian influence gone! And being “wiser in that day than the children of light” (the church)  they pretty much accomplished it.

But Mann, and socialist Robert Owen, were, unfortunately, not the last act in this pedagogical nightmare. Alex Newman also observed: “After Mann came John Dewey.” While some of you all may not have heard of Horace Mann, most folks have heard of John Dewey, though they probably have not been told very much about him and what he really stood for, and that’s not by accident. Newman stated, quite accurately, that “Dewey was, to put it bluntly, an anti-Christian socialist and humanist with a fanatical zeal for reforming mankind to fit his atheistic, collectivist vision…While Mann went to Prussia for educational inspiration, Dewey would visit Vladimir Lenin’s Soviet Russia, returning home to shower the brutal mass-murdering regime with praise in the New Republic for creating a ‘collectivistic mentality’ through education and propaganda…As a model, Dewey frequently pointed to the 1888 novel Looking Backward by Edward Bellamy that envisioned a communist America in the year 2000. It was a radical vision, especially at that time, but it animated Dewey and his supporters in their quest to re-shape America by re-shaping its children by re-shaping their education.” Donnie Kennedy and I dealt somewhat with Edward Bellamy in our book Lincoln’s Marxists.

If you will but stop and reflect a moment, you will begin to see that this is the foundation of public education in this country–from Unitarian Horace Mann to socialist Robert Owen to socialist John Dewey–and beyond. This was, indeed, The Unitarian/Socialist Foundation of Public Education (the title of a booklet I wrote years ago).

Those among you that are truly concerned about what your kids are being taught in public school need to separate (secede) from the public school system before you forever lose your kids.


Public Education–the New Marxism For Our Day

by Al Benson Jr.

Back during the “conservative” Reagan administration we got the federal Department of Education. Reagan was supposed to kill it, but he didn’t because he realized where his bread was buttered. I wonder if even he realized where the idea for that federal department came from. Most folks don’t have a clue. However the idea of a federal department of education was not new with Reagan, or even with Carter before him.

The idea wasn’t new with either one of them. It goes all the way back to 1932, and possibly before that.

In 1932 American Communist Party leader William Z. Foster wrote a book, Toward Soviet America and in it Comrade Foster listed several objectives to be forwarded to make this country into a Soviet America. He wrote: “Among the elementary measures the American Soviet government will adopt to further the cultural revolution are the following; the schools, colleges and universities will be coordinated and grouped under the National Department of Education and its state and local branches.” And he continued: “The studies will be revolutionized, being cleansed of religious, patriotic and other features of the bourgeois ideology. The students will be taught on the basis of Marxian dialectical materialism, internationalism and the general ethics of the new socialist society.”

If you think this could not possibly have happened take a look at the trend of public (actually government) education in the years since Comrade Foster outlined all of this. We’ve got the federal department of education he endorsed. We’ve had it since Reagan was in office. By now it has cost billions and what has it contributed to the educational process in America? Our kids are more dumbed-down than ever. Most of them can’t find the United States on a world map. And if you think that’s an exaggeration, then take a map of the world sometime, cover the names of all the countries and ask the kids how many of them they can identify. Most kids will be lucky if they can come up with a dozen.

The schools have truly been cleansed of “religious” influences, if by “religious” you mean Christian. Just about all other religions still have free reign in “our” public schools, including secular Humanism. They are all permissable in one form or another, even encouraged. But let a teacher even once mention Jesus Christ in a public school classroom and she may not last until the end of the school day before she is fired. So the one “religion” that really matters, Christianity, has been expunged from public school classrooms. You will notice that kids never have Christmas break anymore. Now it’s “holiday break” or “winter break” or some other such innocuous name–anything but Christmas break.

And we have people on the Fake News Media now telling us that “We have to break through our private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to the whole community.” Whether you realize it or not, that means “the state.”

Back when Obama roosted in the White House, his federal education Czar proposed government boarding schools. He said, “certain kids we should have 24/7.” Why? What entitlement do the feds have to your kids? Well, none really, unless they fully intend to propagandize them under the false banner of “education.” If that is their real aim they will always claim a prior right to that of the parents because in their fevered minds the state really owns the kids. And all this has not changed very much just because Trump got into office. The federal education Leviathan pretty much follows its own agenda no matter who’s in office.

Alex Newman, writing in The New American  for February 4, 2019 has observed, accurately, that “Education, it turns out, is the secret weapon of those seeking to build what they frequently refer to in public as a New World Order. And they not only admit it, they boast of it in public.” And Mr. Newman further observes: “…if the overwhelming majority of children in the coming generations are sufficiently indoctrinated, every struggle between freedom and tyranny will eventually be lost Every. Single. One.”

That is something the people of this country, especially the Christians, really need to reflect on as they decide how they will educate their children.

The Real American Revolution–1776 or 1861

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Many have, over the years, no doubt to their government school “educations” looked at the 14th Amendment, and been under the misguided delusion that it was a milestone in the cause of “racial equality.”

It might not hurt for those prone to such flights of fancy to take a look at the prime mover behind that amendment, the radical Thaddeus Stevens from Pennsylvania (and no credit to that state). I have recently done articles dealing with him so this will only add info to what’s already out there. Stevens has been characterized by some who’ve written about him as an “apostle of hate.” I guess you’d have to say that’s an apt description of him. His vindictive attitude toward the South before, during, and after the War of Northern Aggression might well be described as pathological.

Stewart Sifakis in Who Was Who in the Civil War has told us, of Stevens that: “In politics he moved from Federalist to Anti-Mason, to Whig, and finally to Republican. He served in the state legislature from 1833 until 1842, where he is most remembered for his defense of free public schools. He was a master at the distribution of  patronage…” Just about every position noted here for Stevens was one of centralism and more government control. Note that he supported the concept of “free public schools” that was advocated by Karl Marx a little later in The Communist Manifesto which he wrote for The League of the Just (Illuminati).

Sifakis also told us that: “During the Civil War he wielded great influence as head of the House Ways and Means Committee. Although he had supported Lincoln in 1860, he was a constant critic of his moderate actions against the South, favoring instead a war of extermination and recolonization of the South, abolishing the old state lines.” A war of extermination against the South–Stevens sounds like a really nice guy doesn’t he? Just a paragon of Yankee/Marxist virtue! Virtue? Well, not exactly. Fawn Brodie,  who wrote a biography of Thaddeus Stevens told us that: “Carl Schurz reported later that Stevens’ Pennsylvania neighbors ‘did not, indeed, revere him as a model of virtue;  but of the occasional lapses of his bachelor-like life from correct moral standards,  which seemed to be well-known and frequently talked about, they spoke with affectionate lenity of judgment.” An interesting commentary on Stevens’ Pennsylvania neighbors.

Brodie also told us that Stevens’ crusade against  Masonry was “almost pathological in its nature…Later the Southern slaveholder became for Stevens a still more satisfactory object of attack.  The desire to punish deepened with his advancing years, until after the Civil War it became an obsession.” Obsessed and pathological seem rather apt descriptions for Thaddeus Stevens–a quintessential Yankee/Marxist if ever there was one.

Anyone who has studied the career of Thaddeus Stevens ought to be convinced that his main intent, after presiding over the destruction of an orthodox Christian South, was to change the structure and direction of the federal government. He labored tirelessly to turn that government into an even more effective instrument of  tyranny than it had been under Lincoln. A tall order!

Stevens made a point of giving speeches in 1865,  after the shooting phase of the war ended.  While notably professing to protect the “constitutional guarantees” of all, he advocated, in a manner similar to that of the Marxists, that the land of the “chief rebels” be seized and used to help pay the national debt. Stevens was doing nothing more than advocating the redistribution of someone else’s wealth, and he had the audacity to do it under the cloak of “constitutional guarantees.”

Every once in awhile Stevens let the cat out of the bag if you knew what to look for. In one of his speeches he said that: “In reconstruction…reformation must be affected; the foundations of their institutions, both political, municipal and social (Christian) must be broken up and relaid,  or all our blood and treasure have been in vain. This can only be done by treating and holding them as a conquered people.” So where were Stevens’ “constitutional guarantees” he spoke so glowingly of? Well, just like today, they were for certain people. Here Stevens has given us the foundation of his personal theology. Every man has a theology whether he attends church or not. The true theology of Stevens and his Yankee/Marxist good buddies  can easily be described as “subjugation and seizure”–in direct violation of both the 8th and 10th Commandments.

Stevens later said: “They (the South) ought never to be recognized as capable of acting in the Union, or of being counted as valid states, until the Constitution shall have been so amended as to make it what its framers intended: and so as to secure perpetual ascendency to the party of the Union (Republicans).” It would seem, at this point, that Mr. Stevens had appointed himself as the chief interpreter of what the true intent of the framers of the Constitution was. I can’t help but ask if Stevens’ allusion to the amendment process had anything to do with his upcoming plans in regard to the 14th Amendment.

From Stevens’ comments  one comes away with the feeling that his concept of “original intent” was to change the Constitution by amendment to make it say what he thought it should have said but didn’t. Also, are we not also forced to conclude, from his statements about the “perpetual ascendency of the party of the Union” that he was, in fact, advocating what amounted to a one-party state? In essence that is what “reconstruction” did in the South. Karl Marx must have absolutely drooled with anticipation!

The hypothesis has been put forth that, in 1776, we fought a war for independence, not a revolution. I agree with that.  Others have put forth the idea that our “Civil War” was really a revolution in disguise (and a Marxist one at that), and I have to agree with that. If you don’t think so, then read Lincoln’s Marxists. The intent of the War of Northern Aggression  was to radically change our form of government, while giving the appearance of trying to preserve it.

If such was accomplished by 1865, is it any wonder today that we still struggle with “civil rights,” “Women’s Lib,” unprecedented federal intrusion into our private lives, and a host of other ills?

Let me say again as I have in the past, that our problems in this country did not start with FDR, or even the Federal Reserve. Some of them probably started with Lincolns Internal Revenue Service, but most likely,  even that cancer is but a predictable symptom of the religious apostasy  that has, for the past 170 years, eaten the true heart and soul out of what was once America but is now post-America.

Until we come to grips with that truth we will continue to spin our wheels and get nowhere. You can’t begin to think about fighting apostasy by “getting a few more conservatives into Congress.” While that might be a desirable step, it will only be a speed bump for the Deep State. A return to our biblical roots, the Reformation faith “once delivered to the saints” is the only thing that will suffice to save America and that return must be accompanied by repentance.