Fakery is one of the key elements of brainwashing. There’s nothing new in it – even Jesus of Nazareth warned of it with his “false prophets” homily to the extent that it would even fool the very elect, whatever that means.
At my place, I’ve been locked in a struggle over brainwashing and one of the brainwashed trying to convince readers that the modern constructs are correct, not what the whistleblowers and those who lived through those times say. I wrote a comment earlier of which excerpts say:
At OoL I wrote on Professor Foner and there are hundreds in the UK – they brainwash the kids oh so subtly in many ways, determine values by presenting strawman themes, then encourage the kids to tear down the strawman and take on board the values therein. Certain texts are approved, others are frowned on and mocked. I did economics and Hayek etc. were mocked when students brought him up. The professors and lecturers were never going to bring him up.
That is criminally negligent.
So the combination of lax upbringing due to the Boomers and Gen X for a start, combined with these values in a susceptible kid of 17-22 and there is your political mass for the future.
That is not soft, it is not benign. That is not easing off and letting people get on with their own lives. The brainwashed people are soft and benign within the lie though but the establishment of the lie took enormous resources and a sustained campaign.
In education, there was a pre-turn-of-the-century theorist called Wundt. Rockefeller saw the value in his ideas as a way of debilitating educational thinking and earning money at the same time. He funded the Lincoln School and even the name was carefully chosen. It was the first “child-centred’ educational establishment [AS Neill came much later].
Even “child-centred” was a lie. Ostensibly based on an idea everyone would agree with – that people learn best by discovering for themselves, it was far more than that. It became that children were capable of determining their own educational outcomes. Rockefeller loved it because it broke down “authority’ through which values were imbued in kids.
So it was funded and campaigned for as the new learning and every educator has a natural desire to keep up with the latest educational thinking. False reviews of texts were all part of that.
In the 70s, the Fabians had another attempt, called “open-plan” classrooms and it was not just the classroom geography – it was the approved texts and the pressure to conform to the new ideas, under the guise of asking – are you opposing “progress”? When teachers spoke of the 3 Rs, they were mocked as dinosaurs and quietly eased out.
The result of the whole process is the recent GCSEs and A levels. We all know about it in the UK and the situation in the U.S. is worse.
The literature is the key because changemakers are those who can affect policy and those doing that need to quote from “the literature”. Therefore, if you can control the literature then you are halfway there. Drew Faust at Harvard is a classic case. A rabid feminist, she has slowly poisoned the literature and therefore skewed the debate.
Ellory was allegedly doing it for himself. The others mentioned above were doing it for ideological reasons – for relativism. Effect’s the same – one person’s literature is unfairly taken on board – another’s is mocked and vilified. The public can’t discern the truth of the matter.
And we’re in a time now when false prophets are everywhere.