Talk:Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

added NPOV tag[edit]

I don't have time this morning to do much editing, but this is clearly not NPOV with lines like "Reagan fired her after she was able to read and then leak an Education Department policy book containing and demonstrating reprehensible communistic influences.". I will try to run through the article and add "citation needed" Jews this morning.

Jumbled Mess[edit]

Hey, fellow Wikipedians. This page is a jumbled mess of speculation, allegations about people and institutes said to have been made by Ms. Iserbyt. It lacks well-formed and cited biographical information. Let's start to clean i up. --Mark Asread 13:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Asread (talkcontribs)


I'd say that Ms. Iserbyt probably meets the criteria for notability. A quick Google search shows her as widely cited by right-wing and conspiracy-oriented blogs and publications (e.g.,, and her YouTube video has been widely disseminated.

This article is currently a dog's breakfast of opinion, speculation, and unattributed paraphrases,but I think it's worth improving and keeping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Asread (talkcontribs) 14:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I am sure that no WP:RS has served as a written, third party platform for the views / proofs / ideas of Iserbyt, but you can be sure that Iserbyt DOES appear and speak audibly in the many YouTube videos that you seemed to have noted, but not examined in any significant detail, for if you had done so, the missing attributions that you note above could be easily addressed when you convince any WP:RS to transcribe the interview dialog within all or some of those videos, then publish those online as a reference for this biographical subject. Oldspammer (talk) 11:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theorist[edit]

I've reverted the removal of the term "conspiracy theorist" to describe Ms. Iserbyt. Assuming that the information elsewhere in this article is at least fairly accurate, we must conclude this. By definition, one who believes that (I paraphrase) "jewish powerful cabals at the highest levels of US government... controlled by the Illuminati and Freemasons...with a goal of destroying religions and governments from within, merging the destroyed countries, and bringing about a one world government in their secret control." is a conspiracy theorist. --Mark Asread 13:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Asread (talkcontribs)

No one has a film from the 1700s with audio captured by & attested to by sworn officers of the law of globalist conspirators plotting all of these various witness-attested information. The conspiracy researchers involved only have the witness' writings. So right off the bat, the level of this "proof of conspiracy" will not satisfy the cartoon generation who expected to see this information taught in the very school system said to be under the influence of the conspirators. Examine the image search results from then scroll down about 60% then search for Illuminati. By way of illustration, this proves that even US President George Washington had letters referring to this conspiracy that was spreading from Europe. Iserbyt in accumulated government-published and assorted documentation chronicles the evidence (proof) for her thesis. The antithesis would be that all the government-published and assorted documentation & periodical writings are deliberately false--how likely is that? If you examine the text of George Washington, the Illuminati was known to him--and not a conspiracy theory. Iserbyt is elderly and still continues to make testimonials of her witness to various historical events. The various quotations of Norman Dodd just prior to his death have been transcribed from at least two different interviews conducted in the early 1980s by separate political / historical interviewers / documentary film makers: G. Edward Griffin, and Dr. Stanley Monteith.
Allegations by one member of US Congress circa 1940 have been entered on the record that Andrew Carnegie and others had as their goals a uniting of the superpowers into a one world Anglo-American empire / government, and Carnegie specifically had been funding these efforts by his various charitable foundations.
Supposedly, in 1910 an educator named Flexner was funded by the AMA, and Rockefeller monies funneled through the Carnegie foundation for the advancement of education to write a report recommending non-drug treatment medical schools be closed, the remaining schools merge with established universities, and that these universities be funded in part by huge grants provided by the tycoons of the day. While the result improved medical training due to increased funding, it wiped out effectively / virtually all study of non-drug therapy methods (in keeping with Rockefeller's heavy investment in drug & chemical industries & desires for monopoly control of various economic sectors). The US Government & AMA closed / defunded most non-conforming medical schools, battling at one point with the chiropractors to have them also snuffed out of legitimate business.
In 1917 another congressman entered into the US Congressional Record that in 1915 Standard Oil & J.P. Morgan & other interests had manipulated the ownership / control of the largest newspapers to write news that followed the dictates of the elite group. The elite group's immediate goal in 1915 was to influence the public's opinion towards the USA joining in fighting in WWI, a foreign war started in the Balkans where Americans had little or no interests. The various industrialists had multiple goals including war profiteering.
In history books written by esteemed scholar Professor Carroll Quigley, particularly in the thick volume "Tragedy and Hope", Quigley outlines the chronicles of these elite tycoons in pursuit of their plans for an Anglo-American world government, specifically stating what were the roots of this elite network. From this and other historical texts various people have been enlightened including US President Bill Clinton who specifically mentioned Carroll Quigley as his mentor. One of the students of Quigley's work is / was Dr. Stanley Monteith who has tirelessly tried to wake up normal citizenry to the evidence of this elite group's ill-doings, sometimes focusing on the various Rockefeller organizations' questionable involvement in foreign policy formulation, and selection / grooming of Democrat or Republican candidates for presidency.
On 17 July 2011 the wording for the opening paragraph
She is known for writing the book "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America" that itemizes changes gradually brought into the American public education system that attempt to both eliminate the influences of a child's parents (religion, morals, national patriotism), and mold the child into a member of the proletariat supposedly in preparation for a socialist-collectivist world of the future. She documents the changes (as originating from the plans formulated primarily by the Andrew Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Education, Rockefeller General Education Board), and the psychological methods used to implement and effect the changes.
was updated to say that the author Iserbyt did not itemize changes made to the education system, and that she alleged everything. My impression was that Iserbyt quoted directly from documents and newspapers and periodicals in an itemized manner. Upon examination of her PDF "dumbing down book," one finds all sorts of offset indented paragraphs that are direct quotations from these other publications. The end-notes for each book section provide some of the sources if not mentioned in surrounding text. That every single such newspaper and periodical is not available online for double checking is not the fault of Iserbyt.
The original article text prior to these washed down changes states that the only supposition made by Iserbyt was in regard to the projected / future socialist-collectivist world planned by these elites.
I suggest that unless specific deception is delineated within the PDF as to misquotations, that the wording be reverted back to saying that she itemized / provided evidence rather than the washed down words of alleged or claimed.
Nearly 30 thousand hits are returned by Google that associate Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations as being NGOs who directly influenced the formulation / direction of the American education system while being completely unaccountable to the public for any of the negative outcomes like poorer standardized test scores or lower rankings on international listings of scholastic quality, etc. Oldspammer (talk) 10:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
What does Google association have to do with actual truth? It only means that nearly 30 thousand times have people tried to find information on whether or not the Rockerfeller and Carnegie Foundations had anything to do with a supposed plot to dumb down the educational system. Entering allegations into the Congressional Record is not proof of anything being true, either. These are both grave mistakes in what the meaning of "verifiable" is. Julierbutler (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
You must have formed misconceptions about what Google search results are. Such hits do not reflect "prior searches of other individuals" as you say & believe, but are separate web documents containing the searched keywords. These hit results may include citations in WP:RS media.
When the mainstream media cite government sources for their "fact checking," these include the very individuals--congressmen / women--government representatives--who are the ones privileged to enter the information I referred to above (and not in the article) onto the congressional record. These men & women typically have a staff who research & verify such information like the mainstream press. These congressional record entries often include citations of the source information. Statements made on the record are serious, while statements made off the record may be more of a speculative nature.
When thousands of web documents (found in Google search results) contain the exact same phrase, then the likelihood is that the authors of those web documents either wrote about what they had witnessed, or had read about, or had heard about from other trusted witnesses that they saw fit to re-publish on-line. The original source documents might possibly include WP:RS.
Actual truth might more be represented in Google search hits of independent authors than in the large media organizations who are owned by the tycoon organizations who have been linked to these conspiracies by government document paper trails, and the reporters of such organizations would be in a conflict of interest if they published embarrassing information about their ownership.
Google search for "Carnegie" U.S.-Russian cooperation "education" "Soviet Union" excluding iserbyt This listing has several from Carnegie themselves saying that they have been involved in coordinating the American education system with that of the former USSR, a communist country. If you had bothered to check these Google search results, you would have easily "discovered" that the allegations made in the Dumbing Down book were, in fact, proven by the book-cited paper trails. Oldspammer (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps I have misconceptions about the precise nature of Google search results, but I am still quite certain that it is you who are confused about the meaning of the term "verifiable." In your retort, I believe that the key is the word "may," which, of course also leaves open the distinct possibility that hit results may not include citations in WP:RS media.
You use the same waffle in your point about the reliablilty of statements made into the congressional record. In an article relating to Michael Scanlon having been indicted for bribing Rep. Bob Ney to place comments into the congressional record, Slate magazine answers its own question,"What's in the Congressional Record?" with the sad truth of the matter: "Anything your congressman wants." And then, of course, there was the recent case when Rep. Jon Kyle had to admit that his claim that 90 percent of Planned Parenthood's activities were abortion related was “Not intended to be a factual statement.” I am sure that if I bothered to check, I could come up with many many more such examples of unreliable and untrue statements being read into the congressional record. Please reread these guidelines:
And finally, it would be nice if you would yourself bother to check the Google search results you cite. What I learned is that the Carnegie Corporation "oversees four main areas that have evolved over time: education, international peace and security, international development and strengthening U.S. democracy." Yes, there was some coordinating of the American education system with that of the former USSR, a communist country. But it is purely conspiratorial to believe that this was a deliberate attempt to "dumb down" the school system. You would need to come up with some solid proof that the USSR's school system was intentionally aimed at this goal, and although there was a great deal of propogandizing and problems that arose in the USSR due to severe suppression and other issues, there is no proof of this outside of accusations made by fearmongers that were far from neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julierbutler (talkcontribs) 04:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

What a mess[edit]

Structure and content of this article hint at Ms Iserbyt being a joke. Or is she a comedian? Or - gasp - is she serious about what she is talking about? -- (talk) 08:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)