Sign up for email updates!



Share this!

Did Google Hijack the Public Education System?

A large rift formed between many parents and their children’s schools when Google Chromebooks became commonplace in the classroom. This may seem like quite a leap, but it has actually created more issues than one might realize at first glance. Chicago’s public schools were among the first to transition from written work to an online interface using Google-sponsored helps such as Google Classroom, Gmail, Google Calendar, and Google Docs. The changeover was initiated in 2012 by nearly four hundred thousand students in Chicago; and now more than thirty million students are using these tools.[i] Google has outperformed many of its scholastic-supply competitors (such as Apple and Microsoft) by not only making its Chromebooks extremely affordable, but by creating software that provides teaching helps that permit students and educators to interface completely via the small laptops. The devices graduated from being “very useful” to “invaluable” during the COVID-19 school closures, allowing academics to carry on despite the pandemic. In the face of such drastic shutdowns, you’d think the technology would be embraced, yet there is resistance. Why?

Natasha Singer of the New York Times says, “Unlike Apple or Microsoft, which make money primarily by selling devices or software services, Google derives most of its revenue from online advertising—much of it targeted through sophisticated use of people’s data.”[ii] This single point leads many to wonder whether Google is really striving to benefit educational institutions by making creative online helping tools and affordable laptops, or whether there’s more to this scheme. Is Google providing such a wide swath of the population—students—with the technology so it can gather data that will help it make money from the same segment of the population later, when they’re grown? Many argue that we can’t be sure whether information collected from children will ultimately serve to help or harm them.[iii] It’s hard at this point to get any answers; Google has declined to outline precisely what data it collects from its students and how such information is used.[iv]

Additionally, can we assume that this information won’t fall into the wrong hands? This concern isn’t unfounded. These authors personally know someone whose daughter was lured into online chatrooms by a predator; the matter required police intervention before it could be resolved. New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas seems to believe that the low retail prices Google offers schools don’t stem from benevolence, but from the promise of some kind of gain.[v] Banderas’ accusation involves Google’s violation of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, which mandates parental consent for information to be collected on children under thirteen years old. According to the attorney general, this technology has “stripped children and parents of autonomy…forcing children to acquiesce to constant monitoring, in perpetuity, in exchange for their education.”[vi] Google has been accused of using Chromebooks to surveil children “across the internet, across devices, in their homes, and well outside the educational sphere.”[vii]

All this concern, yet many parents who wish to find a work-around for their children are stonewalled: “No [G]oogle, no access. No access, no education.”[viii] To many for whom home-schooling or private education aren’t options, compliance with the Google-based schooling is an only choice. This is upsetting when we know that predators target technology used by children and teenagers, so Chromebooks and other educational materials and devices will be at the top of the list of those under fire. Further, many schools that assure parents that they have installed cyber-security apps on devices issued to students fail to mention that these safeguards are usually only effective when logged in to the school’s wi-fi. This means that the student may be most vulnerable when he or she is at home—perhaps alone.[ix] The FBI has issued multiple warnings that using educational-tech hardware and software can make minors susceptible to a variety of risks, sometimes offering “unique exploitation opportunities for criminals,” including but not limited to “social engineering, tracking, identity theft, or other means for targeting children.”[x] Note that tracking is one of the potential hazards listed and acknowledged by the FBI. For many of these devices, locations are easily obtained by hackers, meaning that if a predator does target a child, the hacker likely knows where to find him or her.

Are We Being “Dumbed Down”?

The accusation that Americans are being intentionally dumbed down is nothing new. The phrase is scattered throughout the early years of Hollywood filmmaking, when scripts had to be adjusted to meet the educational level of a targeted audience. In 1991, John Taylor Gatto released the book Dumbing Us Down, wherein he stated that the education system stifles children’s ability to thrive creatively and victimizes them, teaching them to be mere “cog[s] in the machine” of a standardized and broken system.[xi] Since that book and others similar to it have been released, the phrase “dumbing down” has usually been in reference to an agenda that has infiltrated the public education system in an effort to render a more malleable, controllable, impressionable society that’s deprived of personal empowerment, ingenuity, and self-sustainability.

It is no secret that, over preceding decades, academic scores have fallen. A study conducted in 2018 by the US Department of Education found that nearly 20 percent of high school graduates are illiterate, and an equal number reads only at an elementary level.[xii] For some, this is the dismal result of having a school system that has become increasingly responsible for tasks that parents should be carrying out at home, while others point to budget cuts and understaffing as the culprit.

Some, however, believe this to be the outcome of an intentional and subversive eugenics project by which the population is being groomed to become “a population of mindless, robotic citizenry that simply does what it’s told…[and by which] the brainwashing commences early in America’s schools.”[xiii] Those who believe this readily connect the premeditated academic decline of today’s generations with the preselection process of a labor force for the New World Order.[xiv] If there’s truth to these speculations, then the school’s willingness to overextend into parental authority takes on a new dimension, while the alarm associated with the passivity in which many parents allow this intrusion elevates as well.

Either way, one thing that must not escape note is an undeniable correlation between socioeconomic status and academic performance.[xv] This becomes a recurrent familial trap that subsequent generations have difficulty breaking out of. Early on, statistics show that families struggling financially often have children who also face challenges in school, and the connection is a complex one that many have studied at length. Some perceived contributing factors are that these youths have fewer experiences that encourage academic development; less access to helpful resources such as computers, books, and tutors; and even diminished opportunities for continuing their education beyond high school.[xvi] However, the lower socioeconomic status, linked to a lower likelihood that a student will extend his or her education post-graduation, is also a predictor of one’s future socioeconomic status.[xvii] Thus, educational performance and future financial well-being become cyclical in families, a wheel many young people feel they’re unable to jump off of, thus they’re not motivated to even try. As academic ideals drop, entire family trees see a continued decline in the standard of living—unless their youngest generations change the momentum. With schools focusing less on many scholarly topics of yesteryear and spending more time taking over parents’ roles and discussing political propaganda in the classroom, it would seem that many of these youngsters are at a disadvantage from every direction.

National Security Breach

Regardless of the reason behind the decrease in academic success in recent generations, we can hardly debate that the issue is problematic. Upon graduation of high school, students primarily choose one of three pathways: continued education, employment, or military service.[xviii] One problem stemming from the modern educational system, which “places scores from standardized testing at a higher value than the actual curriculum taught in the classroom…means that students are only learning how to take tests, but are lacking in other learning opportunities to develop their potential skills and knowledge.”[xix] The problem for national security comes in when those who graduate intending to enroll in armed services find that they cannot pass entrance exams. Military recruiters face the challenge of filling openings with an upcoming generation from which “30 percent of possible recruits…[failed] the Armed Forces Qualification Tests” as a result of “inadequate education.”[xx] When this is added to the 27 percent who are disqualified due to obesity; the 10 percent who have legal infractions that prevent their involvement; and the others who are denied because of “vision, conditions like asthma and diabetes, and mental illness,” officials are left with slim pickings from which to staff an entire military.[xxi] This, paired with the direct correlation between academic success and economic security, makes our nation seem as though it could be headed for serious trouble. After all, America has a formidable military power, but it will do us no good if there aren’t individuals rising up to fill it.[xxii]

The Normalization of Pedophilia

Sexuality has become one of the most convoluted and debated aspects of our culture, and as the topic becomes more heated, all sides have become increasingly volatile. As diversity allows for increasing polarity where sexuality is concerned, many show concern for fostering both their own rights and those of subsequent generations. As such, children slowly become entangled in the web that is self-expression, both by those who defend and exploit them. In this postmodern society where people view and defend truth from different angles, the innocents are quickly caught up in the crossfire, resulting in what could be damaging, long-term consequences.

In a previous article, we discussed that one method of manipulation is the skewing of the concept of love. Few will disagree that, over time, the definition of “love” has radically changed. With physicality having replaced the importance of a heartfelt connection with others, it easy to see that sex has become confused with affection. In turn, as increased availability of physical titillation encumbers our culture, many are left progressively unsatisfied, leading to elevated levels of sexual deviance, increased use of pornography, and higher demands for sex workers (human trafficking). With the intensifying appetite for nefarious sexual exploits comes tactics that are increasingly convoluted and defended by large-scale society. These defenses are often presented as being “current” or “in the interest of everyone’s civil rights.” And, it is the exploitation of the innocent that drives such movements forward. The expanding room for diversity paves the way for certain factions to move to center stage, demanding to be recognized as having an orientation with equal rights. Emerging now to that point on center stage is the pedophile’s opportunity to frame his or her illness as an “orientation.”

According to the American Psychiatric Association, pedophilia has been considered a psychiatric disorder since 1968.[xxiii] Thus, the “normalization” of it seems contradictory, yet it is beginning to occur. However, the technicality making this sickness defensible in today’s society is its label. That a person would have the compulsion to become sexually involved with a child but would choose not to act on it, for many who defend this position, creates a point of safety, and even of sympathy, for the pedophile. Many are working to rename the condition in a more politically correct, nonthreatening way. Several terms have recently surfaced, one of which is MAP (“minor-attracted person”),[xxiv] and under the new headings, the attraction to children is being increasingly asserted as an “orientation.” This is a vital distinction, because if pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder, the pedophile becomes obligated to obtain treatment or attempt to overcome the desire. However, as an orientation, pedophilia stands to become fostered via the same sympathy and equality promoted by the LGBTQ community. The difference is crucial: Until now, the LGBTQ community has fought for impartiality as it pertains to consenting adults. If pedophilia is embraced as an orientation (and it’s rapidly moving in this direction) our children will be targeted by pressure to engage in relationships that their minds and emotions aren’t ready to encounter. The damage dealt to these innocents will be irreversible and lifelong.

De-villainizing the MAP’s image is already being sown into the public’s worldview. Statements are being made citing the loneliness and disparagement of those who are attracted to people who are off-limits. This is a dangerous propaganda: It enables the disease aspect to become accepted, while freeing those who suffer it from the responsibility of finding another way to deal with these urges—likely by seeking professional help. If pedophilia (or the same condition presented under a different label) were to become an orientation, then it could be used as a premise to claim that the pedophiles are free to pursue their happiness as long as there are no victims. (The problem is that, in pedophilia, there are always victims, as statistics indicate. We’ll come back to this in a bit.) On a more immediate note, once children are conditioned and coerced into showing curiosity about sex, then to involve them in the pursuits of a pedophile could become viewed as reciprocation of predatory advances, to which some will likely try to put forward a “victimless” argument for the activity. If the movement catches on, pedophilia could become legalized, sympathized with, and even justified as a new orientation. Allow us to elaborate.

In order to present this orientation as an interaction that exists without victims, then the issue must become one of making a case that a child would actually want to have sex. If it’s consensual, there’s no problem, right? However, this thinking produces some obstacles, since a child’s curiosity is, left to develop on its own, a slow process that’s incremental to what is age-appropriate. As such, children won’t reciprocate an adult’s desire to have sex with them unless conditioning is involved. Developmental stages occur over a period of years and render people—in an ideal society that isn’t sexually charged—ready to follow such urges in their early adulthood. This leaves those who move toward pedophilia with one major problem: Their intended victims aren’t interested. In order to foster a sexual connection with the young and still-developing population, the interest has to be carefully seeded and cultivated. And, since the way to legalize pedophilia will be done from the position of defending the rights of the child, the conditioning of such thought has to hide in plain sight so that it will appear that this interest and desire is instigated by the children themselves.

Like taking candy from a baby…

These authors wish we had time to elaborate on the type of public gaslighting taking place here on a large-scale, cultural level. However, for the sake of time, let’s use an example of the type of exchange we’re explaining. Since, when discussing our children, we’re speaking of the most trusting and vulnerable members of our society, the example below is reasonable using the example of an elderly woman:

Let’s say an elderly woman lives down the street from me. She has a hundred dollars in her bank account, and I am aware that she is in the early phases of dementia, so she is cognitively interactive but malleable (just like a child). Now, let’s say that I want her to give me that hundred dollars. However, she doesn’t want to give it to me, because she can’t afford it and has no interest in sharing her money with me. I continue to press her, placing messages in her mailbox and at her door about how fun it is to give away money. I even walk up and down the street singing songs about it (this might seem ridiculous, but it’s a fair comparison to how a child’s life is inundated with sexual content via media, ads, music, movies, and so on). I even promise to use the money to take her on trips, shopping sprees, and fine dinners at beautiful restaurants (thus attaching the notion of “relationship” to my agenda). She is allured by the camaraderie that she believes I am promising, and her desire for friendship and people-pleasing is piqued (just as that of a child would be under the right conditioning).

During this process, onlookers begin to stand up for her rights, telling me that she doesn’t have to give me the hundred dollars. They can see that I will never make good on the promises that I’ve made, because it’s impractical to imagine that a hundred dollars will do all the things I say it will. (This is just as “romantic” love with a child can never do what the perpetrator promises. Such love requires an intellectual connection that one can never have with a brain still traveling through the developmental stages of childhood/teenage years. This very point reinforces why children aren’t ready for sexual connection.)

Then, I subtly change my approach. I continue to tell the woman how much it will enrich her life to give me the money, but this time I explain to her that it’s in her own best interest that I’m asking for it. I tell her it’s because I care about her and want her to enjoy all the rewards that she’ll get by sharing her money with me. When onlookers oppose my agenda, I state that they’re attempting to control her (the same way society tells children whose innocence is being protected by parents or guardians that the custodians are being repressive or overprotective). I even go so far as to claim that those who would barricade my plans for the woman are only trying to control her, to deprive her of all the joy it will bring her to give me her money. I become more assertive, telling her that it’s her right to give me the hundred dollars if she wants. If she feels so inclined, nobody should try to stop her. I begin to implant indignation against her protectors in her thoughts. I say, “How dare these others try to stop her from pursuing happiness?” I remind her that she should be allowed to make her own decisions regarding her money, and state flat-out that anyone who tries to change her mind needs to back off and respect her decision. (Does any of this sound like the narrative children are being fed regarding their sexuality right now?)

After all, why are these third parties barging in on our conversation? This has nothing to do with them! How dare they not let her decide what she wants to do with her money?! Why, these others are infringing on her civil rights! As I begin to stir up enmity against those who stand up for her, I continue the slow, extensive conditioning that occurs via the conversation being continually repeated. Eventually, the woman becomes so accustomed to hearing this dialogue about the hundred dollars that the lines of the conversation begin to blur in her easily influenced, elderly mind. She doesn’t remember her original reasons for wanting to keep her money, and I’ve filled her mental and physical space with so many messages of all the good things that will happen to her if she gives me her money that she becomes curious about what it would be like to give her money to someone else. (Again, if you don’t think this type of conditioning is happening with our children, then look around at the music, toys, television sitcoms, commercials, and even cartoons that are being thrust into our children’s psyches at perpetually younger ages.)

I begin to rally for her “right” to give me the money, and eventually that gains momentum. When she finally surrenders her hundred dollars to me, those who acted on her behalf in the first place because they saw her as mentally vulnerable and me as predatory have been painted as the enemies. The one who wanted to exploit her finances (me) has done so and drained her bank account, with the woman’s consent. Those who make it legally easier for con artists like myself celebrate the victory, and the woman returns home penniless. My promises of vacations and fancy dinners are, of course, never kept, because they were never possible in the first place with a budget of a hundred dollars (just as authentic, mature love cannot happen between a child and an adult). The camaraderie the woman hoped for never occurs, because I wasn’t after her companionship in the first place (just as an intellectual connection is not what a pedophile is looking for with a child). The woman lives out her years penniless, deprived of medications she can no longer afford (just as exploited children grow up unable to reclaim and restore the damaged stages of their development), and I have now paved the way for others with malevolent intentions to more easily prey on other vulnerable and weak members of society.

UP NEXT: Long-term Consequences of Early Sexual Encounters

If you would like more information on the topics covered in this article series, see the book Dark Covenant by Donna Howell and Allie Anderson, available below:

[i] Singer, Natasha. “How Google Took over the Classroom.” New York Times. May 13, 2017. Accessed November 6, 2020.

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Singer, Natasha. “How Google Took over the Classroom.” New York Times. May 13, 2017. Accessed November 6, 2020.

[v] Morrison, Sara. “Google’s Education Tech Has a Privacy Problem.” VOX. February 21, 2020. Accessed November 6, 2020.

[vi] Ibid.

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] Malkin, Michelle. “How to Protect Your Kids from Google Predators.” Dallas News. March 14, 2019.

[ix] Eisert, Caryn. “Online Predators Target Children’s Devices.” WANDTV. April 6, 2020. Accessed November 6, 2020.

[x] “Education Technologies: Data Collection and Unsecured Systems Could Pose Risks to Students.” Public Service Announcement: FBI. September 13, 2018. Accessed November 6, 2020.

[xi] Gatto, John. Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling. (Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society Publishers; 2017), 16.

[xii] Bonnay, Juliet. “The Dumbing Down of America—By Design.” Juliet Bonnay: Different Perspectives. February 19, 2019. Accessed November 6, 2020.

[xiii] Ibid.

[xiv] Ibid.

[xv] “Education and Socioeconomic Status.” American Psychological Association. 2020 Accessed November 6, 2020.

[xvi] Ibid.

[xvii] Mompremier, LaNina. “SPECIAL TOPIC: Socioeconomic Status and Higher Education Adjustment.” American Psychological Association. April 2009. Accessed November 6, 2020.

[xviii] Lynch, Matthew. “How Dumbed Down Education Is Creating A National Security Crisis.” The Advocate. August 20, 2019. Accessed November 6, 2020.

[xix] Ibid.

[xx] Ibid.

[xxi] Ibid.

[xxii] Ibid.

[xxiii] “What Is Pedophilia?” WebMD. 2020. Accessed November 6, 2020.

[xxiv] Denkinson, Katherine. “Outrage as Paedophiles Rebrand Themselves as ‘Minor-Attracted Persons’ in Chilling Online Propaganda Drive.” Daily Mail. June 27, 2020. Accessed November 6, 2020.

Category: Featured, Featured Articles