Hey, you're listening to Unlimited Hangout on your host, Whitney Webb.

Though measures implemented in schools in the workplace early last year were then justified

as emergency and temporary measures, this quickly gave way to assertions that such measures

were here to stay as part of the new normal that would emerge in the post-COVID era.

Even though many of the initial justifications for these measures have since been challenged

by actual data, or no longer relevant, we continue to be told that many of these changes

from the past year and a half or so are now permanent and we must accept them without debate

or further scrutiny. The new normal is being applied to nearly every sector of the economy

in daily life, but the way it's being applied in the field of education is particularly worthy

of our attention. As these policies will undoubtedly shape future generations who's physical

and mental health and well-being have already taken a hit during the course of the COVID crisis,

we are being told that remote learning and high-tech learning tools that replace in-person

instruction are here to stay while discussion of the effects of quarantines, distancing and isolation

on the development and well-being of children and teens are largely absent from the discussion.

Those demanding these policies not only remain but be expanded are, in many cases,

the very bodies that are supposed to represent the best interests of students and education

professionals. While they have cloaked their claims as being motivated by public health concerns,

the evidence points to that not being the case and instead suggests that ulterior motives

provoked by the near-complete corporate takeover of the American education system are to blame.

Joining me today to discuss these under-reported issues is John Cleeseck.

John is a college professor whose scholarship focuses on the history of the eugenics movement,

particularly the Huxley family, as well as eldest Huxley's dystopian novel Brave New World.

...