Tags

, , ,

The most important part of the UN Education Agenda is the inclusion of indoctrination programs in U.S. government schools. Berit Kjos, author of ‘Brave New Schools,’ warns that Agenda 21 will indoctrinate the very young to accept the outcome of its programs.


“Enlightened social engineering is required to face situations that demand global action now… Parents and the general public must be reached also, otherwise, children and youth enrolled in globally oriented programs may find themselves in conflict with values assumed in the home.” –  Professor John Goodlad,  Foreword in Schooling for A Global Age

Professor Philip Vander Velde, who taught “Foundations of Education” at Western Washington University, authored the book, Global Mandate: Pedagogy for Peace. Reflecting the views of countless other change agents, he wrote,

“…unless a new faith… overcomes the old ideologies and creates planetary synthesis, world government is doomed….  Nation-states have outlived their usefulness, and a new world order is necessary.... The task of reordering our traditional values and institutions should be one of the major educational objectives of our schools.

UN Goals & Objectives

‘Youth represent a top priority for the United Nations and a new generation of support. An estimated half a million students, from primary school to university, have already participated worldwide in conducting Model UN simulations.

States, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the private sector have partnered to raise awareness of the crucial role played by education in the development and stability acknowledging that the primary responsibility to provide education lies with the government.

The development of teacher training modules and school curricula should follow a multi-stakeholder approach, resulting in increased collaboration between governments, civil society and the private sector. This will result in curricula based on the principles of social inclusion

Education and learning are crucial for the ability of present and future leaders and citizens to create solutions and find new paths to a better future. It is essential to build a world where everyone inculcated the values, behaviors and lifestyles required for a Sustainability and Social Transformations.

Sustainable Development in School Curriculum” is one of the 32 specific objectives of Agenda 21. This objective has been achieved in 63% of the participating nations, and in process in another 17%.

Education is a key ingredient in the transformation to a sustainable society. The UN Commission on Sustainable Development reports that in America, “the national strategy on education is prepared by the Department of Education and includes such programs as Goals 2000 and School to Work Act

The National Environmental Education Advisory Council to the Department of Education consists of eleven individuals appointed by the EPA Administrator and includes representatives of women’s groups, Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), and local authorities (visioning councils). The U.S. State Department reported to the UN that: “At the primary school level, school curricula have already been reviewed and revised, and at the secondary school level, the revision of school curricula is being undertaken currently to address environment and development as a cross cutting issue.” Agenda 21 embraces virtually every aspect of human life; it is being implemented aggressively in the United States. Congress has never examined the totality of the Agenda. Instead, Congress is fed only bits and pieces in the context of “protecting the environment.” The ultimate objective of Agenda 21 is to establish “international norms” of personal behavior.

 

U.N.‘s Agenda 21 Education Mandate

Obama’s call for the U.S. to pay for education of the world.  It’s ”A Global Fund for Education: Achieving Education for All

Its summary states: “In order to realize the world’s commitment to ensuring education for all by 2015, important innovations and reforms will be needed in the governance and financing of global education. In 2008, Presidential Candidate Barack Obama committed to making sure that every child has the chance to learn by creating a Global Fund for Education. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has recently called for a new architecture of global cooperation…  A new Global Fund for Education… must be capable of mobilizing the approximately $7 billion annually still needed to achieve education for all, while holding all stakeholders accountable for achieving results with these resources. None of these objectives will be achieved without a major rethinking of the global education architecture and an evolution of current mechanisms for financing education… Achieving these two Millennium Development Goals, and the broader Education for All Goals… will require more capable international institutions.”

I have to ask three questions:

  • Since when do nations collectively finance global education?
  • Since when has the whole world agreed on what should be taught to the whole world?
  • Since when is the United States of America reduced to “accountable stakeholder” status over its own educational and financial decision-making?

So Obama created a global education fund, using U.S. taxpayer money.  I don’t remember voting on this.

And Hilary Clinton is misusing the word “inclusiveness” to now mean “no more independent sovereignty for anyone.”  Meanwhile, there’s a United Nations/UNESCO program called “Education For All” that involves the same ideas and the very same key people as “Common Core”.  And there’s also an “Education, Public Awareness and Training” chapter in the U.N.’s Agenda 21 goals.

Both the U.N.’s educational goals (via UNESCO and “Education for All” ) and “Common Core” do sound very appealing on the surface.  Each seeks to educate by teaching the exact same standards to all children (and adults) on a national or a global scale.  But both supercede local control over what is taught to students, and both dismiss the validity and importance of the U.S. Constitution implicitly.

Both UNESCO’s educational goals and Common Core are, coincidentally, heavily funded by activist and philanthropist Bill Gates, one of the wealthiest billionaires on earth.  http://www.eagleforum.org/links/UNESCO-MS.pdf  ( Link to Gates’ Microsoft/Unesco partnership)

Gates gave the Common Core developer/copyright holders, NGA/CCSSO, about $25 million dollars to promote his special interest, Common Core.  (See CCSSO: 2009–$9,961,842, 2009– $3,185,750, 2010–$743,331, 2011–$9,388,911 ; NGA Center: 2008–$2,259,780 at http://www.keepeducationlocal.com .

Gates partnered with UNESCO/U.N. to fund ”Education For All” as well.  See  http://bettereducationforall.org/

The “Education For All” developer is UNESCO, a branch of the United Nations.  Education For All’s key document is called “The Dakar Framework for Action: Education For All: Meeting Our Collective Commitments.”  Read the full text here:  http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001211/121147e.pdf

At this link, you can learn about how Education For All works:

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-international-agenda/education-for-all/international-cooperation/high-level-group/

In a nutshell: “Prior to the reform of the global EFA coordination architecture in 2011-2012, the Education for All High-Level Group brought together high-level representatives from national governments, development agencies, UN agencies, civil society and the private sector. Its role was to generate political momentum and mobilize financial, technical and political support towards the achievement of the EFA goals and the education-related Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). From 2001-2011 the High-Level Group met annually.”

The six goals of “Education For All” are claimed to be internationally agreed-upon. But since much of what happens with the United Nations threatens the sovereignty of the United States and all sovereign nations, I do not recognize that these goals, or anything else for that matter, are “internationally agreed-upon.”  Do you?

For everyone on earth to totally agree, we’d have to submit to a one-world government with a one-world constitution that would override any individual country’s constitution.  There are some great thoughts on this subject here:   http://www.keepeducationlocal.com/

But in the U.N.’s own words:

“Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.  Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Statement of principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests were adopted by more than 178 Governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992.  The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was created in December 1992 to ensure effective follow-up…” See:  http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/

So Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken by everyone.  We all apparently have been signed up to agree, whether we agree or not.  I’m already getting the communist creeps.

But most of us haven’t even heard of Agenda 21 nor do we know anything about “sustainable development”.

On the linked Education and Awareness page of that same U.N. website, we learn:

Education, Public  Awareness and Training is the focus of Chapter 36 of Agenda 21. This is a cross-sectoral theme both relevant to the implementation of the whole of Agenda 21 and indispensable for achieving sustainable development.”   http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/susdevtopics/sdt_educawar.shtml

Did you get that?  Education is indispensable for the U.N. to get its agenda pushed onto every citizen worldwide.  They just admitted it out loud.  They want a strong hand in determining what is taught worldwide.

So then we click on Chapter 36.  The “indispensable” implementation tool they are describing are your children’s American public schools.  Yes, really:

36.2 says they plan to “reorient” worldwide education toward sustainable development.  (No discussion, no vote, no input needed on this reorientation plan, apparently.)

36.3 says:  “While basic education provides the underpinning for any environmental and development education, the latter needs to be incorporated as an essential part of learning. Both formal and non-formal education are indispensable to changing people’s attitudes so that they have the capacity to assess and address their sustainable development concerns. It is also critical for achieving environmental and ethical awareness, values and attitudes, skills and behaviour consistent with sustainable development and for effective public participation in decision-making. To be effective, environment and development education should deal with the dynamics of both the physical/biological and socio-economic environment and human (which may include spiritual) development, should be integrated in all disciplines, and should employ formal and non-formal methods

The take-away?

  • Environmental education will be incorporated in formal education globally.
  • Any value or attitude held by anyone globally that stands independent to that of the United Nations’ definition of “sustainable education” must change.  Current attitudes are unacceptable.
  • Environmental education will be belief-and-spirituality based.
  • Environmental education will be integrated into all disciplines, not just science.

The stated objectives (36.4) include endorsing “Education for All,” achieving “environmental and development awareness in all sectors of society on a world-wide scale as soon as possible”; and to achieve the accessibility of environmental and development education, linked to social education, from primary school age through adulthood to all groups of people; and to promote integration of environment concepts, including demography, in all educational programmes, and “giving special emphasis to the further training of decision makers at all levels.”

Does that not sound like quite an agenda?

But it gets worse.

Under “Activities,” we find:

“Governments should strive to update or prepare strategies aimed at integrating environment and development as a cross-cutting issue into education at all levels within the next three years. This should be done in cooperation with all sectors of society…. A thorough review of curricula should be undertaken to ensure a multidisciplinary approach, with environment and development issues and their socio-cultural and demographic aspects and linkages.”

So, if a country like the USA, for example, has a Constitution and G.E.P.A. laws that states that its federal government has absolutely no legal right to supervise or direct state school systems, then what?  How can it be done?

I’ll tell you how!  Just get a U.S. President to circumvent Congress and the states’ right to educate. Just use nongovernmental groups like the NGA/CCSSO to write and copyright new national educational standards.  Just pay groups to do what you are not legally authorized to do. Just create “Race to the Top” grants.  Just promote a socialist education system but call it a state-led Common Core.  Then get zillionaire philanthropist Bill Gates to promote and pay for most of it.

And that is what has happened.

Enough info for today?  Oh, no.  Not even close.

They go on to say how countries should pay for all the reorientation and values/attitudes changing for all people.  And there’s even a media-to-museum rebranding blitz outline:

In 36.10:

“Countries… should promote a cooperative relationship with the media, popular theatre groups, and entertainment and advertising industries by initiating discussions to mobilize their experience in shaping public behaviour and consumption patterns and making wide use of their methods. Such cooperation would also increase the active public participation in the debate on the environment. UNICEF should make child-oriented material available to media as an educational tool, ensuring close cooperation between the out-of-school public information sector and the school curriculum, for the primary level. UNESCO, UNEP and universities should enrich pre-service curricula for journalists on environment and development topics;

    

(f) Countries, in cooperation with the scientific community, should establish ways of employing modern communication technologies for effective public outreach. National and local educational authorities and relevant United Nations agencies should expand, as appropriate, the use of audio-visual methods, especially in rural areas in mobile units, by producing television and radio programmes for developing countries, involving local participation, employing interactive multimedia methods and integrating advanced methods with folk media;

(g) Countries should promote… environmentally sound leisure and tourism activities… making suitable use of museums, heritage sites, zoos, botanical gardens, national parks…”

So, it should be pretty clear that there is a huge re-education program happening to all countries, the aim of which is to change people’s attitudes toward believing in “sustainable development” and environmental education.  If it’s picking up litter, some other innocuous program, fine; spend trillions without taking a vote to make sure we all think alike.  Stupid but harmless.  On the other hand,  what if, what IF, it’s something we DON’T all agree upon? There are hundreds of countries.  Even if it were just up to China* vs. the U.S. to define “sustainable behavior” how would we ever agree?  Paper or plastic?  Paper wastes trees; plastic creates landfills.  These “green-defining” issues are endless.

But the problem, in a nutshell, is simply:  Whose version of “sustainable” do you want to re-educate everyone to believe –assuming that you can accept massive-scale propagandizing for the promotion of one single belief system, under which people didn’t get a representative vote)

  
*Sustainable thinking includes limiting by abortion the number of babies allowed to be born, in order to have control over population growth. The Chinese “One Child Policy” was introduced by the Chinese Government in 1979 with the intention of keeping the population within sustainable limits even in the face of natural disasters and poor harvests, and improving the quality of life for the Chinese population as a whole. Under the policy, parents who have more than one child may have their wages reduced and be denied some social services.” (BBC)

Friday, March 29, 2013

Update on the Communitarian’s Progress in the USA

How Far We’ve Come!
The communitarian ideology has penetrated deep into the American heartland. From the colleges to the K-12 programs, it is 100% Communitarianism being taught to the future leaders of the USA. The Communitarian Residence Life Movement in Delaware is just the tip of the iceberg. Our people are jumping on the Communitarian “feel good” bandwagon like there’s no tomorrow. In Madison, Wisconsin, The Hamilton Middle School Handbook open with:

“WELCOME!
“With education comes understanding, and with understanding comes a better sense of ourselves. I am a communitarian. I believe in giving back to thecommunity. A community is not a place- it is a system of values. A strong system of values prepares our young people to live and think clearly in the world.”  – Velma Bell Hamilton”

Barb Drews and Phil Lyons were named the 2009 recipients of the
Don Hunt Communitarian Award for all their volunteer efforts.
The communitarians have been run out of places all over the world, but their power in the USA grows stronger every day. All our businesses and our schools promote communitarian ideology like volunteerism, sacrifice, social equity, responsibility, service, Quality of Life, Sustainable Development, Livability, Stewardship, Environmental Ethics and Cultural Diversity. The hottest new field, where all the big grant money flows, is climate change “research: and Sustainable Development. If you’re not studying how to micro-manage people and willing to sell out their freedom to secure your own financial success, you’re just not a very nice person.
 2012 Communitarian of the Year – Rex Maynard
Communitarian Awards sound goods to Americans, who apparently cannot grasp that all those empty, meaningless communitarian phrases were created to achieve a level of control over people never before thought possible. The war against our national system is advancing to the stage where the facades can easily be dropped anytime, and we will accept whatever they ask us to do next.

“Government subsidies of gasoline, electricity and other energy sources amount to about $1.9 trillion a year and should be ended or offset with taxes used to battle climate change and pay for social programs, the International Monetary Fund said Wednesday in a major foray into the global warming debate.”  By Howard Schneider, March 2

Unlike the people of Colon, who rose up in their streets, beat the comunitarians and took back control of their local economy, the Americans are still being “educated” to think and act like good little communitarian slaves. We can’t even tell the difference anymore between an intentional communitarian fellowship and a government run communitarian program. Is there any?

Intentional Communities Newsletter: February 20, 2012

Kozeny Communitarian Award — Your Nominations

We can’t tell the difference between an authentic local effort to be a good neighbor, and an international effort to control the way we volunteer. Canada has not escaped the plan either.

Patrice Bernier named 2012 Communitarian Award winner

The Communitarians are hearing from their victims across the EU, but in North America, our people are completely duped into thinking slavery is freedom, and our protests are still of the most civilized sort. We vote, write letters, and give public testimony at meetings. When the Communitarians show up to steal our land and homes.

“Last October, there were protests when President Ricardo Martinelli, a supermarket tycoon who has made business development a centerpiece of his term, pushed through a law allowing the sale of state land next to the free zone. Residents interpreted the move as a prelude to expanding the zone and displacing them, and several people died in the unrest.” New Your Times, March 24, 2013

Global Warming environmental policy and law is openly defined as communitarian. This is but one of the many ways Communitarian governance is introduced into formerly sovereign nations.

  “The issues of environmental protection, rational nature usage and conduction of communitarian policy in the ecological field are among the most substantial elements of the expanded European Union activity.” Sakartvelos Ekonomika, Scientific-Analytic Magazine, September 2011

A global government requires a global tax. When the IMF and the World Bank announced last week that we should either divert funds used to fuel our economy into fighting Climate Change or else collect a $1.40 gallon tax on our oil for them, you would think the public outcry would be so loud and so furious they could hear us all the way to Colon. Instead there was barely a whimper. No big surpise really, considering how many churches have converted to Communitarianism over the past decade. Even Wikipedia added a “List of New Religious Movements” page:

“An NRM may be one of a wide range of movements ranging from those with loose affiliations based on novel approaches to spirituality or religion to communitarian enterprises that demand a considerable amount of group conformity and a social identity that separates their adherents from mainstream society.”

Communitarians openly state we have to meet their demands that we conform to the group mentality. We must all become “better” global citizens and give up our freedom to live an a Safe and Healthy community.  So a few million people may have to die before we’re safe, but as Veronica Jackson, Director of the Department of Neighborhoods in Seattle told us in 1999, “Sometimes sacrifices have to be made for the common good.” What kind of sacrifices have been made in other places forced to adopt Communitarian values and ethics?

Added March 30:

Another aspect has come into the public arena lately. It’s called Common Core, and some people have recognized it as a communitarian program. (Of course the Right always calls it communism!)

“Two Moms Against Common Core. March 2, 2013Agenda 21, Education. Great video about Common Core and how the states are being forced to change their curriculum, state laws, and have to agree to loss of privacy for their students. Parents must understand what Common Core is all about, and fight to keep it out of their public schools or take their children out of the public schools. Common Core teaches the ideology of communitarianism.  This is communism with a new name.” For an excellent overview of Communitarianism in Education, click here.

 http://right-reason.com/2013/03/02/two-moms-against-common-core/

http://www.linkedin.com/groups/More-from-Mary-Grabar-on-4400754.S.214803595
99 steps of progress - Imagination by maentis

Agenda 21 and Communitarianism.

Stay up to date on the Communatarians Agenda

Living Outside The Dialectic

Webinar on Communitarianism April 13, 2013

‘Our first webinar on Communitarianism is on April 13, 2013, at 2:30 to 4:30 PM Alaska Time. Enrollment for each class is limited to 10. The cost is 40.00 US, payment accepted via paypal only. Email registration requests to nikiraapana@gmail.com. Make your reservation today! Scholarships available.’
http://nikiraapana.enterthemeeting.com/m/A14ZH1UN

Undeniable Proof the US Government adopted Agenda 21

The laws that enforce Agenda 21 have to be passed at the local levels, and that is where Agenda 21 has been passed and adopted in the USA for the past 20 years. Never to rarely introduced to Americans as Communitarian Law, these changes to the constitutional system have gone un-noticed and un-challeneged for over 2 decades.
The U.S Pentagon cites in Daily Briefings:The Communitarian Approach to International Relations and the Future World Order, 2005, by Richard Falk, Princeton University, University of California-Santa Barbara

This article comments on Amitai Etzioni’s advocacy of “soft communitarianism” as the preferred approach to the establishment of a global governance architecture responsive to the current range of world order challenges facing the world and the United States. The article criticizes the effort to combine an insider discussion of American foreign policy with the presentation of a framework for ethical problem solving that has the potential for acceptance throughout the world. A related criticism is the degree to which the foreign policy agenda is discussed in the terms within which it has arisen in Washington, giving the communitarian approach a discrediting nationalistic tilt.

Here’s Cameron’s “new” Big Society idea as it was presented in 1998 by the experts in Israel:

The core idea presented in this paper is a model of the economic system that seeks a larger role for the domestic economy vis-a-vis the money economy. It is argued that labor applied in the domestic economy can add value in ways that can have a significant impact on the standards and quality of life for the poor. Cooperative self-help principles applied to families and friendship groups are the mechanism for mobilizing the domestic economy’s forces of production with the mainstream cooperatives directing their existing member relations and member education facilities to act as promoters and facilitators of the idea. The strategy is presented as an alternative to the employment creation-oriented anti-poverty policies favored in the West. The author claims that the re-establishing of well-being and autonomy within the domestic economy will reduce pressure for jobs in the labor market particularly for marginal employment. This reduction in pressure for jobs will feed through to improve the relative balance of market power towards labor and at the same time take pressure off the national exchequers struggling with subsidizing the low wage-benefit supported labor market of the 1990s. The whole paper is presented as a speculation that is worth further consideration and research in the absence of viable alternatives to the present failed anti-poverty programs.

Responding to Poverty: Communitarian Solutions through Cooperative Facilitation of Primary Associations,”Davis, Peter, 1998, Journal of Rural Cooperation, Hebrew University, Center for Agricultural Economic Research, vol. 26. http://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/jlorco/62058.html

Sorry LaRouche. Cameron isn’t exporting communitarianism to the U.S. It’s been here for over a decade.

“Her Majesty’s government has just launched its plan for implementing ‘Fascism with a Democratic Face’ throughout Great Britain. But beware: it is also coming to the United States. British Prime Minister David Cameron announced this as his “Big Society” policy at a conference in Liverpool, where he declared, “The Big Society is about liberation — the biggest, most dramatic redistribution of power from elites in Whitehall to the man in the street.” Behind this rhetoric Cameron outlined a plan for local control, on the communitarian fascist model, of local services which have hitherto been controlled by local, city and national governments, including schools, fire departments, transportation, museums, etc.” Cameron bringing communitarian fascism to Obama

ARTICLES

There’s an interesting article about Obama’s call for the U.S. to pay for education of the world.  It’s ”A Global Fund for Education: Achieving Education for All” that you can read in full here:  http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2009/08/education-gartner

Agenda 21 and Communitarianism | lisaleaks

Sustainable Development Handbook

Common Core Curriculum and Agenda 21 | lisaleaks

The Radical Education Elite and Agenda 21

DEMOCRATS AGAINST U. N. AGENDA 21

Community by Coercion Communitarianism New American May 31, 2004

COOLECTIVIST MINDSET: RECIPE FOR REVOLUTION

Gertee Houses Made From Scraps Tiny House Blog 2-18-10
Our Common Community -UK Column 5-31-10
News With Views:
Enlightened Rule by Scientists and Experts, Part 2, 5-29-10
Enlightened Rule by Scientists and Experts, Part 1, 5-29-10
Join the “Quiet Revolution” 3-29-09
Individual liberty loses without a fight 8-17-08
Dialectical Freedom 10-26-07
The Final Synthesis in the Hegelian Dialectic 6-17-07
U.S. Law in the Balance 4-28-07
The Angels of Death 3-25-07
Neo American values 2-11-07
A Sucker Born Every Minute 2-2-07
The Cure for Communitarianism 11-24-06
The Threat of Dialectical Terrorism 10-15-06
Elitism is Dialectical Terrorism 9-26-06
The Role of Religion in the Communitarian Synthesis 9-15-06
Deadliest Agreements 5-7-06
Divided Sovereignty 4-12-06
Communitarianism: A Three Level Con Job 3-28-06
Specious Visions 3-19-06
Neighborhood Fascism 2-17-06
CAFTA, the EU & Communitarian Law, Part 2 – 1-25-06
CAFTA, the EU & Communitarian Law, Part 1 – 1-25-06

 

**