Category Archives: Social Issues

The Only Possible Defense of Private Property by Bojidar Marinov

Posted on by
3

In my previous article I showed that Classical Liberalism and Objectivism can’t defend private property on ethical grounds. They defend it on historical, pragmatic, linguistic grounds, etc., but they don’t give a defense of private property as ethical in itself. In all their views private property appeared long after man appeared, and is a later development. Therefore, it is not “natural” to man, that is, it is not part of his “natural state.” It is not sacred, Ludwig von Mises said, and thus he declared the impossibility of defending it on ethical grounds.

Unfortunately, there were others who started from the same philosophical presuppositions: Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.[1] And unlike Dietze, Mises, or Rand, Marx and Engels were logical and consistent with their presuppositions: If private property was external to human nature, then it was alien to human nature. If mankind is to return to its “natural state,” it must abolish the source of all alienation and suffering: private property. Marx and Engels took the philosophical separation of property from human nature that the defenders of natural law upheld and developed practical ideology consistent with it. That ideology looked monstrous, unnatural, ugly, and it was monstrous, unnatural, and ugly. But it was logically and intellectually consistent, and it won the day, and it is still winning the day. What Dietze, Mises, and Rand lamented—the decline of property rights—was nothing but the predictable result of the superior logical consistency of Marxism.

There is only one ideology that defends private property on ethical grounds: Christianity, with its Biblical worldview, its doctrine of the creation of man in the image of God, and its doctrine of the moral superiority of the Law of God to any man-made laws.

Dietze got it right at the start: Property is an ethical institution, and first and foremost an ethical institution. It can’t be anything else, it can’t be defended on any other ground, any other ground is sand, and it will eventually collapse under the assault of the opponents of private property.

Then Dietze went in a completely wrong direction, philosophically. So did Mises. So did Rand. In order to defend property, we must declare its sacredness. We must declare its intrinsic goodness. And we must declare its naturalness. If it is not sacred, if it is not intrinsically good, and if it is not part of human nature—as opposed to external to human nature—property is only an expedient tool to be disposed of at will. If it is so, we have no recourse against those that want to confiscate our property in the name of expediency or of “return to nature.”

And the only way to declare its sacredness, goodness, and naturalness is to accept the Bible’s claim that man was created an owner, and that he owned private property from the very beginning of his created existence. Humans did not develop the concept of property, nor did it evolve in result of man’s praxis or interaction. Property was inextricably part of man’s existence in the Garden, and there is no way to define man as a being without property.

That view of property as being inextricably part of the very nature of man is reflected in the Ten Commandments. The same law code that protects man’s life protects his property too—in the Eighth and the Tenth Commandments. We can’t define man without his life; in the same way, we cannot define man without his property. His life is an “ethical institution,” it is sacred, in the same way, his property is an “ethical institution,” it is sacred.

This definition of man as a being that naturally has life and property is not a mere philosophical assumption; it flows from the very nature of objective reality because God Himself is a Proprietor. In the Third Commandment—which corresponds to the Eighth in the first five Commandments—God declares limits to man’s use of His name. God is not a remote being. He owns everything, including the breath from our mouth, and we are not allowed to use that breath in a way that violates God’s name. Using God’s name in an inappropriate way was as heavy a crime as worshipping other gods, and violating His property was a crime against the Person of God. In the same way, Biblically, violating a man’s property was a crime against the person of man.

It is no wonder, then, that the idea of sacred property rights originated with Christianity, and it developed as Christianity developed doctrinally and worked out its doctrines in practice. Even as early as the 4th century Bishop Ambrose declared to Emperor Theodosius the theological connection between God’s property and a private man’s property. When he was commanded by the Emperor, “Surrender the Basilica,” Ambrose replied:

It is not lawful for me to surrender it nor good for you, Emperor, to receive it. By no right can you violate the house of a private person. Do you think that a house of God can be taken away from Him? . . . If you hope for a long reign, submit yourself to God.

Notice the argument: The house of a private person is just as inviolable as is the House of God. In a remarkable early defense of property rights, Ambrose didn’t hesitate to declare: “By no right!,” and he made a connection that the Bible made from the very beginning. Had Ambrose wanted to defend property rights on the basis of natural law, he would have been as helpless as Dietze, Mises, or Rand. But his firm stand on the theological foundation of property made Theodosius yield and repent.

The “evolution” of property rights was only observable in the Christian West in the last 1500 years. Moreover, it was not an independent event: It followed the “evolution” of the doctrines of Christianity, as Christian thinkers studied the Bible and applied it to their theory and practice. The “Renaissance” in the 12th and 13th centuries, the Scholastic revolution, contributed to the development of private property rights more than anything before.

And of course, the Protestant Reformation, in its return to the pure teachings of the Bible, exalted property rights to the level of a “divine right” for the individual. Contrary to what Mises and Rand believed, capitalism did not create property rights. It was the perfection of the legal concept of property rights by Protestant theologians that created capitalism, and therefore created the modern world. Capitalism did not create property; property created capitalism; and the Bible established property and built a defense perimeter around it, and sanctioned its ethical and economic advance.

Much is said by Classical Libertarians and by Ayn Rand herself about the American Revolution and its great principle of the rights to Life, Liberty, and Property. And yet, one will be pressed hard to find a justification of that belief on any other basis but Christianity. Why would Property be equal in value as a right to Life, if we accept natural law as our foundation? After all, man was man long before he had any property, if one accepts the evolutionist ideas of the believers in natural law. It is only when we lay the Creation account as our foundation that we can add Property to Life as an unalienable right. And therefore, the greatest victory for property rights in the history of mankind—the American Revolution—cannot be understood without its Christian foundations.

Christianity as the only philosophical foundation to property is also the explanation for the decline of property rights in the 20th century. The more Christ is banned from the public discourse, the less His Law—the only foundation for property—has influence over the public actions of men and their political representatives. Modern society still has some notion of property because of its Christian past; in fact, Classical Liberals themselves wouldn’t be able to produce their great works if it wasn’t for the Christian roots of our civilization. They intuitively accept the logical conclusions of the Law of God – the importance of the private property rights—while intellectually rejecting its premises. But the removal of Christianity from society has taken its toll; and the decline of all rights, including property rights, is part of that toll. There is only one possible defense of property—ethical defense—and there is only one ideology that supplies both the epistemological foundations and the legal corpus for that defense. That ideology is based on the Biblical worldview. Remove that foundation, and property rights will follow.

Therefore the restoration of property rights can and will start only with the restoration of Christianity to its place of a dominant religion in the West. Only when our law codes, our cultural practices, our economic, political, scientific, scholarly and other fields of society submit to the revelation and the requirements of the Law of God, we will see the property rights truly upheld and defended. Like all other rights, property rights come from God, and they stand or fall with our obedience to God, as a nation under Him.

Endnote:

[1] See Communist Manifesto, Anti-Düring, Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State, Das Kapital, The Principles of Communism, and others.

http://www.americanvision.org/article/the-only-possible-defense-of-private-property/

The Only Possible Defense of Private Property by Bojidar Marinov, Feb 11, 2010

Bloody Hands: The Southern Poverty Law Center by Matt Barber

Posted on by
Reply

Long before homosexual activist Floyd Corkins entered the D.C.-based Family Research Council (FRC) with the intent to commit mass murder, I warned from the rooftops that the hard-left Southern Poverty Law Center’s anti-Christian “hate group” propaganda might spur such bloodshed. With a column headlined, “Liberal violence rising,” I wrote, “The SPLC’s dangerous and irresponsible (‘hate group’) disinformation campaign can embolden and give license to like-minded, though less stable, left-wing extremists, creating a climate of true hate. Such a climate is ripe for violence.”

Tragically, my deepest fears were realized.

Then, in August, days after Corkins was heroically disarmed by FRC employ Leo Johnson, whom Corkins shot in the arm, I penned another column titled “Fanning the flames of left-wing violence.” I plead with the SPLC to end its “dishonest and reprehensible” strategy of “juxtaposing FRC and other Christian organizations with violent extremist groups” in a transparent effort to marginalize them.

“I appeal to your sense of goodwill. This is not a game. Lives are at stake,” I implored. “I know you have good employees (I’ve met some) who believe they’re doing the right thing; so, please, validate that belief. It’s time to remove your metaphorical ‘hate group’ Star of David from mainstream Christian organizations before another of your ideological allies spills blood.”

I no longer believe the SPLC has a sense of goodwill. In fact, based on FBI evidence and the group’s own actions (and inaction), I and many others are left with no other inference but this: The SPLC – a left-wing extremist fundraising behemoth – may be intentionally inciting anti-Christian violence.

Just days ago, Corkins pled guilty to a number of charges, including domestic terrorism. FBI evidence revealed that he was both motivated by and utilized the SPLC’s “anti-gay hate map” to target and locate his intended Christian mass murder victims.

Further evidence reveals that the “hate map” – more accurately labeled “hit map” – even provided the exact location of FRC and other Christian groups found on Corkins’ hit-list with little red dots to helpfully pinpoint their precise locations.

Corkins told the FBI after the shooting that he intended to “kill as many as possible and smear the Chick-fil-A sandwiches (which he brought with him) in victims’ faces.” Prosecutors said that he planned to leave FRC after the attack and go to another conservative group to continue his reign of terror. A handwritten list of three other groups was found with his belongings while an investigation of Corkins’ computer revealed that he identified his targets on the SPLC website. The other groups were also maliciously listed by the SPLC as “hate groups.”

Motive to kill? Fomented. Who to kill? Provided. Where to kill? Pinpointed, with easy access to driving directions. The only thing the SPLC did not do was purchase Corkins’ gun and drive him to the crime scene.

Here’s why, to my own aghast bewilderment, I’m left with little choice but to believe the SPLC may be intentionally inciting anti-Christian violence. As noted by the FRC, “Even after an attempted mass murder of the FRC staff, the ‘hate map’ is still prominently featured on the SPLC website today – which shocks most conservative pundits.”

“Shocks” is an understatement.

“When Congresswoman Giffords and several others were shot in Arizona by Jared Loughner, the left went into overdrive blaming Sarah Palin for a map that had a list of political targets on it. After the fact, we learned that Loughner was apolitical and he clearly had not used Sarah Palin’s map of political targets. That did not stop the left from blaming the right,” noted RedState’s Erick Erickson. “By the way, Palin took down her target map after the controversy. The Southern Poverty Law Center? Crickets …”

What other explanation is there? I understand that it’s difficult to admit you’re wrong, especially when the scheme seemed so delicious at the time. But once FBI evidence conclusively proves that you were, to a large degree, responsible for inciting an act of domestic terrorism, most reasonable people would take a deep breath, take a step back, admit fault and hobble forward in an effort to rehabilitate a reputation in ruin.

Is the SPLC a left-wing extremist group? Absolutely. Are they anti-Christian? Without a doubt. But few would have believed, until now, that they might intentionally, with malice aforethought, seek to incite anti-Christian bloodshed.

Scandalously, the Obama administration continues to maintain deep ties with this radical organization.

“The Southern Poverty Law Center has a long history of maliciously slandering pro-family groups with language and labels that incite hatred and undermine civil discourse,” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel. “In the issues of family and marriage, Christians are literally in the crosshairs of radical homosexual activists, and the SPLC is fueling the hatred and providing the targets. The SPLC should be held accountable for its reckless acts. Even more disturbing than the SPLC’s irresponsible behavior is the fact that the Obama administration is in bed with this group,” said Staver.

“It is ironic that Christians who believe in natural marriage have been isolated by radical homosexual activists and demonized as ‘homophobes’ and ‘haters,’” he concluded.

Weeks before Corkins pleaded guilty of terrorism and assault with intent to kill, a study from the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point entitled “Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far Right” said the “violent far right” exhibits an intense fear or dislike of foreign people, “including people with alternative sexual preferences.” The SPLC’s warped view of reality has been adopted by the Obama administration.

“What the SPLC and other homosexual activists are doing is intentional and dangerous,” said Staver. “It is time to end the dangerous rhetoric and resume a civil discourse on the subject of natural marriage and morality.”

Indeed if, God forbid, this SPLC “hate group” propaganda leads to another act of left-wing terrorism like that at FRC, this dangerous group should be held legally – perhaps even criminally liable.

In the meantime, to the media, I say this: If you dare, even for a moment, give any credence whatsoever to this deadly SPLC “hate group” nonsense, you too will have blood on your hands.

SPLC, you’re no longer fooling anyone.

Stop fooling yourselves.

Matt Barber is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as vice president of Liberty Counsel Action.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/bloody-hands-the-southern-poverty-law-center/#2jPS9Ygpcg8uJCAw.99

The Real Roots of School Violence by Tom DeWeese

Posted on by
Reply

In the brave new world of the very near future, children will enter their public schools passing police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, metal detectors, X-ray scanners and warrantless physical searches. Parents will relax, knowing their child is now “SAFE.” No violent evil doers will be able to get past that wall of security.

But what none of the checkpoints, scanners and cameras will detect is the child who walks right past, armed to the teeth with a hidden weapon actually enforced on him by the school itself. The weapon comes in many names and varieties: Ritlin, Luvox, Prozac, Zoloft, Cymbalta, Paxil, and more. Each weapon lovingly loaded into their child by concerned parents before they send them off to their “safe” school. And while the child’s backpack and pockets are checked by the armed force on the way in, the pharmaceutical poison is building up in his blood system, racing to the brain like a lit dynamite fuse.

As communities reel from one massive act of student violence after another, most recently in Newtown, Connecticut, the nation looks for answers. How many are looking at the schools themselves as the conduit through which millions of students are drugged with mind-altering drugs?

Some history. In 1965, the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), changed education forever as the seeds for today’s massive restructuring -away from academics to behavior modification – began. It was psychology’s crowning moment. The ESEA allocated massive federal funds and opened school doors to a flood of psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers and the psychiatric programs and testing needed to validate them. The number of educational psychologists in the U.S. increased from 455 in 1969 to 16,146 in 1992. As of 1994, child psychologists, psychiatrists, counselors and special educators in and around U.S. public schools nearly out-number teachers.

To date, there has never been issued a single peer- reviewed scientific paper officially claiming to prove ADD/ ADHD exists. Nor has there ever been a single bit of physical evidence to confirm the disease exists. So-called experts on the subject have refused to answer the simple question, “is ADD/ ADHD a real disease?” Medical researchers charge that ADHD does not meet the medical definition of a disease or syndrome or anything organic or biologic.

Yet, in 1991, eligibility rules for federal education grants were changed to provide schools with $400 in annual grant money for each child diagnosed with ADHD. That same year the Department of Education formally recognized ADHD as a handicap and directed all state education officers to establish procedures to screen and identify ADHD children and provide them with special education and psychological services. As a result, the number of ADD/ADHD cases soared again.

Today more than 7,000,000 children have been labeled, tamped and registered as permanent patients of the school system. 10 to 12 percent of all boys between the ages of 6 and 14 in the United States have been diagnosed as having ADD. One in every 30 Americans between the ages of 5 and 19 years old has a prescription for Ritalin. And the fuse burns as the “patients” sit in the classroom.

AS THE USE OF PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS RISE – SO TOO DO CHILD SUICIDES

Children are dying. Not just in shootings, but in rising incidents of suicide. Here are some details:

A November 1997 medical report found: “The association between benzodiazephine use and attempted suicide is especially high for…the young, and for males…” In the April 1996 Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, a study found that “the older tricyclic antidepressants are a significant cause of suicide” and accounted for the majority of antidepressant deaths studied between 1986 and 1990.

A December 1996 French study entitled, “Suicide and psychotropic drugs,” established that “suicide attempts are more frequent among patients taking antidepressants…”

In Denmark, with a huge usage of psychotropic drugs, the suicide rate is twice the rate of that in the United States…
In the U.S., teen suicides have tripled since 1960; today, suicide is the second leading cause of death…

In Israel, between 1981 and 1994, the estimated suicide rate for 15- to 19-year-old Jewish boys increased by about 183 percent. (Tellingly, the suicide rate dropped 10 percent during a 1997 period when Israel’s psychologists went on strike.)

Australia’s suicide rate increased between 1960 and 1967 when legislation was passed to enable a person to obtain multiple prescriptions for sedatives. When the law was modified in 1967 to restrict the practice, there was a decrease in per capita sedative usage and a decline in suicide rates.

Are we hearing an outcry from that tragedy? Are there calls for stopping, banning, regulating the use of these mind- altering drugs? Is the pharmaceutical industry being called on the carpet? Are there emergency congressional hearings being held to showcase the heads of big pharma as murdering criminals? Not on your life.

As the nation is outraged over the school shootings, demanding that something be done, guns become the target, not the drugs that filled the child’s mind with delusions to take such horrific action. Meanwhile the gun sits innocently in the corner, unmoving, unable to cause damage – until the real loaded weapon – the drugged student – picks it up.

View the full list with detailed information on the connection between drugs and school shootings

© 2013 Tom DeWeese – All Rights Reserved

Tom DeWeese is one of the nation’s leading advocates of individual liberty, free enterprise, private property rights, personal privacy, back-to-basics education and American sovereignty and independence.

A native of Ohio, he’s been a candidate for the Ohio Legislature, served as editor of two newspapers, and has owned several businesses since the age of 23. In 1989 Tom led the only privately-funded election-observation team to the Panamanian elections. In 2006 Tom was invited to Cambridge University to debate the issue of the United Nations before the Cambridge Union, a 200 year old debating society. Today he serves as Founder and President of the American Policy Center and editor of The DeWeese Report

For 40 years Tom DeWeese has been a businessman, grassroots activist, writer and publisher. As such, he has always advocated a firm belief in man’s need to keep moving forward while protecting our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.

The DeWeese Report , 70 Main Street, Suite 23, Warrenton Virginia. (540) 341-8911

E-Mail: admin@americanpolicy.org

E-Mail: ampolicycenter@hotmail.com

Website: www.americanpolicy.org

Originally published January 21, 2013
NewsWithViews.com

The Radical Polarization of Law Enforcement by Patrick Wood

Posted on by
Reply

Patriots, Christians and concerned cit­i­zens are increasingly in the cross hairs of the U.S. intelligence com­mu­nity, and battle lines are being qui­etly drawn that could soon pit our own law enforce­ment and mil­i­tary forces against us.

A Feb­ruary 20 report enti­tled “The Modern Militia Move­ment [2]” was issued by the Mis­souri Infor­ma­tion Analysis Center (MIAC) that paints main­stream patri­otic Amer­i­cans as dan­gerous threats to law enforce­ment and to the country. Oper­ating under the Mis­souri State Highway Patrol, the MIAC is listed as a Fusion Center [3] that was estab­lished in coop­er­a­tion with the Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­rity and the Depart­ment of Justice.

Because authen­ticity of the report was ques­tioned by some, this writer con­tacted Mis­souri state Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Jim Guest (R-KingCity) who had per­son­ally ver­i­fied that the report had indeed been issued. Rep. Guest is chairman of the Per­sonal Pri­vacy Com­mittee and is a promi­nent leader in the national blow­back against the Real ID Act of 2005 that requires states to issue uni­form driver’s licenses con­taining per­sonal bio­metric data. (See Guest warns against Big Brother, Real ID [4])

Rep. Guest stated that he was “shocked and out­raged” at the report, which clearly paints him and many other elected state leaders, as a poten­tial threats to law enforcement.

Instead of focusing on actual crim­inal inci­dents of “home-grown” ter­rorism, the MAIC report instead lists issues that it believes are common to the threats it per­ceives. Thus, Amer­i­cans involved with the fol­lowing issues are highly suspect:

– “Ammu­ni­tion Account­ability Act” – requiring each bullet to to be seri­al­ized and reg­is­tered to the purchaser.

– “Antic­i­pa­tion of the eco­nomic col­lapse of the US Gov­ern­ment” – Promi­nent scholars and econ­o­mists are openly debating the bank­ruptcy and insol­vency of the United States government.

– “Pos­sible Con­sti­tu­tional Con­ven­tion (Con Con)” – 32 states have called for a Con­sti­tu­tional Con­ven­tion to force Con­gress and the Exec­u­tive Branch into a bal­anced budget, but many are con­cerned that if called, Con Con would be taken over by hos­tile inter­ests who would intro­duce Amend­ments that are harmful to national sovereignty.

– “North Amer­ican Union” – MIAC states that “Con­spiracy the­o­rists claim that this union would link Canada, the United States, and Mexico. The NAU would unify its mon­e­tary system and trade the dollar for the AMERO. Asso­ci­ated with this theory is con­cern over a NAFTA Super­highway, which would fast track trade between the three nations. There is addi­tional con­cern that the NAU would open up the border causing secu­rity risks and free move­ment for immigrants.”

– “Uni­versal Ser­vice Program” – “Statements made by Pres­i­dent Elect Obama and his chief of staff have led extrem­ists to fear the cre­ation of a Civilian Defense Force. This theory requires all cit­i­zens between the age of 18 and 25 to be forced to attend three months of manda­tory training.” (This is exactly what Obama and Rahm Emmanuel have repeat­edly stated on national TV, and thus is hardly a theory.)

– “Radio Fre­quency Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion (RFID)” – This includes human implan­ta­tion, but the larger con­cern is uni­versal id cards and per­sonal prop­erty iden­ti­fi­ca­tion that can be read elec­tron­i­cally without the bearer’s knowledge.

Cit­i­zens who are con­cerned about the above issues are then lumped into rad­ical ide­olo­gies such as Chris­tian Iden­tity, White Nation­al­ists (e.g., neo-Nazi, Skin­heads, etc.) and anti-Semites. Tax Resisters and Anti-Immigration advo­cates are thrown into the same category.

The MIAC report then sternly warns law enforce­ment personnel,

“You are the Enemy: The militia sub­scribes to an antigov­ern­ment and NWO mind set, which cre­ates a threat to law enforce­ment offi­cers. They view the mil­i­tary, National Guard, and law enforce­ment as a force that will con­fis­cate their firearms and place them in FEMA con­cen­tra­tion camps.” [Bold emphasis appears in original]

On the last page of the MIAC report, a sec­tion listing Polit­ical Para­pher­nalia (flags and sym­bols) states,

“Militia mem­bers most com­monly asso­ciate with 3rd party polit­ical groups. It is not uncommon for militia mem­bers to dis­play Con­sti­tu­tional Party, Cam­paign for Lib­erty, or Lib­er­tarian mate­rial. These mem­bers are usu­ally sup­porters of former Pres­i­den­tial Can­di­date: Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr.

Militia mem­bers com­monly dis­play pic­ture, car­toons, bumper stickers that con­tain anti-government rhetoric. Most of this mate­rial will depict the FRS, IRS, FBI, ATF, CIA, UN, Law Enforce­ment, and the ‘New World Order’ in a deroga­tory manor (sic). Addi­tion­ally, Racial, anti-immigration, and anti-abortion, mate­rial may be dis­played by militia members.”

What was the osten­sible gen­esis of all these “threats” to law enforce­ment? The report explains it this way…

“Aca­d­e­mics con­tend that female and minority empow­er­ment in the 1970s and 1960s caused a blow to white male’s sense of empow­er­ment. This, com­bined with a sense of defeat from the Vietnam War, increased levels of immi­gra­tion, and unem­ploy­ment, spawned a para­mil­i­tary cul­ture. This caught on in the 1980′s with injects such as Tom Clancy novels, Solder of For­tune Mag­a­zine, and movies such as Rambo that glo­ri­fied combat. This cul­ture glo­ri­fied white males and por­trayed them as morally upright heroes who were men­tally and phys­i­cally tough.

“It was during this time­frame that many indi­vid­uals and orga­ni­za­tions began to con­coct con­spiracy the­o­ries to explain their mis­for­tunes. These the­o­ries varied but almost always involved a glob­alist dic­ta­tor­ship the”New World Order (NWO), which con­spired to exploit the working class citizens.”

In other words, these “ridicu­lous NWO the­o­ries” were cre­ated by psy­cho­log­ical deviants who were trying to jus­tify their own self-induced misfortunes.

Fear ye, all troopers

For unsus­pecting law enforce­ment per­sonnel, this MIAC training doc­u­ment polar­izes unsus­pecting offi­cers to fear peaceful, law-abiding cit­i­zens and greatly increases the risk of armed con­fronta­tion. For instance, a rou­tine traffic stop would be esca­lated if the officer observes a Ron Paul or Chuck Baldwin bumper sticker on the rear bumper of the car. The mere pos­ses­sion of printed mate­rial such as the U.S. Con­sti­tu­tion or Bill of Rights would be viewed as sub­ver­sive, even though most offi­cers are required to take an oath to “defend and uphold the Con­sti­tu­tion of the United States” as a con­di­tion of their employment.

Addi­tion­ally, troopers are indoc­tri­nated that all such topics are pure fan­tasy and without any fac­tual basis. Even if they had their own con­cerns, they would be ridiculed into accepting the posi­tion that all crit­i­cism of the New World Order is dan­gerous to their well being.

The Columbia Daily Tri­bune (Columbia, Mis­souri) reports this con­cern from local res­i­dent Tim Neal, who appar­ently fits the MIAC’s “Modern Militia” profile:

If a police officer is pulling me over with my family in the car and he sees a bumper sticker on my vehicle that has been specif­i­cally iden­ti­fied as one that an extremist would have in their vehicle, the guy is prob­ably going to be pretty appre­hen­sive and not thinking in a rational manner, and this guy’s walking up to my vehicle with a gun.

MIAC is a Fusion Center

As men­tioned above, the Mis­souriInfor­ma­tionAnalysisCenter is one of a net­work of over 50 Fusion Cen­ters around the country.

According to the National Crim­inal Intel­li­gence Resource Center [5] (NCIRC), a Fusion Center is “a col­lab­o­ra­tive effort of two or more agen­cies that pro­vide resources, exper­tise, and/or infor­ma­tion to the center with the goal of max­i­mizing the ability to detect, pre­vent, appre­hend, and respond to crim­inal and ter­rorist activity.”

As of 2006, the NCIRC listed 50 Fusion Cen­ters [3]in var­ious states.

Most impor­tantly, the Depart­ment of Jus­tice and the Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­rity are the dri­ving forces behind Fusion Cen­ters, having pub­lished “Fusion Center Guide­lines: Devel­oping and Sharing Infor­ma­tion and Intel­li­gence in a New World. [6]” This report head­lines “Fusion” as “Turning Infor­ma­tion and Intel­li­gence Into Action­able Knowledge.”

Fusion Cen­ters are one of five areas of infor­ma­tion sharing under the Infor­ma­tion Sharing Envi­ron­ment (ISE) [7] that was estab­lished by the Intel­li­gence Reform and Ter­rorism Pre­ven­tion Act of 2004 [8].

ISE mem­ber­ship includes the Depart­ment of Com­merce, CIA, Depart­ment of Defense, Director of National Intel­li­gence, Depart­ment of Energy, FBI, Health and Human Ser­vices, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­rity, National Counter-Terrorism Center, Depart­ment of Inte­rior, Office of Man­age­ment and Budget, Depart­ment of Jus­tice, Depart­ment of State, Depart­ment of Trans­porta­tion and the Depart­ment of Treasury.

According to one white paper (on the ISE web site) enti­tled The Intel­li­gence Fusion Process for State, Local and Tribal Law Enforce­ment [9], “The most impor­tant output of the intel­li­gence Fusion Center is action­able intel­li­gence. This means that the intel­li­gence pro­duced by the center will drive oper­a­tional responses and strategic aware­ness of threats.” Accordingly,

“The heart of good intel­li­gence analysis is to have a diverse array of valid and reli­able raw infor­ma­tion for analysis. The more robust the raw infor­ma­tion, the more accu­rate the ana­lytic output (i.e., intel­li­gence) will be.”

The above men­tioned MIAC report, issued by an offi­cial Fusion Center, is appar­ently part of this “diverse array of valid and reli­able raw information.”

How­ever, ISE’s under­standing of intel­li­gence is foolish. Any intel­li­gence ana­lyst knows that so-called raw infor­ma­tion is treated as garbage until ver­i­fied from mul­tiple sources to val­i­date accu­racy, com­plete­ness and freedom from bias. Sec­ondly, ana­lytic output depends upon trained and expe­ri­enced human rea­soning and judg­ment, not on the “robust­ness” of the raw infor­ma­tion itself.

Where do Fusion Cen­ters get inputs?

According to their own doc­u­ments, Fusion Cen­ters are “seeded” with ideas for analysis by the FBI and the Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­rity. Although this is prob­lem­atic in itself, atten­tion is better directed to the left-wing non­profit orga­ni­za­tion, Southern Poverty Law Center [10] (SPLC).

Upon careful word and theme com­par­ison between the MIAC report and SPLC lit­er­a­ture, it is apparent that there is a sig­nif­i­cant link between the two. Either MIAC received training or training mate­rial from SPLC or some of its per­sonnel had some pre­vious expo­sure to it.

The SPLC aggres­sively offers training [11] to local, state and fed­eral law enforce­ment agen­cies. According to the SPLC web site, “We focus on the his­tory, back­ground, leaders and activ­i­ties of far-right extrem­ists in the U.S.” and states that it “is inter­na­tion­ally known for its tol­er­ance edu­ca­tion pro­grams, its legal vic­to­ries against white suprema­cists and its tracking of hate groups.”

Hate crimes are essen­tially acts of vil­i­fi­ca­tion of a victim because of his or her mem­ber­ship in a cer­tain social group, such as racial, reli­gious, sexual ori­en­ta­tion, nation­ality, gender, etc. While hate crimes are wrong under any cir­cum­stance, the SPLC sees no con­flict in pro­filing con­ser­v­a­tive whites, Chris­tians, Con­sti­tu­tion­al­ists, and patriots as being asso­ci­ated with, if not respon­sible for, hate crimes in America. This is the pot calling the kettle black.

For instance, con­sider the SPLC state­ment, “…a basic fact about all three move­ments: Patriots, white suprema­cists and anti-abortion mil­i­tants are all fueled by inter­pre­ta­tions of religion.”

Aside from the fact that this sweeping gen­er­al­iza­tion is plainly not true, it is mud-slinging at its best: Patriots are lumped in with white suprema­cists, anti-abortionists are mil­i­tants, and all are driven by an obvi­ously irra­tional and fanat­ical appli­ca­tion of religion.

In another SPLC article about a tragic killing in South Car­olina, enti­tled “The Abbeville Horror [12]“, the writer goes well beyond just the facts of the story and is careful to sprinkle in words and phrases such as:

Patriots, tax pro­tes­tors, sov­er­eign cit­i­zens, antigov­ern­ment extrem­ists, New World Order para­noia, Dis­arming U.S. Cit­i­zens, hard-line Chris­tian Right, con­sti­tu­tional rights, antigov­ern­ment “Patriot” lit­er­a­ture, anti-Semitic con­spiracy, “Live Free or Die,” Ruby Ridge and Waco, Second Amend­ment, extremist orga­nizing, “closet extrem­ists,” para­noid beliefs, “Give me lib­erty or give me death.” [quotes appear in orig­inal text]

These are the same kinds of words and themes that are seen in The Modern Militia Move­ment article, where dis­tinc­tions between good and bad people are blurred and con­fused: All are guilty by asso­ci­a­tion, if nothing else.

Should a pri­vate orga­ni­za­tion like SPLC be allowed to pro­vide offi­cial training to public-entrusted law enforce­ment agen­cies? Most would say, “No.” Even if the training was free, the agency should reject influ­ence from the public sector, and even more so if it presents biased and one-sided infor­ma­tion that is claimed to be factual.

Con­clu­sion

It is crit­ical to under­stand that the legit­i­mate law enforce­ment agen­cies of cities, coun­ties and states are not adver­saries of the people. They are greatly needed for pro­tec­tion against crime and for keeping order in our communities.

They are, how­ever, being method­i­cally seeded with very wrong­headed and dan­gerous infor­ma­tion, the spe­cific intent of which is to polarize law enforce­ment against peaceful cit­i­zens who simply care about the down­fall of their country.

This writer inter­viewed Chuck Baldwin and asked about how he felt when he first saw his good name asso­ci­ated with those who would threaten bodily harm to law enforce­ment agen­cies. “Per­son­ally, I was stunned,” he said, “but my family has taken this very per­son­ally as well. This is more than disturbing.”

When asked about the pos­sible affect of the report on the Con­sti­tu­tion Party, of which he was the 2008 pres­i­den­tial can­di­date, he replied, “I think it will gal­va­nize people and help them to under­stand the nature of the battle we are in. Freedom must be defended.”

In fact, the MIAC report has cre­ated a firestorm all over America. Tens of thou­sands of protests are being called, written, emailed and faxed to author­i­ties and leg­is­la­tors in Mis­souri. It would not be sur­prising to see the report rescinded and an apology given.

Even so, behind-the-scene groups like the SPLC will con­tinue unabated and unde­terred in their effort to mis­in­form and dis­rupt healthy com­mu­nity rela­tions with worthy law enforce­ment agen­cies and personnel.

The mes­sage to every juris­dic­tion: Don’t let it happen!

Final thought

Locate the Fusion Center in your state [3] and keep a close eye on the infor­ma­tion they are releasing. Stay close to as many law enforce­ment per­sonnel as you can, asking them to keep their eyes open for reports sim­ilar to the Mis­souri report. Peti­tion your state leg­is­la­tors to ban law enforce­ment training by pri­vate orga­ni­za­tions such as the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Article printed from August Forecast & Review: http://www.augustforecast.com

URL to article: http://www.augustforecast.com/2009/03/18/the_radical_polarization_of_law_enforcement/

URLs in this post:

[1] Share: http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php

[2] The Modern Militia Move­ment: http://www.augustreview.com/images/stories/miacreport.pdf

[3] listed as a FusionCenter: http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/ise/state.pdf

[4] Guest warns against Big Brother, Real ID: http://www.stjoenews.net/news/2009/feb/11/guest-warns-against-big-brother-real-id/?local

[5] NationalCrim­inalIntel­li­genceResourceCenter: http://www.ncirc.gov/

[6] FusionCenter Guide­lines: Devel­oping and Sharing Infor­ma­tion and Intel­li­gence in a New World.: http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/ise/guidelines.pdf

[7] Infor­ma­tion Sharing Envi­ron­ment (ISE): http://www.ise.gov/index.html

[8] Intel­li­gence Reform and Ter­rorism Pre­ven­tion Act of 2004: http://www.ise.gov/docs/guidance/irtpa.pdf

[9] The Intel­li­gence Fusion Process for State, Local and Tribal Law Enforce­ment: http://www.ise.gov/pages/partner-fc.html

[10] Southern PovertyLawCenter: http://www.splcenter.org/

[11] training: http://www.splcenter.org/intel/law.jsp

[12] The Abbeville Horror: http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=671

[13] FBI nudges state ‘fusion cen­ters’ into the shadows: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9916599-38.html

[14] FusionCen­ters and Pri­vacy: http://epic.org/privacy/fusion/

[15] Back­grounder: Fusion Cen­ters: http://www.cfr.org/publication/12689/

[16] Infor­ma­tion Sharing Envi­ron­ment: http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/ise/index.html

by Patrick Wood, Editor, August Review
March 18, 2009

Education for a New World by Carl Teichrib, Editor.

Posted on by
Reply
Editor’s NOTE: Now that the new school year is on our doorstep, I chose to focus this issue on the role of education as a tool for social transformation. With this in mind, I would encourage you to access the Forcing Change archives and download the following editions; Volume 1, Issue 9 – “Education for Indoctrination: UNESCO and Seven Complex Lessons,” and Volume 1, Issue 3 – “Educating for Global Citizenship.”

Please keep in mind that education for social change transcends the school system – it has become a culturally embedded reality, impacting media and entertainment, churches, government programs, business practices, and law. In other words, we need to be alert and wise to the changes taking place both in school settings and society as a whole. And we need to be tactful and truthful in our response to the worldview challenges.

Assaults on Faith and Family
Parental Rights, Mandatory Training, and Re-Education

Note: This is a combination of articles by my friend, Berit Kjos. They were originally penned a few years ago. Nevertheless, the information is as important today as when first published.

“…some opponents of Humanism have accused us of wishing to overthrow the traditional Christian family. They are right. That is exactly what we intend to do.” – The British Humanist Association, 1969.1

“…if you give me any normal human being and a couple of weeks, …I can change his behavior from what it is not to whatever you want it to be…. I can turn him from a Christian into a Communist… We can control behavior.”  – Psychology Professor James McConnell, 1966.2

“The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers…” – UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.3

“Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.” – Colossians 2:6-8

Don’t be deceived! The twenty-year-old plus, United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), has little to do with personal rights. It has everything to do with changing values and undermining the traditional family. Since it transfers parental authority to the state, Christian children are legally free to reject safe family guidelines. The state will back their choice! As Hillary Clinton wrote back in the nineties, It Takes a Village!

This process started long ago. Its milestones include the birth of the United Nations in 1945 and, starting in 1948, its consultative relationships with the new World Federation for Mental Health. The Federation’s founding document, Mental Health and World Citizenship, exposed the mind-changing agenda behind the social sciences:

“Studies of human development indicate the modifiability of human behaviour throughout life, especially during infancy, childhood and adolescence… Social institutions such as family and school impose their imprint early… It is the men and women in whom these patterns of attitude and behaviour have been incorporated who present the immediate resistance to social, economic and political changes.”4

The CRC is designed to erode that resistance!

For example, its Article 14 tells parents to “respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.” That might make sense if parents were free to teach them safe moral and spiritual boundaries. But it spells disaster in today’s boundary-free culture, which bombards our children with promiscuous, pornographic and pluralistic suggestions and images.

Article 14 includes this qualification:

“Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.”

But who are those “others” that need protection? All who despise the Bible and are offended by moral standards? That’s already happening! As one school administrator warned a student: “Leave your faith in the car.”5

Article 15 grants children the right to “freedom of association,” while Article 16 forbids “interference with his or her privacy… or correspondence.” Their freedom to choose would fling the doors open to every lewd kind of literature, texting, and internet communications.

Notice the strange twist. With ratification of this Convention, the state terminates parental rights to set wise boundaries and maintain moral standards. It “frees” children to follow their new pied pipers into a world of corruption, group thinking, and government control. Meanwhile, Christian children lose their traditional right to express their faith, since Christian beliefs and values are too divisive for today’s changing world.

This heartbreaking process is illustrated by a Canadian family. Since Canada has ratified this Convention on the Rights of the Child, it must conform to United Nations’ standards. [Editor’s Note: When a nation binds itself to an international treaty, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child, that nation technically and legally obligates itself to the furtherance of that mandate].

“The father had ordered the daughter… to remain off the Internet. She didn’t, chatting on websites her father had tried to block and then posting ‘inappropriate’ pictures of herself online, using a friend’s Internet portal. As punishment, the father refused to let her go on a scheduled school trip, so the 12-year-old went to Canada’s judicial system to get her way… [she] had access to the courts using a court-appointed attorney representing her in her parents’ custody dispute.”6

“Quebec Superior Court rejected the Gatineau father’s appeal of a lower court ruling that said his punishment was too severe for the wrongs he said his daughter committed. The father is ‘flabbergasted’.”7

Such biased verdicts complement the deceptive language in the UN’s celebrated Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Notice how it parallels the CRC: Its Article 18 guarantees “the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.” And Article 19 affirms “the right to freedom of opinion and expression…” But Article 29 warns that: “these rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”

In other words, UN “rights” won’t be granted to those who disagree with its goals. They include:

•  A New World Order ruled by unelected globalists with a socialist agenda

•  The end of national sovereignty, absolute truth and the traditional family

•  Social solidarity and spiritual pluralism purged of “divisive” Christian values.

•  A communitarian network of partnerships between three sectors: (1) government, (2) business, and (3) social. The latter includes community organizations, churches, families, etc. In this unequal partnership, the government becomes the controlling “partner.” It would set the standards, measure (assess) compliance, reward group “progress,” and punish resisters.

This agenda may sound good to utopians that put their hope in global change – and who ignore the duplicity of today’s powerful and pragmatic globalist change agents. Today’s clever disinformation “speaks” louder than the truth, especially to listeners trained to follow feelings rather than facts!

So it’s not surprising that “double-speak” is central to UN propaganda. UNESCO’s Declaration on the Role of Religion is a good example. It calls for tolerance and dialogue – but shows no tolerance toward Christianity. Its unchanging truths simply don’t fit UNESCO requirements:

“We will promote dialogue and harmony between and within religions… respecting the search for truth and wisdom that is outside our religion… We call upon the different religious and cultural traditions to join hands… and to cooperate with us.”8

The word “cooperate” is a benign way of saying “submit to the new global standards.” And any substandard results of that “search for truth” would soon be silenced by today’s ever-present dialectical “group-think.”

No Room For Resisters

The CRC brings this interfaith agenda right into our homes and schools. Following the UN pattern, its promised “rights” are reserved for those who embrace its socialist, anti-Christian values. The Preamble sets the stage:

“Considering that the child should be fully prepared to live an individual life in society, and brought up in the spirit of the ideals proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, and in particular in the spirit of peace, dignity, tolerance, freedom, equality and solidarity…”

Each of the CRC Articles listed below either opens the door to justify action by the State, or to impose global values as a replacement to Bible standards.

ARTICLE 3. “…ensure that the institutions, services and facilities responsible for the care or protection of children shall conform with the standards established by competent authorities…”

ARTICLE 9. “…a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child…”  Might faith in God’s unchanging Truth be considered incompatible with those “best interests”?

ARTICLE 12. “…assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.”

ARTICLE 17. “States Parties recognize the important function performed by the mass media and shall ensure that the child has access to information and material from a diversity of national and international sources, especially those aimed at the promotion of his or her social, spiritual and moral well-being and physical and mental health. To this end, States Parties shall…
(c) Encourage the production and dissemination of children’s books…
(e) Encourage the development of appropriate guidelines for the protection of the child from information and material injurious to his or her well-being.”

Article 17 is infused with many troubling points. First, the reference to “spiritual and moral wellbeing” is based on politically correct, not Christian, values. Second, in the dissemination of children’s books, what kind of message will be paraded? Today, most popular children book books immerse the reader in suggestions, images, beliefs and values that clash with Christian values. Finally, what material will children be protected from? Might those “injurious” materials include the Bible? Missionary stories? Traditional history books or other information that could clash with UN ideology? Probably!

Since the goal is change – establishing a New World Order – any hindrance to that vision is already censored in public schools. The Globalist Elite have no tolerance for the America we have treasured!

[Editor’s Note: The message conveyed by Berit extends beyond America’s boarders. Group think, collective action, political correctness, a global ethic, and top-down management have become dominant themes throughout much of the Western World – where, in the past, Biblical ethics and morality, individualism and responsibility, free enterprise, and traditional families have provided the backbone for strong communities and nations.]

Inciting Hatred For Resisters

This socialist revolution reminds me of the anger that followed the 1996 Oklahoma bombing. Day after day, the media’s accusing pens pointed to suspected foes of American togetherness – those whose “enraged rhetoric” had created a national “climate of hate and paranoia.” They ranged from “rabid” radio hosts and “extremists” to concerned Christian parents. “Their coalition,” wrote Time, “included well known-elements of far-right thought: tax protesters, Christian homeschoolers, conspiracy theorists… and self-reliant types who resent a Federal Government that seems to favor grizzly bears and wolves over humans…”9

Apparently, the controversial report from the Department of Homeland Security was simply one of many expression of the socialist agenda. Do you remember its amazing report on ‘Right-wing Extremism?’ It suggests that economic woes, “the return of military veterans” and “individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration”10 could lead to the “emergence of terrorist groups” and violence.

Notice what’s happening. In spite of their call to unity, our socialist leaders are stirring up division. That’s because this intentional vilification of ordinary, peace-loving Americans serves a useful purpose.

Hitler understood the importance of social division as a mechanism for cultural change. He, too, was determined to separate followers from resisters, and in the process he solidified the National Socialist worldview. Remember what he wrote in Mein Kampf:

“The art of truly great popular leaders in all ages has consisted chiefly in… concentrating always on a single adversary… It is part of a great leader’s genius to make even widely separated adversaries appear as if they belonged to one category…”11

[Editor’s Note: By branding critics as “saboteurs of progress,” it allows change agents to rally emotional support against “resisters.” This, in turn, places enormous pressure on opponents. Their voices become marginalized as the collective will of the people – shaped by the new worldview – no longer tolerate the “old values.” In the case of Hitler’s Germany, Mao’s China, and Lenin and Stalin’s Soviet Union, “resisters” become silenced for the general good of the new order.]

The Convention on the Rights of the Child is an invitation as well as a curse. It would “free” our children and grandchildren to be World Citizens, immune to the call of God and traditional parental values. But for those who refuse to compromise, it spells the end of freedom. Ordinary Americans are demonized as an enemy, while the actual enemy has become a friend. Thomas Sowell said it well:

“While the rest of us may be worried about violent Mexican drug gangs on our border… the Director of Homeland Security is worried about ‘right-wing extremists.’  …[S]omehow they just know that you right-wingers are itching to unleash terror somewhere…

“So-called ‘honor killings’ by Muslims in the United States… does not seem to arouse any concern by the Department of Homeland Security… When it comes to the thuggery of ACORN… the Department of Homeland Security apparently sees no evil, hears no evil and speaks no evil.”12

Saving The Earth

Article 29 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states: “…the education of the child shall be directed to… (e) The development of respect for the natural environment.”

That vision could be good if it wasn’t wrapped in a political and spiritual agenda. But countless environmental and religious groups are now sharing their strategies for a new earth-centered ideology. Many so-called churches are persuaded that green religions are more beneficial than the “obsolete” certainties of the Bible. Al Gore leads the way. Ponder this quote from Earth in the Balance:

“The richness and diversity of our religious tradition throughout history is a spiritual resource long ignored by people of faith, who are often afraid to open their minds to teachings first offered outside their own system of belief.

“But the emergence of a civilization in which knowledge moves freely and almost instantaneously throughout the world has… spurred a renewed investigation of the wisdom distilled by all faiths. This panreligious perspective may prove especially important where our global civilization’s responsibility for the earth is concerned.” (pages 258-259)

Mocking truth is a sign of our times, and “fear” has become a common accusation against us. Yet, of all the world’s people, Christians have the least reason to fear. For our sovereign God reigns – all the more in the midst of today’s unholy changes:

“…in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” – Romans 8:37-39

Meanwhile, “Be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. Put on the whole armor of God…” – Ephesians 6:10-12

Mandatory Training

“The bourgeois family will vanish… Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty. But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social. And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate…? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention…” – Marx and Engels, Communist Manifesto.13

“John Dewey wrote… that the Bolsheviks were engaged in ‘a most interesting sociological experiment…’ using progressive educational ideas and practices to ‘counteract and transform… the influence of home and Church’.” – Dr. Dennis Cuddy.14

“Years before he had inflicted… dialectical materialism on a long-suffering world, Marx called for what had to be accomplished – the ‘ruthless destruction of everything existing.’ That destruction would wipe out religion, the family, morality… and everything that made Western civilization… The seemingly modest instrument was the [Frankfurt] Institute of Social Research… dedicated to neo-Marxism.’
…the greatest harm came when the Frankfurt School decamped to America, courtesy of John Dewey and Columbia University.” – Cry Havoc.15

Remember that proverbial frog in a pot of water? It finally died, since it didn’t notice the slow-rising heat. Few saw the early signs of the Neo-Marxist ideology that has invaded our schools and universities. But back in Teddy Roosevelt’s day, who would have guessed that a major goal of John Dewey’s “progressive education” was to weaken the traditional family, trade freedom for collectivism, and replace Christianity with an evolving form of “spiritual” solidarity?16

In his 1908 article, “Religion and our Schools,” Dewey wrote that “dogmatic beliefs” were “disappearing.” Decades later, while presiding over the American Humanist Association, he co-authored the 1933 Humanist Manifesto. Notice how his words reflect today’s emerging churches:

“Any religion that can hope to be a synthesizing and dynamic force for today, must be shaped for the needs of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present.”17

Fast-forward to the 21st century. The ever-present dialectic process now reigns in churches as well as schools. And in cities across America, Alinsky-trained “community organizers” work side-by-side with students doing their “service-learning” from coast to coast. Meanwhile, Christian families face rising opposition. For example,

“A 10-year-old homeschool girl described as ‘well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising and intellectually at or superior to grade level’ has been told by a New Hampshire court official to attend a government school because she was too ‘vigorous’ in defense of her Christian faith. The decision… reasoned that the girl’s ‘vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to [a court assigned] counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view.’…

“…a guardian ad litem [assigned to represent the interest of the child] concluded the girl ‘appeared to reflect her mother’s rigidity on questions of faith’ and that the girl’s interests ‘would be best served by exposure to a public school setting’ and ‘different points of view at a time when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief… in order to select, as a young adult, which of those systems will best suit her own needs’.”18

Did you catch that? The court tells us that this Christian girl – an excellent student – does not have the right to “choose” which religion best “suits her own needs” until she has examined many other “systems of beliefs.” Only as “a young adult” would she know enough about the world’s diverse religions to choose a suitable system.

Would that rule apply to Muslim children? Buddhist children? Hindu children?

Of course not! In today’s “progressive” global culture, the “enemy” is Christianity. Other religions are protected. After all, they are essential to the new vision of “unity in diversity.”

You see, today’s change agents consider Biblical Christianity a major obstacle to global solidarity. And nothing erodes Christian values more effectively than immersion into small groups led by trained facilitators who guide the diverse members toward a pre-planned unity of heart and mind.

The Marxist Practice of PRAXIS

But there’s more to this manipulation. The path to pluralism calls for a strategic blend of group consensus [an evolving THEORY] and collective PRACTICE: active immersion into a community with diverse social and moral values. Such “service-learning” has become a norm in schools, colleges, and service organizations everywhere.

Based on Hegelian dialectics, Marxist ideology, and Antonio Gramsci’s gradualism, this manipulative process spread around the world during the 20th century. Its blend of an evolving consensus or THEORY and collective PRACTICE would be called PRAXIS. It would seal the new lessons in “open” minds, while undermining all forms of traditional certainties. It would shift the public mindset from the solid rock of Truth and facts to the shifting sands of collective opinion.

Karl Marx first mentioned PRAXIS in 1844. According to the double-speak of the Encyclopedia of Marxism, it’s “just another word for practice in the sense in which practice is understood by Marxists.” And according to various Marxist documents, Marx saw it as the continual interaction of “theory-and-practice, in which neither theory nor practice are intelligible in isolation from the other.”19

In other words, the group must continually confirm its evolving theories with corresponding practice. Its members must be ready to compromise for the sake of consensus (the evolving THEORY), and then PRACTICE its new views through some kind of group action or service – followed by a time of group REFLECTION. The process is repeated again and again, ad infinitum.

Not all groups fit this mold. Many Christian groups are grounded in facts, truth and certainty. They seek God, not change! They act on His Word, not popular opinions. Their hope cannot be quenched by the world’s changing opinions: “This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast…” Hebrews 6:19

The Marxist View of Christianity – The “Religion” of His Time

To Karl Marx, Christianity was detestable! He hated it! And since its various expressions had spread throughout Europe, it had to be eradicated. So, in his Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law, he wrote,

“Man makes religion, religion does not make man… Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of spiritless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”20

From a Communist perspective, it makes sense. But from a Biblical perspective, it’s nonsense! Marx believed in continual change. Christians believe in unchanging Truth, which clashes with that dialectical progression. Christianity can’t be squeezed into the Marxist revolutionary process. Nor can Marxism fit into God’s churches without perverting both Truth and faith. The two are incompatible!

The Encyclopedia of Marxism rationalizes the word “absolute” to fit its evolving theories:

“…the progress of knowledge never comes to an end, so the absolute is relative. However, even a relative truth may nevertheless contain some grain of the whole absolute truth, so there is an absolute within the relative.”21

This distinction is important. Apart from God’s unchanging Truth, there is no concrete hope or certainty to stand on, because man’s unending desire to redefine reality knows no bounds. Few examples are more disturbing than the distortions of God’s Word in today’s postmodern churches.

Training our Youth in Marxist Praxis

An Internet survey of American colleges will quickly expose the acceptance and popularity of Praxis. Take the University of Wisconsin. Its page on “Service Learning Pedagogy” sounds innocent enough. It seems to reflect the Christian tradition of loving and serving the poor and needy, but it actually fits right into the Marxist formula for change: Facilitated Dialogue (establishing a pre-planned, transformational OBJECTIVE) or THEORY + PRACTICE (practical experience that changes values) = PRAXIS. Its website affirms this process:

“The process of critical reflection is an essential element of service learning. It enhances student learning by connecting the service and the academic experiences. It links THEORY with PRACTICE.”22

The real purpose is calculated change. Whether the students’ assignment involves homeless shelters, drug and addiction issues, community organizing, medical care, or environmental issues, they will be led toward emotional involvement with those who “hurt,” be they humans, animals or a “fragile earth.” They learn to evaluate reality through subjective feelings, which can easily be manipulated. Like the students in the infamous Clinton’s Governor School, they are trained to see life from an irrational – often a revolutionary – perspective.

When students are immersed in morally “diverse” contexts that mock Biblical values, they are likely to emerge with a disturbing familiarity with unforgettable corruption. They learn to “tolerate” practices that mock our God, empathize with those who face the painful consequences of bad choices, and accept social evils as a normal condition.

The actual transformation in student values will usually be measured by assessments done before and after each service-learning experience. These assessments are key to documenting the effectiveness of the program. The website for Minnesota State Colleges and Universities shows the significance of “reflection” and “assessments:

“Service-learning is not volunteerism. Reflection allows students to think critically about their experience, including how the experience affected them emotionally and how their values may have changed… Student assessments may include pre-service and post-service assessments…”23

This transformational strategy may sound kind and compassionate to its numerous supporters, but it virtually immunizes most participants against God’s moral guidelines. And those who don’t flow with the changing values will pay the high cost of low assessments and poor grades.

Julea Ward, a Christian student at Eastern Michigan University, was expelled from graduate school “for not affirming homosexual behavior as acceptable.”24 Though she wasn’t involved in formal “service-learning,” she illustrates the general university attitude toward Christian values.

This seductive PRAXIS is now the norm in “service learning” programs from elementary schools through college – and on through adulthood. With President Obama’s universal service plans, and the Serve America Act as a plank, generations will be exposed to manipulative, mind-changing experiences.

Redefining Rights and Freedom

The 10-year old girl mentioned earlier illustrates a battle that has raged in Germany since the days of Hitler: Should parents have the right and authority to raise their children according to their Christian faith? The Convention on the Rights of the Child was designed to end that right in America and elsewhere. Of course, in modern Germany, parents never had such a right:

“A critical hearing is scheduled in Germany in that nation’s war against homeschoolers to determine whether a family can continue to control the education of its high-performing son, 14. …the Schmidts have been fined about $18,300 for homeschooling, and since they are unable to pay all of the fines, they have been subjected to a government lien on their home. ‘Testing [of] both children showed that they have extraordinary academic abilities… The tests also showed the children to be socially competent. This is critical as the Germans still hold to the disproven belief that homeschool children are socially retarded.’…

“Several hundred families are believed to be homeschooling in Germany. Virtually all are in some type of court proceeding or living underground. One family even fled to the U.S…

“…one of the first acts by Adolf Hitler when he moved into power was to create the governmental Ministry of Education and give it control of all schools and school-related issues… In 1937, the dictator said, ‘…we have set before ourselves the task of inoculating our youth with the spirit of this community of the people at a very early age… And this new Reich… will itself take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing’.”25

Like persecuted Christians around the world, we must make a choice: will we please the world and follow its ways – or please God and follow His Way? Since America is rapidly embracing Neo-Marxist ideals, Christians who refuse to conform may soon reap the wrath of the world.

Please stay alert to this transformation. The pressure to compromise our Biblical values starts in elementary school or earlier. Once the anchor to Truth is torn away, most young minds will flow with the strongest currents. Dear friends, don’t let go of that anchor! Warn your children! And train them to trust, follow and “abide” in our wonderful Shepherd.

Re-Education

“The purpose of education and the schools is to change the thoughts, feelings and actions of students.” – Benjamin Bloom.26

“As the home and church decline in influence… schools must begin to provide adequately for the emotional and moral development of children… The school… must assume a direct responsibility for the attitudes and values of child development. The child advocate, psychologist, social technician, and medical technician should all reach aggressively into the community, send workers out to children’s homes…” – Joint Commission on Mental Health of Children.27

“A proposal for new social studies curriculum in Texas public schools removes a mention of Christmas in a sixth-grade lesson, replacing it with a Hindu religious festival…” – Houston Chronicle.28

“…the breakdown of traditional families, far from being a ‘crisis,’ is actually a… triumph for human rights against ‘patriarchy’.” – UN Population Fund leader.29

The traditional Christian family has been a continual obstacle to the globalist vision of solidarity. And for over sixty years, the United Nations and its mental health gurus have fought hard to eradicate those old “poisonous certainties” that stood in their way. They seem to be gaining ground!

Since Hitler outlawed homeschooling about 70 years ago, German parents have faced the harshest battles. Now other nations are catching up. Notice the government attitudes in the following examples:

“A critical hearing is scheduled in Germany in that nation’s war against homeschoolers to determine whether a family can continue to control the education of its high-performing son, 14… ‘One of the fundamental rights of parents is the right to educate their children according to the dictates of their own religious beliefs’.”30

That “fundamental right” is fast being replaced by government-defined “community” or “collective rights.” The fact that those homeschooled children have “extraordinary academic abilities” and are “socially competent” doesn’t matter. Today’s rising global system doesn’t want “competent” Christian leaders. Not in Sweden, not in America – not anywhere!

“A North Carolina judge has ordered three children to attend public schools this fall because the homeschooling their mother has provided over the last four years needs to be ‘challenged.’ The children, however, have tested above their grade levels – by as much as two years… The judge… explained his goal …to make sure they have a ‘more well-rounded education.’ …the judge also said public school would ‘prepare these kids for the real world and college’ and allow them ‘socialization’.”31

Such socialization tactics “worked well” in the Soviet Union. Based on the Marxist/Hegelian dialectic process, they include collective thinking, manipulative peer pressure, denial of absolutes, shameless “tolerance” for immorality, and irrational intolerance for contrary views.

The results can be disastrous. Students trained to scorn God’s guidelines and conform to the crowd are anything but free. Most are soon driven by evolving new notions that undermine all truth and certainty. Loosed from moral constraints, many are bound by their own lusts, obsessions, and (ultimately) despair.

A Model School for Future Leaders

Bill Clinton’s “Governor’s School” – one of many across America during the eighties – demonstrates the tragic results. For six weeks each summer, it isolated selected Arkansas high school students from the outside world and immersed them in liberal ideology, sensual literature, group dialogue, and mystical thrills – both real and imagined.32

“Students do me a favor,” urged author Ellen Gilchrist, a guest speaker at the school. “Totally ignore your parents. Listen to them, but then forget them. Because you need to start using your own stuff, your real stuff that you have.”33

Her aim was to free students from “obsolete” family values, not promote personal independence. They must reject the old ways and become “open-minded” – ready to accept the unthinkable practices that would bombard their minds.

By the time they left the Governor’s School, their utopian dreams seemed more real than the actual world. Like the planned results of Soviet brainwashing, they had been weaned from truth, facts and reality. With seared consciences, new ideals, and volatile emotions, they would now face the old world they had left behind only six weeks earlier.

The Marxist change agents behind this transformation are too numerous to list, but behavioral psychologist Kurt Lewin gives us a simple formula. Linked to infamous psychological research institutes in London (Tavistock) and Germany (Frankfurt Institute), Lewin moved to America when Hitler began his reign. His influence spread through MIT and other universities, then paved the way for “sensitivity training” and the formation of National Training Laboratories that would prepare transformational tactics and textbooks for public schools.

Lewin outlined his program with a 3-step formula:

• UNFREEZING minds: Questioning the old ways through facilitated dialogue, peer pressure, and group “experience” – real or imagined.

• MOVING the students to the new level: Using cognitive dissonance (mental, moral and emotional confusion), peer pressure, and manipulated consensus to loyalties from the old ways and to the new.

• FREEZING group minds on the new level: The new views become the norm. They feel good! The old views become offensive as well as wrong!34

For the students, the transition back to reality – to home, family and normal life – was painful. For some it was lethal.

“When I came back home, I sort of wrote a suicide note to myself,” confessed LeAndrew Crawford. “Not actually wanting to kill myself, but wanting to kill the reality of what society had been teaching me for so long… I was totally down, because my family just didn’t feel like my family… I didn’t want to be back.” [See footnote 33]

Brandon Hawk did kill himself within a year. Hearing about his death, other concerned parents contacted Brandon’s parents.

“They see the same thing in their kids that we saw in Brandon,” the father explained. “They just sort of walk off and leave the family.” [See footnote 33]

But Brandon wasn’t the only one who chose death rather than life. After the third suicide, the Joint Interim Education Committee of the Arkansas legislature held hearings that exposed some of the problems. Perhaps the most revealing testimony came from Brandon’s mother, who read from her son’s log. In his first entry, he wrote,

“‘Moms are the best people around, and my mom is the best mom on earth.’ But three weeks later, he wrote: ‘My mom is so closed minded I feel like we will have a standoff soon over issues.’ And his final entry stated: ‘After I came back from the [three day, July 4] break, my friends and I could tell that we had suddenly been transformed into free thinkers’.” [See footnote 33]

Another mother testified that, “My son came back from Governor’s School and his favorite line was ‘There are no absolutes; there are no absolutes.” [See footnote 33]

It didn’t take long to change the students’ minds and hearts, did it? Yet few teachers or parents are aware of this subversive agenda.

Back in 1982, Professor Benjamin Bloom, an internationally known behaviorist, defined “good teaching” as “challenging the students’ fixed beliefs and getting them to discuss issues.”35  (Sounds like Kurt Lewin, doesn’t it?) He added,

“The evidence collected thus far suggests that a single hour of classroom activity under certain conditions may bring about a major reorganization in cognitive as well as affective (attitudes, values and beliefs) behaviors.”36

The most revealing evidence that this scheme really “works” comes from those who participated in the Clinton’s Governor’s School. In light of today’s rapid changes, it makes sense to remember their testimonies as recorded in the documentary video titled The Guiding Hand:

1. ISOLATE STUDENTS FROM TRADITIONAL FAMILY VALUES

“For the six weeks … they are not allowed to go home except for July the Fourth. They are discouraged from calling home…. They can receive mail but they are encouraged to have as little contact with the outside world as possible.” (Shelvie Cole, Brandon’s mother)

“I felt that I needed not to talk about it. I don’t know why. Maybe because we were supposed to stay here and the fact that we couldn’t leave… No one… who had gone before would talk to me about it.” (Kelli Wood, former student)

The “effectiveness” of such mandatory separation may help explain why (1) educational change agents want to put 3-year-olds in pre-school programs and (2) why “Obama says American kids spend too little time in school.”37

2. REINFORCE NEW LIBERAL, ANTI-CHRISTIAN VALUES

“We watched movies like Harvey Milk. We learned about gay life – those things that your parents say, ‘This is wrong… You shouldn’t see this type of thing because, hey, that’s just not right…’“ (LeAndrew Crawford, former student)

“[The instructors] tear down their authority figure system and… help establish another one… They convince the students that ‘You are the elite. The reason why you’re not going to be understood when you go home – not by your parents, your friends, your pastor or anybody – is because you have been treated to thought that they can’t handle.’ …[This] intellectual and cultural elitism gives them the right… to say, ‘We know better than you’.” (Mark Lowery, former director for Governor’s School publicity)

3. EMPHASIZE FEELING-CENTERED (affective, not cognitive) TEACHING:

“Rather than learning what 2 and 2 equals, they would be asked what they feel about 2+2. Right now we have a move going on in our Arkansas schools called restructuring, where they are trying to get away from more objective, substantive learning into this subjective area of feelings.” (Mark Lowery)

“You would think that there would be some academic challenges… getting ready for college… The main textbook that I remember from there is a book called Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and the book is totally Hindu religion defined.” (Steve Roberts, former student)

4. SHAPE A PERSONAL, ALL-INCLUSIVE SPIRITUALITY:

“A lot of places… even Christian camps, you get that stress about ‘What am I doing wrong?’ …There it was like, hey, I can talk to God! Me and God are one, the world is one… Jump up and down, you know, just twirl around.  It was kind of like that Baha’i idea. How you have Islam, Baha’i, Muslim, Christianity… They’re all different kinds of trees, but underneath, its root system grows together [and] is the same god.” (Steven Allen, student)

5. INSTILL THE TARGET BELIEFS – A ‘NEW’ SOCIAL AND POLITICAL AGENDA:

The next quote fits Bill Clinton’s experience. He was selected as a potential future leader – a Rhodes scholar – worthy of the required indoctrination:

“I think the whole intent of the Governor’s School in taking 350 – 400 students per summer, is to pick out the four, five or six students that could be political leaders and then to mold their minds in this more liberal and humanistic thinking… [T]o be considered intellectual…you have to be a liberal thinker…” (Mark Lowery, former director)

“They’re bringing a political agenda in the guise of academic excellence… It was something that was well orchestrated, well organized, it was mind-bending and manipulative.” (Steve Roberts)

“Prominent themes promoted by this school include radical homosexuality, socialism, pacifism and a consistent hostility toward Western civilization and culture, especially Biblical foundations.” (Jeoffrey Botkin)

6. BUILD ALLEGIANCE TO THE NEW COMMUNITY:

“You could dress just about any way you want. We had almost naked people. It was real liberal… an awful lot of cursing.” (Mike Oonk, former student)

“The students… say, ‘This is the perfect place. I never want to go home.’ I caught myself saying that several times.” (Mike Oonk) [See footnote 33]

Indoctrinating students with diverse beliefs, socialist values, utopian dreams, and idealized love leads to deception, disillusionment, corruption and chaos. But that fits the battle plan for global transformation just fine. Today’s change agents need chaos and crisis to justify their oppressive action. Not only does it unravel the old social order, it gives an illusion of newfound freedom – from family values as well moral restrains.38

“It would be impossible for me to describe to you just how exciting and unusual this educational adventure is,” said Bill Clinton. [See footnote 33]

It wasn’t exciting for re-programmed students who returned home. But that problem may soon be resolved. Through “service-learning” and other long-term re-learning projects, today’s students can stay rooted in the new environment – even if they sleep at home.

This is where we are headed, dear friends! During this last year, three students at a top-rated high school in California committed suicide – one of the many consequences of today’s emotional confusion. One evening, as desperate parents met with school officials to seek solutions, a fourth student attempted suicide at the nearest railroad crossing. He was pulled off the track seconds before the train thundered down the track.39

Standing Firm in this Social and Spiritual War

The school offered no real solutions. But our God does! Please take these guidelines to heart:

• Pray! For as Jesus said, “…apart from Me you can do nothing.” (John 15:5)

• Prepare yourself. “Be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. Put on the whole Armor of God…” Eph. 6:10-11

• Equip your children to discern evil and resist compromise. “Do not be deceived…” 1 Cor.15:33

• Trust God, not yourself. “O our God… we have no power against this great multitude that is coming against us; nor do we know what to do, but our eyes are upon You.” 2 Chron. 20:12

• Inform and warn all who will listen. “I now send you, to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light…” Acts 26:17-18

“Thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord…” 1 Corinthians 15:57

“…do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” – Romans 12:2

Endnotes:
1 “Marriage and the Family,” The British Humanist Association, 1969. Cited by Dr. Dennis L. Cuddy, The Globalists
(Oklahoma City: Hearthstone Publishing, 2001), p.124.
2 Dr. Dennis L. Cuddy, The Globalists (Oklahoma City: Hearthstone Publishing, 2001), pp.133-134.
3 Our Creative Diversity, 1995, page 46. Note: I picked up this UNESCO publication in Istanbul during the 1996 UN
Conference on Human Settlements. It was a real eye-opener.
4 Mental Health and World Citizenship, pp.7-8. Distributed by the National Association For Mental Health, Inc.
5 “Student Told: ‘Leave Your Faith in the Car,” WorldNetDaily, 6-3-04.
6 “Dad Grounds Daughter, But Court Ungrounds Her,” WorldNetDaily, 06/18/2008.
7 “Quebec dad sued by daughter after grounding loses his appeal,” CBC News, online edition, April 7, 2009.
8 See, “UNESCO’s Declaration on the Role of Religion” at www.crossroad.to/Quotes/globalism/declaration-on-religion.htm
9 Philip Weiss, “Outcasts Digging in for the Apocalypse,” Time, 5-1-1995; p.48.
10 “Homeland Security on guard for ‘right-wing extremists’,” WorldNetDaily, 04/12/2009.
11 See, “The Enemy of the People” at www.crossroad.to/text/articles/teotp1196.html
12 Thomas Sowell, “Are You an Extremists?” www.TownHall.com, April 21, 2009.
13 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party, downloadable at www.marxists.org .
14 Dennis L. Cuddy., quoting John Dewey, “Impressions of Soviet Russia,” The New Republic, December 5, 1928, pp.65-66.
15 Cry Havoc by Ralph de Toledano, Reviewed by Nathanael Blake, Human Events, 5-15-2007.
16 See, “Marching toward Global Solidarity” at http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/006/solidarity-1.html
17 The Humanist Manifesto, 1933. http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto1.html
18 Bob Unruh, “Court orders Christian child into government education,” WorldNetDaily, 8-28-09.
19 Encyclopedia of Marxism at www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/r.htm
20 Karl Marx, “Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law,” cited in Encyclopedia of Marxism.
21 Encyclopedia of Marxism, www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/a/b.htm#absolute
22 “Service Learning Pedagogy,” University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, www4.uwm.edu/isl/faculty/pedagogy.htm
23 Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, Office of the Chancellor, Service Learning.
24 “University Removes Student Who Refuses to Affirm Homosexual Practices” at ReveLife.com, May 31, 2009.
25 Bob Unruh, “State could take custody of teen homeschooler,” WorldNetDaily, 8-29-2009.
26 Benjamin Bloom, A” Our Children Learning, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1981), p.180.
27 Joint Commission on Mental Health of Children. The unabridged report is no longer available, but the 1969 report is
summarized at Education Resources Information Center (eric.ed.gov).
28 For more on this, please see the Houston Chronicle, online edition, September 11, 2009.
29 Matthew Cullinan Hoffman, “United Nations Population Fund leader says family breakdown is a triumph for Human
Rights,” February 3, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com)
30 Bob Unruh, “State could take custody of teen homeschooler” WorldNetDaily, 08/28/2009.
31 For more, see Bob Unruh, “Judge Orders Homeschoolers into Public District classrooms,” WorldNetDaily, 03/11/2009.
32 From The Guiding Hand, a video produced by Geoffrey Botkin in 1992.
33 Ibid. Quoting Ellen Gilchrist, author of In the Land of Dreamy Dreams, quoted by a student.
34 Kurt Lewin, “Group Decision and Social Change” at www.crossroad.to/Quotes/brainwashing/kurt-lewin-change.htm
35 Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, The Classification of Educational Goals, Affective Goals ( McKay Publishers, 1956), p. 55.
36 Ibid., p.88.
37 “Obama would curtail summer vacation” at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090927/ap_on_re_us/us_more_school
38 See, “Paradigm Shift” at http://www.crossroad.to/charts/paradigm_shift.html
39 3rd Caltrain Teen Suicide Spurs Action” at http://cbs5.com/local/caltrain.teenager.suicide.2.1141695.html

Quotes on Education for Transformation

1. “I have suggested that the textbooks be rewritten in terms of right human relations and not from the present nationalistic and separative angles… To all of these I would like to add that one of our immediate educational objectives must be the elimination of the competitive spirit and the substitution of the cooperative consciousness.” – Alice Bailey [a leading occultist who influenced Robert Muller, founder of the United Nations World Core Curriculum], Education in the New Age (Lucis Trust), p.74.

2. “Educational institutions play an important part in most societies as agents of social control, cultural change, and, not least, social selection.” – A.H. Halsey, “Education and Social Selection,” Power and Ideology in Education (Oxford University Press, 1977), p.167.

3. “…since the world to-day is in process of becoming one, and since a major aim of UNESCO must be to help in the speedy and satisfactory realisation of this process, UNESCO must pay special attention to international education – to education as a function of a world society.” – Julian Huxley [first UNESCO Director-General], UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy (Public Affairs Press, 1947), pp.29-30.

4. “The task of education for the immediate future is to assist in activating an ethic of planetary sensitivity that will assist us in practicing disciplines that protect us from the allurements of our morbid commodity culture… We must pass from a human-centred to an earth-centred sense of reality and value.” – Budd Hall and Edmund Sullivan [Professors of Transformational Learning], “Transformative Education and Environmental Action in the Ecozoic Era,” Empowerment for Sustainable Development (International Institute for Sustainable Development, 1995), p.102.

5. “…global education must transcend material, scientific and intellectual achievements and reach deliberately into the moral and spiritual spheres.” – Dr. Robert Muller [former UN official and developer of the World Core Curriculum], New Genesis: Shaping a Global Spirituality (World Happiness and Cooperation, 1982), p.8.

6. “The principle of the oneness of humanity must be wholeheartedly embraced by those in whose hands the responsibility for decision making rests, and its related tenets – including the concept of world citizenship – must be propagated through both education systems and the media.” – Jaime Duhart [representative of the Baha’i International Community], Social Priorities of Civil Society: Speeches by Non-Governmental Organizations at the World Summit for Social Development (UN NGLS, 1996), p.2.

 

Carl Teichrib is the editor of Forcing Change (www.forcingchange.org), a monthly online publication detailing the changing worldview and transforming agendas now shaping society, the church, and nation.

FC is a monthly, online publication dedicated to documenting and analyzing the socio-religious transformations now sweeping our Western world.

Forcing Change is a membership subscription service, with an annual fee of $54.95 US. Membership in Forcing Change allows access to the full range of FC publications, including special reports, audio and media presentations, FC back issues, expert documents, and more. FC receives neither government funding nor the financial backing of any other institutions; rather, FC operates solely on subscription/membership support. To learn more about Forcing Change, including member benefits, go to www.forcingchange.org.

Note from Berit: May I suggest you subscribe to this great online magazine. This vital information will help us prepare for the  challenges we will be facing in the years ahead. 

Benefits of Forcing Change membership…

  • Access to every issue of Forcing Change, our fully documented monthly publication.
  • Membership-only admittance to a large assortment of source documents, including many rare items, all in downloadable PDF.
  • Access to specialized e-reports such as The Power Puzzle: A Compilation of Documents on Global Governance.
  • Direct access to media files, reading lists, audio features, and more!

Membership in Forcing Change allows access to the full range of FC publications, including e-reports, audio and media presentations, Forcing Change back issues, downloadable expert documents, and more. FC receives neither government funding nor the financial backing of any other institutions; rather, Forcing Change operates solely on subscription/membership support. To learn more about Forcing Change, including membership benefits, go to

www.forcingchange.org

Forcing Change, P.O. Box 31

Plumas, Manitoba, Canada, R0J-1P0

http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/forcing-change/12/8-education.htm

Article used by permission.