How many are aware of how ubiquitous, how promoted and how binding on national curricula is the UN World Core Curriculum? How many have seen the fine print of what it actually involves? How many know the real bios of the men and women behind it?
This post goes into it. It’s long, mainly because of the screenshots but is not an arduous read.
Robert Mueller, for 40 years was the UN guru [google him] and he received, in 1989, the UNESCO Peace Education Prize. He and others mentioned later were involved in the UNESCO led World Core Curriculum. He also drew up:
That last one was more than interesting because it smacks of the type of thing put forward by Gordon Davidson and Corrine McLaughlin, who set up the WSI in Washington, D.C. in 1995 and who were also instrumental in setting up the Valdez Principles, committing corporate America to the Gorean Eco principles now in vogue today. Kofi Annan was connected with them. Here is Mueller’s game, to:
Global citizenship, y-e-e-s-s-s:
Core curriculum, worldwide, for producing “global citizens”. You could easily miss it but one phrase is:
Most people would skip past this wording but occultists and Christians know full well that “well-becoming” is a core occult phrase for reaching godhood. What the hell is that doing in a pre-primary curriculum, let alone any child curriculum? The answer becomes apparent later.
As if that is not alarming enough itself, how about this:
Alice Bailey claimed to have had her ideas channelled to her by someone called The Tibetan, later called DK, known as Djwahl Kuhl whom any scholar knows is a variant of the devil. The point is – it is her philosophy which is underpinning Robert Mueller and it is Robert Mueller who is underpinning the WCC.
Bailey attempted suicide three times before the age of 15. She was married to an Episcopalean minister, broke with him, was channelled through the Theosophy Society and formed the Lucifer Trust, later to be renamed the Lucis Trust:
Now, many of you will know that the sun and moon symbols recur from Babylon through to the current day. If you look at the back of the base of the statue of liberty, there is a plaque dedicating it to Masonry and thereby to the Masonic view of the world which is occult and needn’t be gone into here. The sun symbols in key monuments and buildings around the world, plus the moon symbol, have nothing to do with the actual sun and moon but stem from the mystery religions.
Note also the muted blues and greens which characterize the logos of world organizations with bottomless budgets such as this. As you’d expect, the Lucis Trust is not only a registered NGO with the UN but was, until a few years ago, housed within the UN building but then operations moved to a new age church in New York.
And just what were Alice Bailey’s views which Mueller and UNESCO found so appealing?
Uh huh. We’re speaking here of Jesus of Nazareth, aren’t we?
No, I’m not getting religious here. She is and those whom she’s influenced, e.g. Robert Mueller and UNESCO. The one world motif appears again.
Inclusiveness. Let me see – haven’t we heard such talk of late? Inclusiveness? Diversity? Equality? And from our side, the charge of – Relativity? And what of you and I who refuse to go along with these PCist definitions, who believe that variety, separateness and real diversity of opinion are the summum bonum?
That’s right – we are to be “known for what we are”, we are the “little jerks” which Julia Middleton, of Common Purpose, called the man who didn’t go along with her plans. We are to be marginalized, ignored, bypassed and eventually suppressed.
One commenter on the Fuel Project, which posted the youtubes on Know Your Enemy, from where this material came, asked:
Will you be discussing the Alliance of Civilizations? The AoC seems to be integral to promoting the one-world, new age religion and the marginalization (and eventual persecution) of traditional Judeo-Christian worldview and religious practice.
Yes but he covered a hell of a lot more than that as well, as you’ll see further on. Bailey is lauded by the UN because she was interested in its establishment, as were her devotees:
“Needed receptive lines”, “planning”, “a world plan”? Y-e-e-s-s.
And permeating the ideas of these “informed men and women”, e.g. Julian Huxley, e.g. the Frankfurt School, is the occult. Reference is made to the:
2nd ray: seeing beyond differences
4th ray: harmony through conflict
“Harmony through conflict”. Two opposed views, funded by the money, leading to war and out of it come synthesis and harmony. Perpetual war.
These are not my notions, this is not my kookiness. I am the observer, the scribe, that is all. These people are the ones uttering this guff.
And there are others of the same mindset, the same aim. Dr. Brock Chisholm, former director of WHO, held these views of how things were to be:
Former director of the WHO, eh? Not some philosopher in a garret, not some never-heard-of. Someone at the heart of policy, global policy.
Gets right down to it, doesn’t he? The major obstacle to this Plan is the knowledge of right and wrong, of what should be and what should never be. People with this sense of right and wrong can never be squeezed into a “world view”. Such people are square pegs in round holes, such people are a nuisance. Such people are expendable.
Surely I’m being fanciful here? Surely these Planners have no intention of eliminating opposition?
“Crippling burden of good and evil” – spoken by the head of the World Health Organization, in his capacity as head. There must be no concepts of good and evil in anyone’s heads – only relativism. And how better to ensure this? Through education, of course, through a World Core Curriculum.
Surely these are good men though, men of the highest moral fibre? Let’s look at one of them:
He was a high Mason and member of Skull & Bones who wrote the UNESCO constitution.
Julian Huxley’s Frankfurt School has had enough detractors not to have to go into that school in more than three paragraphs here. This covers some of it:
Lord Bertrand Russell joined with the Frankfurt School in their effort at mass social engineering and spilled the beans in his 1951 book, The Impact of Science on Society. He wrote: ‘Physiology and psychology afford fields for scientific technique which still await development.’ The importance of mass psychology ‘has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called ‘education. The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at.
First, that the influence of home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. But I anticipate. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark gray . When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.”
Writing in 1992 in Fidelio Magazine, [The Frankfurt School and Political Correctness] Michael Minnicino observed how the heirs of Marcuse and Adorno now completely dominate the universities, ‘teaching their own students to replace reason with ‘Politically Correct’ ritual exercises. There are very few theoretical books on arts, letters, or language published today in the United States or Europe which do not openly acknowledge their debt to the Frankfurt School. The witchhunt on today’s campuses is merely the implementation of Marcuse’s concept of ‘repressive toleration’-‘tolerance for movements from the left, but intolerance for movements from the right’-enforced by the students of the Frankfurt School’.
Huxley’s private life resembled that of Aleister Crowley and yet he was held up as a sufficiently august figure to hold a prominent position with the UN. Under Huxley, the UN produced “A Handbook for Teachers”, which was prefaced with:
Again, this is not stating what they’d ideally like but what their plan, which they were already implementing, involved:
Fairly unequivocal, yes?
On the opening page of the UNESCO handbook, it says:
They’re having a go at parents and calling parents’ influence over their own children “injurious”, by definition.
Page 58 says:
“Infects the child with extreme nationalism”? G-d, Queen and country is an “infection”? The handbook encourages children to question their parents’ teaching and to challenge their assumptions.
On p8, it says:
Aiding in this getting of women away from their children are:
1. The necessity for both parents to work, due to financial considerations [costs and debt];
2. the feminist indoctrination of women to see careerism as a higher priority than motherhood;
3. the single mother in work syndrome.
Waiting to receive the children are approved creches and schools conforming to the national curriculum, which conforms to EU guidelines, which conform to UNESCO recommendations.
[There is no time here to look at the war being waged against masculinity and the presentation of other roles for men, other than being men.]
It is now illegal, in Germany, to homeschool children. In March 2011:
Just why they wished their children withdrawn, aside from prudery, becomes apparent further down here.
October 18th, 2009 and it was in the UK:
… on BBC4 Sunday, said that some evangelical parents may need monitoring by the State because they might intimidate their children with ideas about G-d, sin and hell. She was playing, of course, on the extreme aspects played up by the media and glossed over parents withdrawing children from sex education lessons because they wish to handle it in their own way and for other reasons [below].
Johnson went on to suggest that she wanted State officials to be able to interview homeschooled children without their parents being present. The government, in a short space of time, revised the homeschooling legislation three times, as too many were slipping through loopholes.
So it’s right here amongst us now. Are these the actions of a free nation? Is the State right to suppress those who believe the wrong things and speak the wrong things, according to the State and its supporters?
In the U.S.:
The judge held that the girl’s Christian views were “too sincerely held” and needed to be “mixed among other world views”. And what views did the parents object to?
To the UNESCO undersigned SIECUS agreement, which stated:
That’s what those parents wanted their children withdrawn from. And was this some bizarre one-off? Back in the UK:
The whole thrust of the PCism, the curriculum, inclusiveness, diversity and so on and so on has been the synthesis of all ideas into one, State approved idea in each area of human activity.
By definition, truth is exclusive, not inclusive. If I say the sky is blue, I mean it is not green or yellow. If you say to me that I am discriminating, then you are denying a truism, in the cause of all-inclusiveness, all must have prizes. Yes, I am discriminating, in the sense that I choose to drink water, not petrol. I won’t have a bar of petrol in my stomach.
The Stat is right behind the PCist on this and behind our State is the EU and behind them, the UN and behind them, the Baileys and Huxleys of the world.
And what happens to those who know certain things are right and wrong?
They are to be suppressed, marginalized, mocked as anachronistic and hatemongers. They are eventually to be rounded up as troublemakers and not many will cry foul over that. Most will want these troublemakers to just go away.
That’s where we’re heading. How many know about all this going on?