We Are Information-age Serfs Ruled Over by a Global Elite, Our Minds Enslaved to Celebrating Diversity, Embracing Tolerance, and Worshipping Mother Earth

In anticipation of Earth Day 2011, The Goddard School in Urbana, Maryland (educating children from the ages of 6 weeks to 5 years) joined World Wildlife Fund’s Earth Hour 2011 with nearly 400 Goddard Schools nationwide to help spread the message of working together to make a positive impact toward a sustainable future. Children designed invitations asking parents and neighbors to join them in Earth Hour, decorated a banner with only recycled materials to present to Maryland Sen. Ron Young, and paraded wearing outfits created out of recycled materials. “We are proud to incorporate this in school so children will go home and do it with their families,” said the school's director Traci Keyes. “As time goes on, we create more pollutants in the air. Our Earth is fragile, so this is an opportunity to teach students how we can keep the environment clean for future generations by throwing our trash away,” said John Pelicano, co-owner of the school. Since its inception, Earth Hour has become a global initiative with over 1 billion people in 4,100 cities, 87 countries and seven continents participating by turning off their electricity for an hour. “Children are like little sponges. They will take what they learn with them as they grow older,” said Keyes. - Urbana Preschoolers ‘Step Up’ for Environment, The Town Courier, March 30, 2011

The modern division of labor consists of a ruling class (top 1%) that control about 40% of all financial assets, a managerial class ( the top 2%-10%) who control about 35% of all assets, with the other 90% of the working masses dividing up the 25% that’s left. The pyramid is organized by a complex and highly specialized division of labor, state-run education, massive corporations, government bureaucracy, the judiciary, intelligence organizations, mediatic propaganda machines and mainstream religion. Those rare few that actually wake up and see the zombie world are quickly diagnosed by the DSM-5 and given anti-depressants. There are two things everyone wants all the time, and one of them is money. Control of the money is the magic wand that rules the world. All the other religious, patriotic and historical paraphernalia are directly related to allowing the 1% to control the creation of money. Take that away, and they are nothing but media hacks. The current era which began with the creation of the Federal Reserve and the involvement of the United States in WWI is coming to an end. The great mistake most “awake” people make is believing redemption is at hand while underestimating the ruling class. The masters of propaganda and finance and are much more in control then they will ever reveal through their own channels. Their imaginations are immense and their capacity to orchestrate drama has no limits. They are the voice of reason while the dissenters are “diagnosed” with a collection of ailments that quickly marginalize them. - Robert Bonomo, What QE3 Will Look Like, Activist Post, August 12, 2011

FedEd: Education for Global Government

FedEd: The New Federal Curriculum and How It’s Enforced. St. Paul, MN: Maple River Education Coalition, 2002. Pp. 153.

By Steven Yates, LewRockwell.com
February 22, 2003

Suppose your aim is to obtain power over an entire society. You’ve decided that violent revolution is not the way to go. It’s disruptive, and if history is any guide, you might get your own nose bloodied a time or two. What do you do? This question has been asked — and answered — more than once.

The Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci’s answer — undertaking a "long march through the institutions" to infiltrate and "capture the culture" by stealth — is perhaps the best known. Gramsci wasn’t the first to come up with this idea, though. An earlier version already existed. It involved capturing the minds of the young. Moreover, if the job of transmitting a civilization’s aggregate knowledge and cultural heritage is entrusted to a single network of institutions, then so much the better.

We’ve had such a network for well over a hundred years. It’s called the public education system. We have Horace Mann and his Harvard Unitarians to thank for doing more than anyone else to get it started back in the 1840s. Mann studied the "Prussian model" in Europe and returned home to found the first such schools in this country. This model involves the state raising children to meet the needs of the state. This model gave us the word kindergarten, the product of an analogy between raising children (kinder) and growing vegetables in a garden (garten).

I’ve long considered the phrase public education a misnomer. It implies an institution that serves the public. It has been quite a while since government schools served the public, however. The slow decline in their capacity to educate since embracing Deweyan "progressive education" early in the last century is so well documented I need not repeat it here. Nor need I discuss more recent fads like OBE.

But in the 1990s we went from the frying pan into the fire. As literacy levels plummeted to embarrassing lows, the feds began the largest power grab over education in U.S. history — in a move intended to pull in private schools and home schooling parents as well, eventually. At this point we come to the latest attempt to expose what the feds are doing to American children and why: Professor Allen Quist’s FedEd: The New Federal Curriculum and How It’s Enforced. Quist is imminently qualified to write it.

An author and political scientist who also has a divinity degree, he was in the Minnesota House of Representatives in the 1980s, where he served on the House Education Committee and was influential in legalizing home schooling in that state. He has been involved with school boards. He currently teaches political science at Bethany Lutheran College in Mankato, Minnesota.

FedEd is a slim volume packs a colossal wallop. If there were any remaining doubts how much of the decline of government schools can be explained in terms of stealth social engineering, Quist’s study should lay them to rest.

In certain respects, FedEd picks up where Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt’s the deliberate dumbing down of america leaves off. Her account was historical, going back over a hundred years, and literally overwhelms you with original documentation. Quist’s book is a much shorter and more succinct account of where we are now. Unlike Iserbyt’s encyclopedic tome it can be read in one or two sittings. Quist lays out the reasons for the anti-academic and anti-cognitive biases in government schools that are producing graduates who cannot walk up to a map of the world and find the United States — much less grasp our founding principles.

In a sense, given their aims, government schools have to be regarded as spectacular successes rather than dismal failures. The evidence all points in a single direction: their intent has been to dumb down the citizenry of this country and produce a "new serfdom" — a global workforce totally subservient to the needs of omnipotent world government and its internationalist corporate partners.

In 1994 alone, this effort received three major boosts, in the form of the Goals 2000 Educate America Act, the School-To-Work Opportunities Act (STW), and a bill known simply as HR6, a funding appropriations bill for most federal education programs. Bill Clinton signed all three. (More recently, of course, George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which we are led to believe superceded STW.)

Taken together, these bills hand control over curricular content to federal educrats, resulting in the New Federal Curriculum: FedEd, for short. Quist identifies seven themes running through FedEd (p. 43, p. 100, pp. 131-32, etc.):

1. Undermining national sovereignty (moving us toward world government under the auspices of the United Nations).
2. Redefining natural rights (substituting for the American view a Marxist and internationalist view justifying massive redistribution of wealth).
3. Minimizing natural law (essentially by neglect).
4. Promoting environmentalism (emphasizing the global nature of environmental issues, including promoting the pagan pseudo-religion of Gaia, Mother Earth).
5. Requiring multiculturalism (including acceptance of homosexuality).
6. Restructuring government (toward the idea that we live in a "global village," defining citizenship in global terms).
7. Redefining education as job skills (preparing "human resources" for the global workforce).

He names names and organizations (p. 13). Some will be quite familiar; others have been operating behind the scenes for years:

1. The Clintons, obviously. ("It takes a village," remember?)
2. Marc Tucker, Director of the National Center for Education and the Economy, author of a certain letter addressed to Hillary Clinton you may read here.
3. Lauren Resnick, Co-director of the New Standards Project.
4. Charles Quigley, Director of the Center for Civic Education (CCE). (No relation to Carroll Quigley I know of.)
5. Margaret Stimmon Branson, Associate Director of the CCE.
6. Shirley McCune, a federal education researcher.

Others deeply involved in this broad based effort include the National Education Association and, of course, numerous multiculturalist and environmentalist groups who stand to extend their own turf.

The overriding purpose, however, is a world in which the majority of people are Information Age serfs ruled over by a global elite, their minds enslaved to such notions as celebrating diversity, embracing tolerance, and worshipping Mother Earth. They will know how to "multitask," but will have no grasp of economics or Constitutional principles, any significant knowledge or their historical origins or even much knowledge of basic math (they will have calculators, after all).

One of the most pertinent prior developments was the UN’s World Declaration on Education for All (1990). The idea sounds good. It involves weighty phrases like "world class standards" (p. 91). But in practice, it threatens to impose an educational agenda that, once in place, would be enforced at an international level by a global government — the chief long-term goal of FedEd’s masterminds.

None of this is possible, of course, with a citizenry that knows something of its roots. It is not compatible with a political philosophy that limits government to a few carefully defined functions, and who see rights as anteceding government instead of created by it.

An agenda such as FedEd would not be possible among those who understand enough economics and enough history to know that open-ended, market-based economies tend to deliver prosperity while micromanaged, command-driven systems eventually deliver poverty and de facto slavery (it may just take a while).

There are still too many educated citizens around for central planners to operate openly. Their agenda would not "play in Peoria," even today. Hence the stealth measures aimed at obtaining entry into the minds of small children. The guiding theme behind FedEd is a certain philosophy of education. It might be called statist-vocationalism.

The purpose of education, according to this philosophy, is not to graduate citizens who can think independently of the group or of authority, are suited for entrepreneurship and peaceful trade with their neighbors, are informed, and can participate responsibly in a Constitutional republic. It is rather to produce subjects who will be cognitively dependent: on government, on an employer, and on groupthink — a socialized mass, that is.

According to the American tradition, education aims to give individuals knowledge and tools to find their own ways of flourishing in the world. According to FedEd, in accordance with the basic thrust of its Prussian ancestor, education is subordinate to the purposes of the state and business in "public-private partnerships" or other arrangements, to raise a population fit for life and work in the global-socialist new world order in the making.

Above we listed seven themes Quist identifies running through the New Federal Curriculum. The word theme is very important. In the New World Edubabble, a theme is not an academic subject. Traditional academic subjects such as mathematics, literature, history, geography and so on, emphasized content. Themes emphasize attitudes, values and beliefs in what educrats call the affective domain (cf. p. 42). They aim not at communicating information and real cognitive skills but inculcating the right attitudes and values. They aim, where necessary, at changing students’ minds — indoctrinating, in other words, instead of educating. Cognitive content is subordinate to this purpose. Quist provides a revealing example, penned by Shirley McCune:

All learning begins with the affective [attitudes and values]. A major task of education is to extend the worldview of the child; this should include a view of careers, of the community, our nation and our global community (quoted on p. 25; emphases Quist’s).

So in teaching the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (for example), the New Federal Curriculum does not offer a comprehensive account of what the documents say. Rather it carefully selects, emphasizing what serves FedEd’s goals and ignoring what doesn’t.

For example, National Standards for Civics and Government, one of the key texts of FedEd, makes 81 references to the First Amendment but none to the Second Amendment. This is unsurprising; the goal, after all, is not merely dumbed down subjects but disarmed ones as well, a people encouraged to fear guns.

This part of the agenda already has the full cooperation of national media that consistently portray guns as evil and dangerous, and gun owners and their defenders as backward rednecks or potentially violent extremists. The Tenth Amendment also disappears. It would suggest to thoughtful readers that the entire federal-educratic edifice is unconstitutional. Out of sight, out of mind.

In providing a framework for "civic education" FedEd presents the following "fundamental values": (1) the public good, (2) individual rights, (3) justice, (4) equality, (5) diversity, (6) truth and (7) patriotism. One may note that some of these are not compatible with others unless they are radically redefined. But debasing the language is part of FedEd’s indoctrination process; by using familiar terms in new ways it can change students’ attitudes while seeming to be educating them.

Quist outlines how FedEd substitutes a collectivist and internationalist conception of rights, the one drawn from the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for the one we inherited from the classical liberal tradition and incorporated into our Declaration of Independence (see pp. 56-59).

For any concept of individual rights with teeth in it is going to undermine equality, for example, understood here not as equality under the law but equality of condition. Truth and patriotism, finally, are redefined. Truth means consensus (in accordance with the postmodernist idea that truth is a "social construct," not correspondence to reality — cf. p. 80); patriotism is unconditional loyalty to government and its agents, not to a set of ideals government is expected to live up to. Indeed, as we have said, the indoctrination process sets out to prepare students for a global workforce in an emerging world government.

Thus Quist can mine out of National Standards this discussion of sovereignty:

The world is divided into nation-states that claim sovereignty over a defined territory and jurisdiction over everyone within it (quoted on p. 47).

He then undertakes some very good linguistic analysis (the sort of thing professional analytic philosophers ought to be doing but aren’t). Note the phrase divided into, tacitly implying that a unified world is, or should be, the primary political unit with nations as secondary units. Wouldn’t a more accurate wording be, "The world consists of nation-states … " And do these nation-states merely claim sovereignty? If so, from whom? This way of putting the matter drops the subtle implication that the claim is not really legitimate — or at best, that its legitimacy is conditional on the approval of a transnational power left unidentified. How about: "The world consists of sovereign nation-states." That would be a neutral, non-agenda-driven account of the true state of affairs.

Quist observes that the wording in official documents driving the New Federal Curriculum is chosen with great care, to achieve very specific effects on students when repeated throughout their "educations" from early childhood into their impressionable teen years.

Internationalism, likewise, is consistently viewed not just as desirable but inevitable:

… the issues confronting American citizens are increasingly international [textbook’s emphasis]. Issues of economic competition, the environment, and the movement of peoples around the world require an awareness of political associations that are larger than the nation state [emphasis added … ] (quoted on p. 94).

The international organization the author has in mind, of course, is the UN or some successor organization. Some readers might wonder at this point, "Isn’t business going global?" or "Isn’t there a great deal of movement across national borders, including ours?" Fair enough, but much of this activity — whether of business or of populations — is spurred on by internationalist organizations who see it as a means of engendering control, particularly over cultures such as that of Western born whites with strong traditions of freedom and individualism.

For world government to work, such peoples must be diluted and their influence nullified, so that a new generation, fully accepting of "diversity" and focused on global issues, thinks of citizenship in global, not in local, regional or national terms. A major FedEd text, We the People: the Citizen and the Constitution, invites students to consider the question, "Do you think world citizenship will be possible in your lifetime?" World citizenship makes little sense without world government.

Thus the multiculturalism and environmentalism that permeate FedEd. Let’s consider both briefly. National Standards makes 42 references to multiculturalism / diversity (p. 46) and 17 to the environment. Multiculturalism has become (part of) the official ideology of this country’s dominant intellectual class, which includes its educratic class. Now multicultural education in the sense of education about other cultures could be a legitimate goal wherever members of different cultures find themselves coming into contact, and this has been going on spontaneously for centuries. But multicultural education in this sense is not the goal of the multiculturalism evidenced in FedEd. Multiculturalism portrays a single culture, that of straight white Western males and their Christian and "bourgeois" values, in as hostile a light as possible (pp. 77-78).

Likewise with environmentalism. Quist emphasizes that he is not opposed to teaching students about environmental issues (p. 65). However, he does question the brand of environmentalism incorporated into FedEd. He observes (p. 66) that this brand of environmentalism:

1. is exaggerated in comparison with other concerns;
   
2. includes identifiable religious content, not just respecting but actually worshipping Mother Earth, sometimes called Gaia in the literature of radical "deep ecology"; and
   
3. as part of the larger agenda of consolidating power and centralized economic planning, with the aim of eventually bringing all political and economic activity under the one central authority.
   

It should be noted that the global environmentalist movement is far better funded by a wide array of enormously wealthy tax-exempt foundations than most Americans realize. It has become powerful enough to have generated its own "scientific" orthodoxy, so that visible dissident scientists face efforts to destroy their reputations — as Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, recently discovered.

Among the chief goals of FedEd is to turn out "global villagers." A major tool here is the reinterpretation of education as job skills. Now it is true that we are heirs of a national mythology holding that everyone should go to college. We should get over whatever disdain exists for people who work with their hands. But again, these are not the goals of FedEd. Its goals would impose a purely vocational model on children, with vocational choices imparted via "career clusters" as early as eighth grade. This is long before many children are ready to make a serious vocational choice. (Readers, did you know what you wanted to be when you grew up when you were in the eighth grade? If I remember right, I wanted to be an astronaut!) And by the way, people who work with their hands are more than capable of understanding when agents of government are stepping on their Constitutional rights — if they are taught Constitutional government in the eighth grade!

This effort, involving stealthy devaluation of the autonomous individual, has been underway for some time. It is reflected in such apparently innocent changes in terminology such as from personnel to human resources (cf. p. 98). The former, to my ears anyway, implies autonomous persons applying for work, being hired, paid, etc. The latter suggests, again to my ears, the comparability of human beings to inanimate natural resources such as land, water, oil and so on.

Persons have autonomy and rights — are ends in themselves. Resources are objects to be manipulated — are means to the ends of those in power. This essentially how FedEd looks at students (future members of the global workforce) — hearkening back to the Prussian model and its growing children as if in a garden. It is likely not coincidental that during the 1990s we also saw abominations such as NAFTA, which has destroyed much of our manufacturing base, and that unchecked immigration ran out of control, not just eroding national borders but ensuring a steady supply of low-wage workers who, not assimilating, will also remain unfamiliar with Constitutional principles.

We should say a word about the view of business implicit in FedEd. Many so-called education reforms are promoted as "good for business," and this is often enough to gain the support of business and business organizations such as the local branch of the Chamber of Commerce. FedEd paints a rosy picture of "reformed" public schools turning out loyal, technology-savvy and business-savvy employees. Businesspeople cannot necessarily be faulted for failing to see through the smokescreen of deceptive language — although an inability to find employees who can read and understand instruction manuals should clue them in that something is wrong.

A key is the phrase public-private partnership that has been seen more and more often during the past decade. This means close ties between government and business. What results is not capitalism but corporatism — in which corporations and government cooperate both to discourage the open competition characteristic of genuine capitalism in favor of policy that is established and administered jointly, with each side doing favors with the other (e.g., "tax incentives" for business; support going to certain candidates for political office from business).

This method is clearly a species of central planning. It may be used to establish what kinds of vocations and jobs are desirable and available in a given region — to the point of laying out actual job descriptions (sometimes doing it badly — cf. pp 86-89). "Education" then sets out to train students for these specific vocations and jobs.

On the surface, corporatism sounds very pro-business, and no doubt there are established business leaders who like it very much. But its overall view of society is statist and collectivist — and, of course, authoritarian. The New Federal Curriculum sets out to indoctrinate and train individuals to meet the needs of the state and its corporate partners.

At one time, this kind of system was known as fascism. Both Nazis and Communists employed purely vocational models of education, so that students would learn what they needed to serve the state, and no more. Excessive intellectual curiosity was discouraged. It wasted time and resources (and might lead to students asking too many of the wrong kinds of questions). FedEd takes this model and modifies it for the new world order being quietly constructed, with each successive UN confab laying new girders onto the scaffolding.

How is all this to be enforced? Aside from the fact that much of the public does not even know about it, the first thing to note is that the New Federal Curriculum is, for all practical purposes, federal law. It is perfect for an educational environment where money is tight, with state education departments and local school districts having grown dependent on federal dollars.

Thus even though the exact wording of bills like Goals 2000 described them as "voluntary," in the postmodernist-Orwellian universe of FedEd where nothing means what it says, and where HR 6 stipulates that the U.S. Department of education can simply withhold federal money from any state not signing on to the new program (pp. 92-93), states won’t choose autonomy.

Surprise, surprise; "voluntary" or not, all 50 states eventually signed on. After all, school districts were already dependent on federal money, and every federal dollar comes with strings attached. They had no choice except to introduce the official textbooks of FedEd, such as the above-mentioned We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution. Despite the title, this text portrays the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights as superior to the U.S. Constitution.

Another means of enforcement is through gaining control of early childhood education, including infant education. It is interesting to compare such statements with one of the slogans thrown around back in the 1990s, associated with both Goals 2000 and STW: "All children will begin school ready to learn." Ready to learn how, by what means, and in what respect?

What this statement is really promoting is not families’ beginning educating very small children but rather "arrangements involving families, communities, or institutional programmes, as appropriate…" (quoted on p. 107). A logical mind will want to know: what kinds of arrangements, what kinds of "programmes," and who decides what is "appropriate"? But if there is anything FedEd is not about, it is logic.

The phrase again comes from the UN; it is part of the 1990 World Declaration on Education For All. It is more about attempting to instill affective loyalty to such ideas as multiculturalism and universal tolerance, including for homosexuality, into children before they can grasp them cognitively.

It has long been known that a great deal of cognitive development occurs in the first few years of a child’s life; hence the enormous effort to gain control of early childhood education and even care of newborn infants. Groups of children so "educated" will be vulnerable to the rewriting of history already underway (pp. 115-21).

FedEd takes a dim view of the teaching of history either as an ordered collection of events or facts but focuses on "perspectives and values." This kind of rewriting ultimately allows for the enormous oversimplification of events that make it possible to inculcate into students, e.g., the idea that the War Between the States was exclusively about slavery or that phrases such as states’ rights — although implied in the vanquished Tenth Amendment — are code words for racism and bigotry. Such students, educated this way practically from infancy, might even embrace the new world order, never having been exposed to anything else.

Perhaps the most significant method of enforcement, however, is requiring standardized tests that reflect the preoccupations and values of FedEd. Students who for whatever reason have not adopted the desired attitudes will simply not do well on the test. One such test is the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP): referred to euphemistically in educratic circles as "the nation’s report card" (p. 123).

The most recent federal education funding bill, HR1, passed just last year, requires that all fifty states administer this test. This will lead to the redesigning of earlier tests such as the SAT. Quist reports on the focus of the NAEP: key terms relating to environmentalism: 14. Terms relating to multiculturalism: 18. Terms related to vocationalism: 39. Terms involving geography: 0. Terms involving history (apart from the history of government-designated victim groups): 0. Terms referring to national sovereignty, natural law or natural rights: 0.

Through such means as the NAEP, FedEd proposes to pull private schools and home schooling parents under its umbrella of control. Its rules speak of all students, not just students in government schools.

It has been known for some time that home schooled children are usually years ahead of their government-schooled counterparts. Reliance on such tests as the NAEP could create an illusion that home schooling doesn’t work after all, because home schooled students will not have adopted the "attitudes and values" necessary to do well on such a test. The test, meanwhile, will have become necessary for admission to a good college or university or finding good employment.

Let’s make no mistake about it: FedEd endangers the largest and most successful independent educational movement in the country of the past few years!

What should we do? The first step, obviously, is to become aware of the problem. Authors such as Quist and organizations such as the Maple River Education Coalition (MREC) are doing their part. We now have at our disposal extensive arguments that although the idea wasn’t new, of course, the legal scaffolding necessary for integrating the American federal government into a world government advanced rapidly during the 1990s under Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton’s watch, although in fairness, the two Bushes are hardly free of the globalist temptation.

During the past decade, "partnerships" arose aplenty and fostered large-scale interdependence — we even saw the appearance of a (UN-sponsored) Declaration of Interdependence! The relationships are triangular: from the federal government to the educratic elites to corporations (MREC has a very good diagram on their home page). Corporations have fallen hook, line and sinker for such movements as diversity engineering. In accordance with the multiculturalism that has swept the nation, they have begun offering job benefits packages that include homosexual partners, something almost unheard of before the Clinton era.

Those who believe they can escape this problem merely by sending their children to private schools or home schooling them need to see that this is not the case. FedEd sports an introduction by Phyllis Schafly, who unfortunately came out in favor of vouchers. In fact, schools accepting vouchered students will be easily pulled in.

I’ve argued elsewhere that vouchers are a bad idea: a Trojan horse rendering private schools vulnerable to control by those holding the purse strings. State governments may dole out vouchers that seem to give choice to parents, but participating schools must follow "voluntary" federal guidelines or they don’t get the money.

I’ll say it again (maybe those pro-voucher libertarians who launched superficial criticisms of my initial article on the subject or sent me angry email last year will get the point this time): every federal dollar comes with strings attached.

Once we are aware of the problem and recognize that movements like vouchers offer only traps for the unwary, what is the next step? Allen Quist raises this query in his concluding chapter:

What if ten percent of the public knew what was happening and were committed to rescuing our nation? Would that be enough to turn around this attack against our nation? It would be more than enough. It takes less than ten percent to decide most elections. Most lawmakers will do whatever a committed ten percent wants them to do, especially when the other 90 percent doesn’t know and / or doesn’t care (pp. 136-37).

This challenge to launch a nationwide movement aimed at taking back the entire educational system is worth thinking about. Real leadership in a society does come from an often unheralded but dedicated minority. It might be up to this "remnant" to save education and, in so doing, save this civilization if it still can be saved. If they act in time, and it is not already too late!

It is worthwhile, however, for this "remnant" to be aware of what it will confront. Its resources will invariably be limited. Many educational fads that paved the way for FedEd came about through the ongoing support of huge tax-exempt organizations such as the Rockefeller Foundation or Carnegie Corporation. There is no Rockefeller Foundation or Carnegie Corporation bankrolling any movement to free education from federal dominance.

Most works such as Quist’s are published and distributed by small, private publishers operating on shoestring budgets, as are many private schools. Home schooling parents sometimes have to sacrifice mightily to make the effort work. It is clear that the major media solidly back government involvement in education as "good for business." Moreover, the "facilitators" are often extremely well trained in such methods for achieving an appearance of public consensus as the Delphi Technique, and even though the fact that such methods are used is better known that it used to be, parent groups who lack the training will be at a disadvantage.

It is unlikely, finally, that a movement to "take back the schools" will even be reported (except on the Internet, of course) — or, if it is, will be relegated to Sunday supplements and late night talk shows as a "fringe" movement. All this is part of the price paid by those who have chosen to resist an increasingly dominant paradigm, which in our case is now one of centralization, economic micromanagement and political correctness (and secular materialism). Thus it is unlikely that the "remnant" will have the resources available to those doing the bidding of the educrats.

My fear, therefore, is that going to the voting booths will not be sufficient — candidates who would turn back the tide of federal control will invariably find their resources drying up while money, including corporate dollars, flows into the coffers of those who promise cooperation. The bottom line, here, is the longstanding inability of so many people, including many in business as well as education, to refuse easy money.

Another solution worth considering is for the "remnant" to abandon this system and embrace parallel institutions — working toward financial independence for as many such institutions as possible as quickly as possible. Paul Weyrich used this term a few years ago in his call to Christians in particular to secede from the dominant culture, in the wake of the failure of Republicans to remove Bill Clinton from office for lying under oath and obstructing justice following the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

He recommended building up new institutions and eventually a whole new infrastructure, existing alongside (parallel to) the dominant one but independent of it: culturally, educationally, economically. No parallel institution would take federal money under any circumstances. Its entanglements with the feds would be kept to an absolute minimum. These would be its primary distinguishing characteristics.

Weyrich did not recommend a ceasefire in the culture war. That is not a live option, because if movements such as FedEd are not publicly opposed those behind them will eventually be strong enough to come after anyone seen as a threat.

Total separation, that is, is neither possible nor desirable. This means allocating "remnant" resources on two different fronts: building up parallel institutions, and exposing the motivations of those behind the dominant ones. The first will preserve and transmit our heritage of limited government, study markets and outline reasons for the success of market-based systems as well as why command-driven ones fail, and preserve academically-focused education in addition to vocational training of the sort that leads individuals into entrepreneurial career paths. Education conceived this way will provide the perfect backdrop for exposes such as Quist’s.

We all need to be entrepreneurs, whether of ideas, educational programs or in other arenas if we are to survive — because although he doesn’t raise the issue openly, Quist’s document leaves little doubt that making it as difficult as possible for dissidents to earn a living legally in the world empire to come is an unstated consequence — and possibly a goal — of global-village ideology.

In the meantime, both I and others have argued extensively for getting one’s children out of government schools as fast as possible — whether in favor of private schools or home schooling — while joining organizations of others doing the same and preparing for what could be a nasty donnybrook somewhere down the road. Evangelical Christians have long taken the lead here, although there is nothing stopping non-Christians who sense the danger from getting involved.

The information in FedEd makes action imperative. If no one acts, we shall shortly see the emergence into adulthood of an "STW generation" or that can "multitask" and respects "diversity" but has no knowledge of its Constitutional heritage — and sees nothing inherently wrong with world government.

Copies of Allen Quist’s FedEd: The New Federal Curriculum and How It’s Enforced can be ordered from the Maple River Education Coalition, 1402 Concordia Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55104.

Steven Yates [send him mail] has a PhD in philosophy and is a Margaret "Peg" Rowley Fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author of Civil Wrongs: What Went Wrong With Affirmative Action (ICS Press, 1994), and numerous articles and reviews. His new book In Defense of Logic will be completed shortly. He is beginning work on a new book to be entitled The Twilight of Materialism, and is also at work on a sci-fi novel tentatively entitled Skywatcher’s World.

Transforming Humanity into a Global Interdependent Sustainable Society

In today's global environment, social studies educators have the opportunity to expand their students’ vision of the role of citizenship in developing a democratic understanding by adopting multiple perspectives on citizenship. Global citizenship education is becoming an important component in citizenship education in many countries. However, unlike their colleagues in Europe or Asia, US teachers are still less enthusiastic about incorporating global citizenship perspectives into their instruction. This paper describes the obstacles that prevent social studies teachers from using global citizenship perspectives. It also explores whether state academic standards in social studies provide sufficient curricular guidance for global citizenship education. - Anatoli Rapoport, A Forgotten Concept: Global Citizenship Education and State Social Studies Standards, Purdue University, Spring 2009

Teaching students to see themselves as global citizens is perceived as essential by 64 percent of private school teachers, but only by 54 percent of public school teachers. One of the most striking findings from this study is that private schools may actually be better than public schools at fostering citizenship and civic virtues. Sixty seven percent of private school teachers believe developing habits of community service is essential compared to 43 percent of public school teachers. Also, teaching students to see themselves as global citizens is perceived as essential by 64 percent of private school teachers, but only by 54 percent of public school teachers. One of the most striking findings from this study is that private schools may actually be better than public schools at fostering citizenship and civic virtues. The nature of the private school environment appears to be more conducive to achieving these civic ends. Indeed, private school teachers appear to be much more confident that their graduates are learning the concepts that both groups of teachers say they want students to learn. - Amada Torres, Teaching Citizenship in American High Schools, National Association of Independent Schools, Spring 2011

When it comes to politics, it is also easy to see how the world is becoming more unified in this regard. This past year we have witnessed the birth of the Union for the Mediterranean. Other regional blocs, such as the European Union, the North American Union, the African Union, the Asia Pacific Union, the ASEAN Economic Community, the Gulf Cooperation Council, are still in the process of increasing their powers. The world is becoming more and more politically unified, so that leaves just one main obstacle to the globalization process - religion. And the world could not be more religiously divided. There is only one force that can unify people of different languages, cultures and traditions, and that is religion. - One World Religion: Worshiping the Creation Not the Creator, February 8, 2009

The First Global Revolution

The Green Agenda

The environmental movement has been described as the largest and most influential social phenomenon in modern history. From relative obscurity just a few decades ago it has spawned thousands of organisations and claims millions of committed activists. Reading the newspaper today it is hard to imagine a time when global warming, resource depletion, environmental catastrophes and 'saving the planet' were barely mentioned. They now rank among the top priorities on the social, political and economic global agenda.

Environmental awareness is considered to be the mark of any good honest decent citizen. Multi-national companies compete fiercely to promote their environmental credentials and 'out-green' each other. The threat of impending ecological disasters is uniting the world through a plethora of international treaties and conventions. But where did this phenomenon come from, how did it rise to such prominence, and more importantly, where is it going?

While researching for these articles, and during my academic studies, I have come across many references to the The Club of Rome (CoR), and reports produced by them. Initially I assumed that they were just another high-level environmental think-tank and dismissed the conspiracy theories found on many websites claiming that the CoR is a group of global elitists attempting to impose some kind of one world government.

I am not a conspiratorial person by nature and was faced with a dilemma when I first read their reports. But it's all there — in black and white. The CoR claims that:

"We are facing an imminent catastrophic ecological collapse" and "our only hope is to transform humanity into a global interdependent sustainable society, based on respect and reverence for the Earth."

In the end I came to the conclusion that there are two possibilities — either the CoR wrote all these reports and setup a vast network of supporting organisations just for fun or they actually believe what they have written and are working hard to fulfill their role as the self-appointed saviours of Gaia.

Based on my close observation of their actions, and watching the recommendations made by the CoR many years ago now being adopted as official UN and government policy — well, I have become personally convinced that they are deadly serious. On this website I try to use quotes and excerpts as much as possible and let the reader reach their own conclusions.

So, what exactly is the Club of Rome and who are its members? Founded in 1968 at David Rockefeller’s estate in Bellagio, Italy, the CoR describes itself as "a group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity." It consists of current and former Heads of State, UN beaureacrats, high-level politicians and government officials, diplomats, scientists, economists, and business leaders from around the globe.

The Club of Rome subsequently founded two sibling organizations, the Club of Budapest and the Club of Madrid. The former is focused on social and cultural aspects of their agenda, while the latter concentrates on the political aspects. All three of these 'Clubs' share many common members and hold joint meetings and conferences. As explained in other articles on this website, it is abundantly clear that these are three heads of the same beast. The CoR has also established a network of 33 National Associations. Membership of the 'main Club' is limited to 100 individuals at any one time. Some members, like Al Gore and Maurice Strong, are affiliated through their respective National Associations (e.g. USACOR, CACOR etc).

I would like to start this analysis of the Club of Rome by listing some prominent members of the CoR and its two sub-groups, the Clubs of Budapest and Madrid. Personally it isn’t what the CoR is that I find so astonishing; it is WHO the CoR is! This isn’t some quirky little group of green activists or obscure politicians. They are the most senior officials in the United Nations, current and ex-world leaders, and the founders of some of the most influential environmental organisations. When you read their reports in the context of who they are — its gives an entirely new, and frightening, context to their extreme claims.

Some current members of the Club of Rome or its two siblings:

Al Gore – former VP of the USA, leading climate change campaigner, Nobel Peace Prize winner, Academy Award winner, Emmy winner. Gore lead the US delegations to the Rio Earth Summit and Kyoto Climate Change conference. He chaired a meeting of the full Club of Rome held in Washington DC in 1997.

Javier Solana – Secretary General of the Council of the European Union, High Representative for EU Foreign Policy.

Maurice Strong – former Head of the UN Environment Programme, Chief Policy Advisor to Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the Rio Earth Summit, co-author (with Gorbachev) of the Earth Charter, co-author of the Kyoto Protocol, founder of the Earth Council, devout Baha’i.

Mikhail Gorbachev – CoR executive member, former President of the Soviet Union, founder of Green Cross International and the Gorbachev Foundation, Nobel Peace Prize winner, co-founder (with Hidalgo) of the Club of Madrid, co-author (with Strong) of the Earth Charter.

Diego Hidalgo – CoR executive member, co-founder (with Gorbachev) of the Club of Madrid, founder and President of the European Council on Foreign Relations in association with George Soros.

Ervin Laszlo – founding member of the CoR, founder and President of the Club of Budapest, founder and Chairman of the World Wisdom Council.

Anne Ehrlich – Population Biologist. Married to Paul Ehrlich with whom she has authored many books on human overpopulation. Also a former director of Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club, and a member of the UN's Global Roll of Honor.

Hassan bin Talal – President of the CoR, President of the Arab Thought Forum, founder of the World Future Council, recently named as the United Nations 'Champion of the Earth'.

Sir Crispin Tickell – former British Permanent Representative to the United Nations and Permanent Representative on the Security Council, Chairman of the ‘Gaia Society’, Chairman of the Board of the Climate Institute, leading British climate change campaigner.

Kofi Annan – former Secretary General of the United Nations. Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.

Javier Perez de Cuellar – former Secretary General of the United Nations.

Gro Harlem Bruntland – United Nations Special Envoy for Climate Change, former President of Norway

Robert Muller – former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations, founder and Chancellor of the UN University of Peace.

The Dalai Lama – The 'Spiritual Leader' of Tibet. Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.

Father Berry Thomas – Catholic Priest who is one of the leading proponents of deep ecology, ecospirituality and global consciousness.

David Rockefeller – CoR executive member, former Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank, founder of the Trilateral Commission, executive member of the World Economic Forum, donated land on which the United Nations stands.

Stephen Schneider – Stanford Professor of Biology and Global Change. Professor Schneider was among the earliest and most vocal proponents of man-made global warming and a lead author of many IPCC reports.

Bill Clinton – former President of the United States, founder of the Clinton Global Iniative.

Jimmy Carter – former President of the United States, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.

Bill Gates – founder of Microsoft, philanthropist

Garret Hardin – Professor of Human Ecology. Originator of the 'Global Commons' concept. Has authored many controversial papers on human overpopulation and eugenics.

Other current influential members:
(these can be found on the membership lists of the COR (here, here, and here), Club of Budapest, Club of Madrid and/or CoR National Association membership pages)

Ted Turner – media mogul, philanthropist, founder of CNN
George Soros – multibillionare, major donor to the UN
Tony Blair – former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
Deepak Chopra – New Age Guru
Desmond Tutu – South African Bishop and activist, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
Timothy Wirth – President of the United Nations Foundation
Henry Kissinger – former US Secretary of State
George Matthews – Chairman of the Gorbachev Foundation
Harlan Cleveland – former Assistant US Secretary of State and NATO Ambassador
Barbara Marx Hubbard – President of the Foundation for Conscious Evolution
Betty Williams – Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
Marianne Williamson – New Age 'Spiritual Activist'
Robert Thurman – assistant to the Dalai Lama
Jane Goodall – Primatologist and Evolutionary Biologist
Juan Carlos I – King of Spain
Prince Philippe of Belgium
Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands
Dona Sophia – Queen of Spain
José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero – current Prime Minister of Spain
Karan Singh – Former Prime Minister of India, Chairman of the Temple of Understanding
Daisaku Ikeda – founder of the Soka Gakkai cult
Martin Lees – CoR Secretary General, Rector of the UN University of Peace
Ernesto Zedillo – Director of The Yale Center for the Study of Globalization
Frithjof Finkbeiner – Coordinator of the Global Marshall Plan
Franz Josef Radermacher – Founder of the Global Marshall Plan
Eduard Shevardnadze – former Soviet foreign minister and President of Georgia
Richard von Weizsacker – former President of Germany
Carl Bildt – former President of Sweden
Kim Campbell – former Prime Minister of Canada and Senior Fellow of the Gorbachev Foundation
Vincente Fox – former President of Mexico
Helmut Kohl – former Chancellor of Germany
Romano Prodi – former Prime Minister of Italy and President of the European Commission
Vaclav Havel – former President of the Czech Republic
Hans Kung – Founder of the Global Ethic Foundation
Ruud Lubbers – United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
Mary Robinson – United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Jerome Binde – Director of Foresight, UNESCO
Koïchiro Matsuura – Current Director General of UNESCO
Federico Mayor – Former Director General of UNESCO
Tapio Kanninen – Director of Policy and Planning, United Nations
Konrad Osterwalder – Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations
Peter Johnston – Director General of European Commission
Jacques Delors – Former President of the European Commission
Domingo Jimenez-Beltran – Executive Director of the European Environment Agency
Thomas Homer-Dixon – Director of Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Toronto
Hazel Henderson – Futurist and 'evoluntionary economist'
Emeka Anyaoku – former Commonwealth Secretary General, current President of the World Wildlife Fund
Wangari Maathai – Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, founder of the Green Belt Movement
and many more….

The concept of 'environmental sustainability' was first brought to widespread public attention in 1972 by the Club of Rome in their book entitled The Limits to Growth. The official summary can be read here. The report basically concluded that the growth of the human population, and an increase in prosperity, would cause an ecological collapse within the next hundred years:

“If the present growth trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next one hundred years. The most probable result will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.”

“It is possible to alter these growth trends and to establish a condition of ecological and economic stability that is sustainable far into the future. The state of global equilibrium could be designed so that the basic material needs of each person on earth are satisfied and each person has an equal opportunity to realize his individual human potential.”

“The overwhelming growth in world population caused by the positive birth-rate loop is a recent phenomenon, a result of mankind's very successful reduction of worldwide mortality. The controlling negative feedback loop has been weakened, allowing the positive loop to operate virtually without constraint. There are only two ways to restore the resulting imbalance. Either the birth rate must be brought down to equal the new, lower death rate, or the death rate must rise again.”

“The result of stopping population growth in 1975 and industrial capital growth in 1985 with no other changes is that population and capital reach constant values at a relatively high level of food, industrial output and services per person. Eventually, however, resource shortages reduce industrial output and the temporarily stable state degenerates.”

“Man possesses, for a small moment in his history, the most powerful combination of knowledge, tools, and resources the world has ever known. He has all that is physically necessary to create a totally new form of human society - one that would be built to last for generations. The two missing ingredients are a realistic, long-term goal that can guide mankind to the equilibrium society and the Human Will to achieve that goal.”

“Without such a goal and a commitment to it, short-term concerns will generate the exponential growth that drives the world system toward the limits of the earth and ultimate collapse. With that goal and that commitment, mankind would be ready now to begin a controlled, orderly transition from growth to global equilibrium.”

So as you can see the even back in 1972 the Club considered modern industrial society to be completely unsustainable. They state that even if population was frozen at 1975 levels, and industrial activity at 1985 levels, then the earth’s ecosystems would still ultimately collapse. The CoR has not changed these views in the slightest, in fact, in the last three decades their warnings have become increasingly more urgent and alarmist. They call this imminent collapse the ‘World Problematique’ and their proposed solution the ‘World Resolutique.’

The Limits to Growth is considered to be the most successful environmental publication ever produced and propelled the Club of Rome to its current position of an environmental thought-leader and a major consultant to the United Nations. It has been translated into more than forty languages and sold more than 30 million copies. Throughout the 1970s and 80s the concept that humanity was irreparably damaging the earth gained popularity and facilitated the formation of mainstream and activist environmental groups.

All meetings of the CoR are held ‘behind closed doors’ and no public records are kept. However the Club does produce many ‘discussion reports’ that can be found on its website. The United Nations contracts the Club of Rome to prepare ‘Policy Guidance Documents’ which it uses in formulating its policies and programmes. A quick search for Club of Rome on the UNESCO publications site reveals 250 such documents. There are many other documents there authored by CoR members acting in other capacities. As many high ranking UN officials are actually CoR members, this is like a man asking himself for advice, and then agreeing with that advice. Not very objective! Various UN organisations also hold joint conferences with the CoR.

While checking the Club of Rome website this morning the first item in their ‘current news’ section refers to a briefing delivered by the CoR to G8 officials in preparation for the upcoming G8 meeting. The second item is a summary report from the Club of Romes ’strategy planning retreat’ with 150 senior UNESCO officials. The joint CoR/UNESCO communique states:

“We are at the end of an era — a turning point in history. We are approaching the threshold of runaway climate change. We underline the urgency of radical action to reduce emissions, by both immediate action and longer-term measures; to stress to political leaders the non-linear nature of the processes at work which will generate sudden change; and to assert that the overriding priority must be to avert the impending risk of catastrophic climate change.” - CoR/UNESCO communique

Twenty years after the Limits to Growth the CoR published another major report that became an instant best-seller. In The First Global Revolution the Club of Rome claimed that the time to act had run out. It was now or never. Delay in beginning corrective measures will increase the damage to the world ecological system and ultimately reduce the human population that will eventually be supportable. They also stated that democratic governments are far too short-sighted to deal with the ‘problematique’ and new forms of governance are urgently required.

In order not too violate any copyright protection I will not reproduce the text of the book on this site. However, it is permissible for me to quote a brief excerpt in the context of this wider discussion. The complete text (third ed.) can be read and searched online at Google Books. As you read the following quote (from page 75, first ed.), please remember the names of the leaders listed above. This is not some quirky little cult. This is the stated agenda of the leaders of the environmental movement:

“This is the way we are setting the scene for mankind’s encounter with the planet. The opposition between the two ideologies that have dominated the 20th century has collapsed, forming their own vacuum and leaving nothing but crass materialism.

It is a law of Nature that any vacuum will be filled and therefore eliminated unless this is physically prevented. “Nature,” as the saying goes, “abhors a vacuum.” And people, as children of Nature, can only feel uncomfortable, even though they may not recognize that they are living in a vacuum. How then is the vacuum to be eliminated?

It would seem that humans need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in the vacuum; such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.

New enemies therefore have to be identified.
New strategies imagined, new weapons devised.

The common enemy of humanity is man.

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.

The old democracies have functioned reasonably well over the last 200 years, but they appear now to be in a phase of complacent stagnation with little evidence of real leadership and innovation

Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.”

So, long before Global Warming became a well known issue Al Gore and his Club of Rome colleagues stated that they would use the threat of global warming to unite humanity and "set the scene for mankind's encounter with the planet." In the same way that shamans and sooth-sayers in medieval times used their advance knowledge of when eclipses would occur to control and terrify their followers, they would use a natural phenomenon as their 'enemy' to achieve their objectives. But then they state that although Global Warming would be presented as the initial enemy, the real enemy of humanity would be portrayed as man himself. I am already noticing how frequently the terms climate change and overpopulation are being uttered in the same breath.

Having discovered that all these influential environmental leaders were associated with the Club of Rome I set about reading all the reports, lectures and speeches on their website as well as the reports commissioned by the UN. I was amazed to find that they lay out their entire agenda for anyone who has eyes to see. Exactly the same themes, concepts and phrases are repeated continuously throughout their publications. They are full of references to 'imminent collapse', 'dying planet', 'our mother Gaia', 'wrenching transformation', 'united global society', 'global consciousness', 'new forms of governance' etc. They truly intend to bring about the world's First Global Revolution.

The Kosmos Journal provides perhaps the best insight into their worldview. This Journal was founded by the Club of Rome in partnership with with several of its sibling organizations. As described in my article, The Green Web, the CoR has established a network of supporting organizations, each focusing on a different aspect of their agenda. The Kosmos Journal contains many articles written by CoR members. The basic premise of their worldview is:

"Modern industrial civilisation is fast outstripping the Earth's natural regenerative and life-supporting capacity..."

"At current rates of resource depletion and environmental degradation a near complete collapse of ecological integrity will occur within the next 100 years..."

"Gaia, our Mother, who nutured humanity for countless millenia within her womb of evolution, is dying..."

“A small window of opportunity now exists to transform humanity into a sustainable global interdepedant society based on respect and reverence for Earth..."

"A radical change from the current trajectory is required, a complete reordering of global society..."

"Humans only truly unite when faced with a powerful external enemy..."

"At this time a new enemy must be found, one either real or invented for the purpose..."

"Democracy has failed us, a new system of global governance, based on environmental imperatives, must be implemented quickly..."

Now that Obama is firmly ensconced in the White House the Club of Rome and its affiliates are swinging into high gear. The CoR recently unveiled a new 3-year programme entitled A New Path for World Development. The Club of Madrid has launched the Road to Copenhagen, a joint programme with the UN Environment Programme intended to facilitate a binding global climate change treaty in 2009. Perhaps most interesting is the State of Global Emergency declared by the Club of Budapest in October 2008. The declaration states that we only have four or five years to prevent a total collapse of the Earth's ecosystems. To quote from the document:

“If we continue on our present unsustainable path, by mid-century the Earth may become largely uninhabitable for human and most other forms of life. Such a total systems collapse could occur much sooner, however, due to runaway global warming or other ecocatastrophes, and/or by nuclear wars triggered by religious, ethnic or geopolitical conflicts or access to diminishing natural resources. The macro-trends driving these global threats and challenges have been apparent for decades and are now building toward a threshold of irreversibility. The scientific modeling of complex systems shows that when systems reach a state of critical instability, they either break down to their components or break through to a higher order of integral functioning. At these “points of no return” maintaining the status quo, or returning to a previous mode of organization and functioning, are not a feasible option.

The acceleration of critical trends and cross-impacts among them indicates that the ‘window of opportunity’ for pulling out of the present global crisis and breaking through to a more peaceful and sustainable world is likely to be no more than four to five years from the end of 2008. This is close in time to the Mayan 2012 prophecy for the end of the current world. The period around the end of 2012 is likely to be a turbulent one for this and other reasons. Predictions coming from the physical sciences foresee disturbances in the geomagnetic, electromagnetic and related fields that embed the planet causing significant damage to telecommunications and impacting many aspects of human activity and health. For the esoteric traditions the end of 2012 will be the end of the known world, although the more optimistic intepretations speak of a new world taking the place of the old.”

This may seem very strange — a group of prominent world leaders talking about ancient Mayan prophecies, but as I describe in my article, Gaia's Gurus, many leading global warming activists openly advocate earth-reverence and other New Age philosophies. Gaia, Global Warming, and Global Governance are intricately entwined, if one truly believes in Gaia, and that she is being fatally harmed by the current system, then a new system of global governance and control would appear to be the only answer. Global Warming provides the ideal 'enemy' to bring about this objective. It is easy for these global elitists to talk about sacrifice, wrenching transformation, population reduction and eliminating the use of fossil fuels, but the implications are truly horrendous.

Even if you think this is all nonsense I would ask you to at least read these quotes and excerpts, and think about the implications of their agenda. Everyday I am amazed at how quickly things are changing. It is coming hard and fast. It's almost like reading a book and then watching the television adaptation, except that this adaptation is not a movie — it's on the evening news. As Al Gore said in the closing sentence of his statement after he won the Nobel Peace Prize ... "This is just the beginning."

Read More...