In the early 1980s, pop musician David Crosby from the rock group „Crosby Stills and Nash“ defined the aim of his music with the words „You just have to steal their children…“. „When I say that,“ he continued, „I’m not talking about kidnapping. I’m simply talking about changing their value system. That effectively separates them from the world of their parents.“
This statement, which is not atypical of 20th century pop culture, was often dismissed as merely a sign of a „rebellious youth culture“. However, there now seems to be a system and planning behind it, from the highest levels.
On May 18, 1996, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that a teacher’s right to free speech in the classroom should be valued above the personal beliefs of parents. The judge, Melinda Harmon, justified her ruling by saying, „Parents give up their rights as soon as they send their children to a public school.“
Paul Haubner of the National Education Association of America was even more precise in explaining the disenfranchisement of parents. Years earlier, he had written: „Schools cannot allow parents to influence the way their children are taught values in school. This is where those who claim there is a universal system of valuesare wrong . Our goals are incompatible with theirs. We must change their values.“
So this is about a shift in authority in education, which is itself underpinned by the judiciary. And this is entirely in the spirit of UNESCO. UNICEF’s slogan, „Every child is our child“, suddenly takes on a whole new meaning – a meaning that has clearly moved away from the Christianity of the Bible. It clearly states that parents are the most important teachers of their children: „Fathers, […] bring up your children in the discipline and admonition of the Lord.“ (Ephesians 6:4)
According to Judge Harmon and education policy expert Haubner, it is not fundamentally parental values in general that are a problem, but rather the values of parents who believe in a „universally valid system of values“ – in other words, parents who believe in absolute truth and values that stand above cultural, national or even religious sensibilities. A Jesus who claims, „I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me!“
It is therefore not surprising that one of the key figures in 20th century education (he worked on the UNESCO education plan), the psychologist Benjamin Bloom, wrote: „The purpose of education and schools is to change the thoughts, feelings and actions of students. […] A student achieves higher order thinking when he no longer believes in right or wrong.“
It is therefore about moving away from the unchanging Christian values of the parents and towards a fluid, changeable understanding of reality and truth. Towards a moral relativism that intervenes more deeply in the restructuring of our family and society than most people realize. „Totally global“ is the vision of the World Core Teaching Program, which every school and university worldwide should implement. However, the question arises: What is the ideological underpinning of this new pedagogy?
At the beginning of the 21st century, we are experiencing an explosion of information. Never before has so much knowledge been available to us! High-performance computers, complex satellite systems and wireless data transmissions have turned our world into a global village. Whether from the White House in Washington, the battlefields of Iraq, St. Peter’s Square in Rome or directly from the living room of the Müller family: wherever and whenever something is going on – we can be there. We are informed! At least that’s what we’re told.
But what is the truth behind the information we receive? And is what we believe to be true the whole truth? Commerce, entertainment, targeted disinformation and misconceptions often disguised as „scientific“ have contributed to our information society being more gullible than ever. We are far from really understanding what is happening today. Shaped in our thinking by the mass and entertainment media, we are in a serious crisis: we are in danger of losing our critical thinking. It is becoming increasingly difficult for us to decide whether something is true or morally right.
Before our eyes and yet invisibly, a creeping change is taking place in everything that was once certain. This change is taking place in many areas and at all levels. The original Christian and biblical view of the world and humanity in our culture is gradually but systematically being replaced by a global ideal of humanity developed by the United Nations. It goes without saying that this change cannot be achieved through the media alone, but requires deep intervention in national educational concepts at a global level. The ways in which this happens, the immediate changes that accompany it and the ideological underpinnings of this transformation will be discussed here.
Decades ago, a global educational reform began, which is basically less about education and more about creating a new image of humanity. Through socio-political manipulation, also known as social engineering
The template for this education plan was provided by Robert Muller, former Associate Secretary-General of the United Nations. Muller was instrumental in the establishment of international bodies, including the UN Development Program, the World Food Program, the UN Population Fund and the World Youth Assembly. He also created the so-called „World Core Curriculum„
Muller aimed to implement his global education plan in the early 21st century. The World Core Curriculum already stated at the time: „A world core curriculum may still seem utopian today. But by the end of the year 2000, it will be a reality, a daily reality in all the world’s schools.“
Muller considered pantheistic evolution to be the most suitable spiritual basis for his educational plan: „I believe that the most fundamental thing we can do today is to believe in evolution.“
In a speech to the UN, Muller summarized the philosophical underpinnings of his concept: „We need a new world education. Our global education, namely the education of children towards a global home and towards a family of humanity, is making good progress. But we need to go beyond that. We need cosmic education.“
Muller thus reveals that he professes his belief in the occult-esoteric teachings of Theosophy in his World Core Curriculum. Bear in mind that this curriculum has been awarded by UNESCO and serves as a model for a worldwide educational program.
However, Muller’s vision of a world education program goes even further. He seems to see it as the task of the United Nations to create a „global spirituality“ and a „planetary civilization“: „I never thought I would discover spirituality in the United Nations … Right now we are experiencing its renaissance in a global, planetary context.“
The fact that Muller actually sees the United Nations as a kind of embodiment of divine authority is shown by his remark: „There is a famous painting and poster. It shows Christ knocking on the UN skyscraper to enter it. I often imagine an even more apt image, of a form of the United Nations that is the body of Christ.“
So the United Nations as the embodiment of Christ? In other words, this would be the replacement of the church of Christ by the United Nations – an idea that also seems to appeal to others. In June 2014, former Israeli President Shimon Peres said to Pope Francis: „What we need today is an organization of the United Religions, the United Nations of Religions.“
The United Nations as the authority of a new religion, an authority for ethics and morality, with the Pope at the helm? This idea is now less and less utopian and exotic. As early as 2002, a corresponding press release appeared in a Catholic organ. Under the headline „UN: ‚Ten Commandments‘ for the modern world. The ‚update‘ does not come from Sinai, but from the ‚Earth Summit'“, it reads: „The ‚Earth Charter‘ was presented last week at the Earth Summit without much media coverage. […] Co-founders of the initiative such as Mikhail Gorbachev and Maurice Strong [members of the Club of Rome, which avowedly strives for world government] described the convention as the ’new ten commandments‘ that should give direction to the ‚global spirituality‘ of the new age.“
Supporters of the „Earth Charter“ – including the Rockefeller dynasty – have even had an Ark of Hope made.
Even people who don’t know much about the Bible should ponder this. What messages are conveyed by these statements in connection with the spiritual goals of the United Nations, and what do they mean for globalization plans? The historian and cultural scientist Lewis Mumford summarized the intention of the global spiritual transformation of the United Nations in Robert Muller’s „World Core Learning Plan Journal“ with the words: „Every transformation rests on a new metaphysical and ideological foundation, […] a new view of the cosmos and of human nature.“
The fact that UNESCO’s theosophical world core curriculum and the global re-education agenda are not spontaneous, but rather long-prepared efforts, becomes clear when one analyzes the educational literature from the mid-20th century onwards. As early as the late 1940s, immediately after the United Nations Charter came into force in 1945, American authorities in education were already saying that intervention in a nation’s pedagogy was needed to promote global thinking among children in order to make global government possible.
Head of the American NEA(National Education Association) and Secretary of the Education Policy Commission at the time was William Carr. He wrote: „The profession of teaching is creating the leaders of tomorrow. The statesmen, the industrialists, the lawyers, the journalists … All the leaders of tomorrow are in the schools today. […] The psychological foundations for wider loyaltiesmust be laid … Teach such attitudes as will ultimately lead to the creation of world citizenship and world government … We can and should teach such skills and attitudes as will help to create a society in which world citizenship is possible.“
Just prior to this, another influential thinker and educator had written in NEA Magazine, „In the struggle for the establishment of an adequate world government, there is much the teacher can do to prepare the hearts and minds of children. […] First and foremost among all the agencies that will guarantee the coming world government must be the school and the teacher …“
Today’s authorities in education and politics also believe that the aim of the new global core curriculum should be to prepare children and young people for global thinking and awareness and to train them as collaborators in the establishment of a new world government. In the foreword to the book Schooling for a Global Age
„Social engineering“ is a term of art that can have different meanings in different contexts. In sociology and politics, the term refers to the targeted exertion of influence on the thinking and behavior of individuals or groups in order to create or change new structures. In many cases, this influence should remain hidden. In sociology, it is therefore also referred to as „social manipulation“.
This plan, which brought about lasting changes in global thinking, has become the dominant philosophy in science, politics, education, culture and religion over the last few decades. The global economy has also joined in. It is thinking aloud about supporting these plans with a global single currency.
In the 1970s and 80s, the New Age movement initially jumped on the „new pedagogy = new society“ bandwagon due to its spiritual proximity to Theosophy. For example, the book The Aquarian Conspiracy by esoteric bestselling author Marilyn Ferguson stated that „you can only have a new society if you change education for the younger generation“
In the mid-1980s, leaders in the American education system began to demand concrete action from other countries. According to a report in Education Week, Gordon Cawelti, former president of the ASCD
Only shortly after the appeal to UN member states to make the World Core Curriculum mandatory in schools, namely in 1991, the then US Secretary of Education, Chester Finn Jr, gave new impetus to educational reform. It is remarkable how he described the traditional approach to education in this context: „We need change agents in charge of those schools – not keepers of entrenched interests and entrenched practices“
It was only logical that more emphasis was now placed on the implementation of the UNESCO education plan by calling the key players, i.e. institutions, teachers and school administrators on site, to account. What was new was the tone and choice of words used to disparage the traditional teaching approach. Strictly speaking, Chester Finn’s statement at the time was an appeal to local politicians and school administrators to take care of schools that taught according to a traditional view of the world and people. In the Anglo-American context, this „traditional teaching approach“ usually meant an orientation towards biblical-Christian values.
In the same year, George W. Bush, who after all was close to the evangelicals in his country, announced the strategic education program „America 2000“. He also distanced himself from „outdated ideas“: „Nations that cling to old-fashioned, outdated ideas and ideologies will falter and fall. That is why I stand here today and say that America will move forward […] New schools for a new world […] Reinvent the American school, literally start over … Our challenge is nothing less than a revolution in American education.“
„Old-fashioned and outdated“ did not refer to the educational methods of the 19th century, when students were made „compliant“ with the rod and cane. The reference here is to „ideologies“. This obviously refers to the biblical-Christian concept of education and upbringing, which is seen as „encrusted“, „outdated“ and „old-fashioned“ in the face of an evolutionary-humanist education plan from UNESCO with its spiritual orientation towards the New Age Manifesto. Could it be that traditional Christian beliefs are standing in the way of UNESCO’s educational reform? After all, the Christian model of education is primarily based on a strong parent-child relationship. Could it be that a young person who grew up in a home with values based on absolute norms and ethical principles – including truth, divine commandments, creation and the Creator – is perceived as sand in the gears of global standardization and ethical conformity?
If biblical truth has shaped a child’s worldview, it will recognize occult and ultimately destructive ideals and will not be so easily seduced by them. However, if his beliefs have been shaped by television, movies and fictional literature, or by mass media in general and popular culture, schools will more easily anchor and reinforce the new paradigm in his mind.
Incidentally, the new educational strategists do not want to stop at our children. Educator and media scholar James Becker writes: „ Parents and the general public also need to be reached, otherwise the children and young people who are integrated into globally oriented programs will find themselves in conflict with the values they have inherited from home. And then the educational institution is under constant critical scrutiny and must take a back seat.“
The family and its fixed values (i.e. anchored in the Christian worldview and based on the Bible) should therefore be replaced by a global human family with only relative values. Only in this way can the world core curriculum be adapted to all cultures, religions and beliefs. The social pedagogue Raymond English wrote back in the 1990s: „Critical thinking means not only learning how to think for yourself, but also learning how to undermine the traditional values in your own society. You’re not thinking ‚critically‘ if you accept the values that mom and dad taught you. That’s not critical!“
Already under the presidency of Julian Huxley
Of course this can be the case. It is not uncommon for the family to be a refuge for physical and mental abuse. It cannot be denied that it is often particularly religious parents who cause lasting damage to their children. Anyone who believes that God is cruel and vengeful and treats their children accordingly, i.e. brings them up without love and reason, can cause great harm to their wards. But who judges who has the „right“ image of God? Is the state not becoming the religious police here? But is the UN’s indoctrination and conformity, driven by a religious ideology that is no less harmful, the solution? The problem with a global approach to intervention in pre-school education is the imposition of a global ideology and the desired incapacitation of all parents – regardless of the individual case.
The restructuring of society by the United Nations also includes a change in the understanding of the roles of men and women. Alongside feminism and homosexuality, it is not least so-called genderism or gender mainstreaming that seeks to redefine the meaning of family and parent-child relationships.
In general, genderism is understood as an ideology that strives for complete equality of the sexes in all areas of life. The milestones and benchmarks are the integration of women into working life and the leveling of male and female role models. A closer look reveals that the term „genderism“ conceals a political strategy of the United Nations and its think tanks and „one-world organizations“. The term „gender mainstreaming“ was first formulated at the 3rd UN World Conference on Women in Nairobi in 1984. Since then, it has been established at UN conferences and in European administration without ever being openly discussed.
Since then, attempts have been made to dissolve a person’s gender identity under the guise of equality. At the heart of this is the assertion that it is part of a person’s right to freedom to choose their own gender and sexual orientation. They can therefore decide whether they want to be a man or a woman, heterosexual or transsexual. Gender is therefore part of the UN’s new concept of humanity. And it claims social acceptance in every case. According to this new image, „gender“ means „social gender“ and „sex“ means „biological gender“. Behind this is the attempt to free people from any supposedly natural, traditional perceptions.
In order to shape the sexes in a gender-appropriate way, re-education is required, which should take place as early as possible. According to the UN’s plan, a mental gender transformation is required, which should begin as early as nursery education if possible. The idea is that a child re-educated in this way, i.e. „gendered“, learns early on that there is not (only) man and woman or dad and mom. This goes so far that the terms „father“ and „mother“ have been replaced with „parent 1“ and „parent 2“ on British application forms. Similarly, official publications in Switzerland have had to state „Parent 1“ and „Parent 2“ instead of father and mother since 2010.
This trend of eliminating gender distinctions is also being promoted by the EU. The European Parliament has published a brochure recommending that the use of the terms „Mrs.“, „Madam“ or „Seniora“ be abandoned. In the eyes of the EU, the use of these words is discriminatory because they indicate a woman’s sexual identity.
Apparently, everything is being done „so that the family no longer stays together. Women are expected to work and more and more people remain single. Children are removed from their parents‘ upbringing as babies and indoctrinated in a politically correct way. Young girls are no longer given the family and the upbringing of children as role models. Instead, they are expected to perform and pursue a ‚career‘. Girls are told that they have to be just like boys, and vice versa. The aim is to create the genderless person, the neuter. Women should wear masculine fashions, like pants, and men should always be more feminine.“
To summarize: genderism aims to destroy the family as the nucleus of society. „Gender mainstreaming“ is a cultural revolution. Among other things, it is de facto about making homosexuals and lesbians socially acceptable. Resistance and any form of criticism are increasingly being eliminated and criminalized as „homophobia“. In 2008, gender ideology even penetrated school and kindergarten curricula. Its social-revolutionary core is also the (hyper)sexualization of children and young people through state sex education.
Gender mainstreaming is not only at odds with the scientific findings of biology, neurology and psychology on the natural gender difference between men and women. It also conflicts with the Bible’s view of humanity. It is based on the evolutionary principle of the strongest and creates a sociologically unsolvable conflict. The UN paradigm dissolves both the father and mother roles that God has given to both. According to the Bible, both have been given a non-interchangeable and gender-specific role by God, which cannot be taken over by the other – at least not without harming the development of a child. To use a biological-medical analogy: The heart is not a brain and the brain is not a heart. Only both together and in their original God-given constitution and function fulfill the purpose of keeping the body alive and healthy. The same applies to family and society. The Christian view of man and woman is that they are complementary creations. Both were created together in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), and only in this order of creation can a family develop healthily and happily in the long term.
In order to counteract this attack on marriage and family, a loving, mutual reconsideration of the values that have made the survival of a society possible for thousands of years is required. This is why the protection of the family was enshrined in the German Basic Law.
Today, every family has to decide whether it wants to be guided by a Christian understanding of family and upbringing – with ethical standards based on the Bible – or whether it wants to expose itself to a transformation created by the UN. After all, this is based on a theosophical view of humanity that increasingly bears the fingerprints of a totalitarian world state and seeks to adapt humanity to its ideological orientation.
What at first glance appears to be harmless and reasonable is in fact driven by a philosophy, indeed a belief system, that runs counter to the Christian faith (at least according to the Bible’s definition). Among the ideological foundations of education as it is to be realized by the UN and as advocated by the „Council for Global Education“ for an „enlightened age“ and a „planetary civilization“
| Bible / absolute values (Bible-oriented worldview) |
Humanism / relative values (evolutionary worldview) |
Global ethic / global consciousness (theosophical worldview) |
| Bible reveals the truth. (John 17:17) |
Reason, science and philosophy explain the truth. | Feelings and the experience of unity with the whole explain the truth. |
| God is personal. (John 1:1.14; 3:16) |
God is non-existent. | A pantheistic force is active in everything. |
| God created the earth. (Colossians 1:18) |
The earth developed by chance. | The earth developed by its own power (Gaja) |
| Trust in God leads to success. (Proverbs 3:5-6) |
Self-confidence leads to success. | Trust in the power that comes from unity with the whole. |
| Good and evil are incompatible. (2 Corinthians 6:14-15) |
Good and evil are relative concepts and moral legacies of religion. | Good and evil (all opposites) complement each other and lead to wholeness. |
| Man is a sinner. (Romans 3:10-19) |
Man is at the center of his thinking and creation. | Man is part of the divine and develops into the „superhuman“ or „God“. |
| Man needs redemption by the Creator God. (Romans 3:23-26) |
Man does not need redemption. | Man experiences redemption through unity with the collective („world peace“) |
Schematic comparison of the transformation process of the last 250 years towards a globalized view of the world and mankind.
The sharp contrast between the Judeo-Christian
Our students are no longer learning reading, writing, history, math and morality as we once considered fundamental according to the Biblical-Christian worldview. The goal is not responsible citizenship, but global citizenship. What is needed is not personality and character, but the mass soul and collective consciousness. The new United Nations educational agenda that is increasingly infiltrating our schools is designed to train a new generation of post-modern, progressive students to believe whatever serves a predetermined „common good.“ If their educators are ultimately successful, tomorrow’s students will have neither the facts nor the freedom to think for themselves. Their understanding of unity will be based on a global and collective ethic, the global ethic
What is needed more urgently than ever is a move away from mass media-driven indoctrination as a substitute for truth-based thinking. What we need is the true foundation of science, education and upbringing. The bestselling Christian author Ellen Gould White (1827-1915) wrote: „The science of true education is truth.“
The questions behind this statement are of utmost importance for the coming generation, but also for the present generation: Will children and students be taught educational content based on unchanging and absolute moral principles by teachers and schools that follow a world core curriculum? Will the distinction between right and wrong still have any meaning in our educational institutions in the future?
Do the United Nations‘ view of humanity and the world and its world core curriculum really serve to promote education, prosperity and peace? Or are these values not more likely to be jeopardized as an esoteric-occult worldview gradually turns out to be a socialist collective doctrine?
Anyone who understands the ideological foundations and building materials of the UN’s new educational „edifice“ in its full scope will recognize that the „re-creation“ of the globally standardized and reprogrammed human being must lead to the moral „collapse“ of our school system and the family – and thus also to the collapse of society itself.
Some may object: „But the United Nations, as the representative body of the global community, cannot be wrong! After all, it is the ‚world community‘, the majority of leading politicians, educators, statesmen and religious leaders, yes, even the majority of ‚charitable organizations‘, who support this global undertaking.
Those who follow this obvious thought are reminded that the majority has never been a good argument for the truth. The correlation between political or religious dictatorships on the one hand and the education of the population on the other has proven this more than once. It was not for nothing that Adolf Hitler said: „Give me control of the textbooks and I will control the state.“
The masses or the majority have never really been interested in and oriented towards the truth. The masses do not ask: „Is this true?“, but „What do others say and think?“ This is why the Bible advises: „You shall not follow the crowd to evil by following the majority and thus bending the law.“ (Exodus 23:2)
Spurgeon, the great British revivalist preacher of the 19th century, spoke out on the occasion of the forthcoming meeting of numerous representatives of the most important Reformed churches with representatives of other religions at the „World Parliament of Religions“ in Chicago. The aim of the meeting at the time was to reach a global ethical and religious consensus. Even after decades of striving for unity between churches (ecumenism) and religions (global ethic), his clear words are still like a chime on the clock of those who have not yet understood where the train is heading in terms of the global agenda.
Spurgeon wrote in an almost visionary way: „From all sides we hear the cry for unity in this and unity in that. But what we most urgently need for our spirit in this age is not unification, but conscientiousness. First pure, then peaceful. It is easy to call for an alliance. But a unity not based on the truth of God is more of a conspiracy than a fellowship. Love, of course, but love for God as well as love for people. And love for truth as well as love for unity. It is extremely difficult in these times to maintain one’s allegiance to God and to brotherhood among men. Should not the preservation of the former be preferred to the latter, if both cannot be maintained?“
And the American theologian John C. Whitcomb, Jr. is even more explicit: „Difference and division are worth infinitely more than satanic unity. […] Satan wants unity in what…? In error! God, on the other hand, prefers division based on truth.“
The impression is given that the new education and value system of the United Nations is about old or new. But this only distracts from what it is really about – true or untrue, Christ or anti-Christ, Bible or human rights, 10 Commandments or World Charter.
The biblical writer Paul warned urgently 2000 years ago against placing one’s hope and future on human philosophy. He wrote:
„See to it that no one takes you in by philosophy and empty deceit, based on the teaching of men and on the powers of the world rather than on Christ.“ (Colossians 2:8)
The vision of the United Nations for a new world with a new image of man may be an enticement for many. However, it is to be feared that one day we will wake up and realize that tampering with the divine order was a mistake – a mistake that we may not be able to repair.
SOURCES:
OTHER SOURCES:
[wpfd_single_file id=“7553″ catid=“498″ name=“George B. Chrisholm – Psychiatry of Enduring Peace and Social Progress (1946)“]
Nicola Taubert, B.Th., MAMin, ist Theologe und Vortragsredner. Er ist Vorsitzender des Medienbildungswerkes AMEN e.V. (Adventist Media Education Network) und Gründer und Leiter des Desert Spring Institute (DSI). Derzeit leitet er die Missionsschule EMET.
