The World Core Curriculum and your children

How many are aware of how ubiquitous, how promoted and how binding on national curricula is the UN World Core Curriculum? How many have seen the fine print of what it actually involves? How many know the real bios of the men and women behind it?

This post goes into it. It’s long, mainly because of the screenshots but is not an arduous read.

Robert Mueller, for 40 years was the UN guru [google him] and he received, in 1989, the UNESCO Peace Education Prize. He and others mentioned later were involved in the UNESCO led World Core Curriculum.  He also drew up:

… along with a:

…and a:

That last one was more than interesting because it smacks of the type of thing put forward by Gordon Davidson and Corrine McLaughlin, who set up the WSI in Washington, D.C. in 1995 and who were also instrumental in setting up the Valdez Principles, committing corporate America to the Gorean Eco principles now in vogue today. Kofi Annan was connected with them. Here is Mueller’s game, to:

Global citizenship, y-e-e-s-s-s:

Core curriculum, worldwide, for producing “global citizens”. You could easily miss it but one phrase is:

Most people would skip past this wording but occultists and Christians know full well that “well-becoming” is a core occult phrase for reaching godhood. What the hell is that doing in a pre-primary curriculum, let alone any child curriculum? The answer becomes apparent later.

As if that is not alarming enough itself, how about this:

Alice Bailey claimed to have had her ideas channelled to her by someone called The Tibetan, later called DK, known as Djwahl Kuhl whom any scholar knows is a variant of the devil. The point is – it is her philosophy which is underpinning Robert Mueller and it is Robert Mueller who is underpinning the WCC.

Bailey attempted suicide three times before the age of 15. She was married to an Episcopalean minister, broke with him, was channelled through the Theosophy Society and formed the Lucifer Trust, later to be renamed the Lucis Trust:

Now, many of you will know that the sun and moon symbols recur from Babylon through to the current day. If you look at the back of the base of the statue of liberty, there is a plaque dedicating it to Masonry and thereby to the Masonic view of the world which is occult and needn’t be gone into here.  The sun symbols in key monuments and buildings around the world, plus the moon symbol, have nothing to do with the actual sun and moon but stem from the mystery religions.

Note also the muted blues and greens which characterize the logos of world organizations with bottomless budgets such as this. As you’d expect, the Lucis Trust is not only a registered NGO with the UN but was, until a few years ago, housed within the UN building but then operations moved to a new age church in New York.

And just what were Alice Bailey’s views which Mueller and UNESCO found so appealing?

Uh huh. We’re speaking here of Jesus of Nazareth, aren’t we?

No, I’m not getting religious here.  She is and those whom she’s influenced, e.g. Robert Mueller and UNESCO.  The one world motif appears again.

Inclusiveness. Let me see – haven’t we heard such talk of late? Inclusiveness? Diversity? Equality? And from our side, the charge of – Relativity? And what of you and I who refuse to go along with these PCist definitions, who believe that variety, separateness and real diversity of opinion are the summum bonum?

That’s right – we are to be “known for what we are”, we are the “little jerks” which Julia Middleton, of Common Purpose, called the man who didn’t go along with her plans. We are to be marginalized, ignored, bypassed and eventually suppressed.

One commenter on the Fuel Project, which posted the youtubes on Know Your Enemy, from where this material came, asked:

Will you be discussing the Alliance of Civilizations? The AoC seems to be integral to promoting the one-world, new age religion and the marginalization (and eventual persecution) of traditional Judeo-Christian worldview and religious practice.

Yes but he covered a hell of a lot more than that as well, as you’ll see further on. Bailey is lauded by the UN because she was interested in its establishment, as were her devotees:

“Needed receptive lines”, “planning”, “a world plan”?    Y-e-e-s-s.

And permeating the ideas of these “informed men and women”, e.g. Julian Huxley, e.g. the Frankfurt School, is the occult. Reference is made to the:

2nd ray: seeing beyond differences

4th ray: harmony through conflict

“Harmony through conflict”. Two opposed views, funded by the money, leading to war and out of it come synthesis and harmony.  Perpetual war.

These are not my notions, this is not my kookiness. I am the observer, the scribe, that is all. These people are the ones uttering this guff.

And there are others of the same mindset, the same aim. Dr. Brock Chisholm, former director of WHO, held these views of how things were to be:

Former director of the WHO, eh?  Not some philosopher in a garret, not some never-heard-of. Someone at the heart of policy, global policy.

Gets right down to it, doesn’t he? The major obstacle to this Plan is the knowledge of right and wrong, of what should be and what should never be. People with this sense of right and wrong can never be squeezed into a “world view”. Such people are square pegs in round holes, such people are a nuisance. Such people are expendable.

Surely I’m being fanciful here? Surely these Planners have no intention of eliminating opposition?

“Crippling burden of good and evil” – spoken by the head of the World Health Organization, in his capacity as head. There must be no concepts of good and evil in anyone’s heads – only relativism. And how better to ensure this? Through education, of course, through a World Core Curriculum.

Surely these are good men though, men of the highest moral fibre? Let’s look at one of them:

He was a high Mason and member of Skull & Bones who wrote the UNESCO constitution.

Julian Huxley’s Frankfurt School has had enough detractors not to have to go into that school in more than three paragraphs here. This covers some of it:

Lord Bertrand Russell joined with the Frankfurt School in their effort at mass social engineering and spilled the beans in his 1951 book, The Impact of Science on Society. He wrote: ‘Physiology and psychology afford fields for scientific technique which still await development.’ The importance of mass psychology ‘has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called ‘education. The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at.

First, that the influence of home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. But I anticipate. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark gray . When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.”

Writing in 1992 in Fidelio Magazine, [The Frankfurt School and Political Correctness] Michael Minnicino observed how the heirs of Marcuse and Adorno now completely dominate the universities, ‘teaching their own students to replace reason with ‘Politically Correct’ ritual exercises. There are very few theoretical books on arts, letters, or language published today in the United States or Europe which do not openly acknowledge their debt to the Frankfurt School. The witchhunt on today’s campuses is merely the implementation of Marcuse’s concept of ‘repressive toleration’-‘tolerance for movements from the left, but intolerance for movements from the right’-enforced by the students of the Frankfurt School’.

Huxley’s private life resembled that of Aleister Crowley and yet he was held up as a sufficiently august figure to hold a prominent position with the UN. Under Huxley, the UN produced “A Handbook for Teachers”, which was prefaced with:

Again, this is not stating what they’d ideally like but what their plan, which they were already implementing, involved:

Fairly unequivocal, yes?

On the opening page of the UNESCO handbook, it says:

They’re having a go at parents and calling parents’ influence over their own children “injurious”, by definition.

Page 58 says:

“Infects the child with extreme nationalism”? G-d, Queen and country is an “infection”? The handbook encourages children to question their parents’ teaching and to challenge their assumptions.

On p8, it says:

Aiding in this getting of women away from their children are:

1. The necessity for both parents to work, due to financial considerations [costs and debt];

2. the feminist indoctrination of women to see careerism as a higher priority than motherhood;

3. the single mother in work syndrome.

Waiting to receive the children are approved creches and schools conforming to the national curriculum, which conforms to EU guidelines, which conform to UNESCO recommendations.

[There is no time here to look at the war being waged against masculinity and the presentation of other roles for men, other than being men.]

It is now illegal, in Germany, to homeschool children. In March 2011:

Just why they wished their children withdrawn, aside from prudery, becomes apparent further down here.

October 18th, 2009 and it was in the UK:

… on BBC4 Sunday, said that some evangelical parents may need monitoring by the State because they might intimidate their children with ideas about G-d, sin and hell. She was playing, of course, on the extreme aspects played up by the media and glossed over parents withdrawing children from sex education lessons because they wish to handle it in their own way and for other reasons [below].

Johnson went on to suggest that she wanted State officials to be able to interview homeschooled children without their parents being present.  The government, in a short space of time, revised the homeschooling legislation three times, as too many were slipping through loopholes.

So it’s right here amongst us now. Are these the actions of a free nation? Is the State right to suppress those who believe the wrong things and speak the wrong things, according to the State and its supporters?

In the U.S.:

The judge held that the girl’s Christian views were “too sincerely held” and needed to be “mixed among other world views”. And what views did the parents object to?

To the UNESCO undersigned SIECUS agreement, which stated:

That’s what those parents wanted their children withdrawn from. And was this some bizarre one-off? Back in the UK:

The whole thrust of the PCism, the curriculum, inclusiveness, diversity and so on and so on has been the synthesis of all ideas into one, State approved idea in each area of human activity.

By definition, truth is exclusive, not inclusive. If I say the sky is blue, I mean it is not green or yellow. If you say to me that I am discriminating, then you are denying a truism, in the cause of all-inclusiveness, all must have prizes.  Yes, I am discriminating, in the sense that I choose to drink water, not petrol.  I won’t have a bar of petrol in my stomach.

The Stat is right behind the PCist on this and behind our State is the EU and behind them, the UN and behind them, the Baileys and Huxleys of the world.

And what happens to those who know certain things are right and wrong?

They are to be suppressed, marginalized, mocked as anachronistic and hatemongers. They are eventually to be rounded up as troublemakers and not many will cry foul over that. Most will want these troublemakers to just go away.

That’s where we’re heading. How many know about all this going on?

39 comments for “The World Core Curriculum and your children

  1. Revolution Harry
    April 26, 2011 at 9:51 pm

    Superb article James. As usual I covered similar ground in an article on my blog. I know it may seem like a shameless plug but it is worth a read. There are things in your article not covered in mine but conversely there are elements of mine that add a bit more to what you’ve written above.

    On the subject of those who refuse to go along with the ‘program’ the words of leading New Ager Barbara Marx Hubbard are particularly chilling. In her book, ‘The Book of Co-Creation’, she writes:

    “Out of the full spectrum of the human personality, one-fourth is elected to transcend and one-fourth are destructive, defective seeds. In the past they were permitted to die a natural death. Now, as we approach the quantum shift from the creature-human to the co-creative human – the human who is an inheritor of god-like powers – the destructive one-fourth must be eliminated from the social body. Fortunately, you are not responsible for this act. We are. We are in charge of God’s selection process for planet Earth. He selects – we destroy. We are the riders of the pale horse, Death.”

    Alice Bailey says a similar thing in ‘Education in the New Age’:

    “Let us never forget … that when a (life) form proves inadequate, or too diseased, or too crippled … it is–from the point of view of the hierarchy– no disaster when that form has to go…. Death is not a disaster to be feared; the Work of the destroyer is not really cruel or undesirable…. Therefore, there is much destruction permitted by the Custodians of the Plan and much evil turned into good.”

    As you say, these are their words not mine.

  2. April 26, 2011 at 10:13 pm

    Trouble is, Harry, as evidenced by the amount of comment, it’s a very iffy area to tackle. Libertarians should be concerned because it is the snuffing out of freedom but the UN is such a mindbogglingly boring topic that that’s how they get away with so much. One has to read a lot of fine print before one comes to the anomaly.

    • John Catherwood
      May 2, 2011 at 3:38 pm

      Bailey was a fruitloop – no-one now (and I expect few when she was alive 60 years ago) pays her any attention – yes we ought to root out the nutter new agers from government, but its crazy to think that this stuff is in any way related to what goes on in our schools now.

      I find it disturbing that the emphasis here is on giving parents freedom to poison their children’s minds with falsehoods and encourage them to take fixed moral positions about other people’s religious, or sexual choices – that is not libertarianism.

      • May 2, 2011 at 3:48 pm

        Bailey was a fruitloop – no-one now (and I expect few when she was alive 60 years ago) pays her any attention

        You’re right – we don’t pay her any mind. Sadly, the movers and shakers in the WCC do and have acknowledged this. This is the whole issue. We are the sane who don’t believe all this claptrap. The PTB are the insane who do, as is evidenced in their writings quoted.

        The disturbing thing is not parental choice but the government determining what parents can and cannot do. In fact, it is more than disturbing – it is on the edge of evil, when the governing philosophy is evil. If the governing philosophy had been benign, then it might be fine for them to set the guidelines.

        • John Catherwood
          May 3, 2011 at 9:51 pm

          “if the governing philosophy had been benign then it might be fine…”

          So your objection is not to govt interference, just govt interfering in evil ways – so, if we leave aside the fruitloopery (which is filtered out by national local and school level application of sanity) what is it that is evil and which you object to in the UK national curriculum?

  3. April 26, 2011 at 10:26 pm

    Good post James.

  4. April 26, 2011 at 10:50 pm

    James, to an extent such matters are largely preaching to the choir, but there will always be some people who haven’t yet worked out how far we have travelled down the road toward a world government, how integrated so much of society has become – e.g. here; education, and the principalities and powers which guide their great project.

    As for Julian Huxley and Unesco, I advise checking this:

    “Unesco; it’s purpose and philosophy” written by Hux in 1946. Try searching the term ‘eugenics’ and you will see just how important this was to him and them.

    • John Catherwood
      May 2, 2011 at 3:31 pm

      isn’t 1946 old news? Huxley and all the others mentioned in this article are long dead – how relevant is any of this to now?

      • May 2, 2011 at 3:37 pm

        How relevant is the Frankfurt School? The ideas are passed down and refined, are they not? Ditoo in Austrian economics. To say that because it was long ago, it is not relevant is an interesting slant -a novel one in fact. 😉

  5. April 27, 2011 at 4:05 am

    Thank you for this, while familiar with most of the indviduals that you name and quote I had never bedore heard of the UN World Core Curriculum. This post begins to make clear some of the barmy roads that the country has been going down but what is truly shocking is how long it has been going on.

    To look at just one issue
    “3. the single mother in work syndrome” This would explain the Governments crazy insistance on mothers going to work even when, after Taxis (yes, taxis, not taxes but those too) and childcare costs the mother has no economuc gain. I had previously put this down expanding the tax base, working mum + childminder.

    And on the undermining of families I note that a Catholic adoption agency today lost their appeal against them refusing to let homosexuals adopt the children in their care.

    RH “one-fourth are destructive, defective seeds”
    That’ll be the smokers presumably.

    • John Catherwood
      May 2, 2011 at 3:24 pm

      Close reading of this will show that 3.the single mother in work syndrome is not UN or UNESCO policy, or quoted as such – it is a quote from the blog from which this article was taken. Can’t blame the UN or the World Core Curriculum for that one.

  6. April 27, 2011 at 8:30 am

    “And what happens to those who know certain things are right and wrong?

    They are to be suppressed, marginalized, mocked as anachronistic and hatemongers. They are eventually to be rounded up as troublemakers and not many will cry foul over that. “

    Just as they didn’t when the smokers were demonised. And now they are turning their beady eyes on the drinkers, and the lovers of fast food, and so on, and so on…

    • April 27, 2011 at 8:55 am

      Thanks, Daniel and Trooper.

      Julia and Banned – and this new blog is just one small contribution, going back to Luikkerland’s opening post, where if we could just make enough noise about these things to wake up the average citizen out there to realize all this and cry out themselves. Then we might be getting somewhere because they do fear public opinion, as you know.

      But it’s one thing knowing and another to have the guts to target these people doing these things. That’s the next stage and I’m at a loss how to do it, except on a micro-level. Sort of use their Big Society communitarianism against them. Withdraw our custom and drink and smoke in the garden of the house opposite the pub.

      Then they ban that in front gardens of houses. So eventually, it is those making these rules, mainly councils, who need targetting.

    • John Catherwood
      May 2, 2011 at 3:30 pm

      Are you seriously comparing a health measure (preventing thousands of people from getting bhronchitis, emphesyma and cancer) campaigned for by every doctor in the land, and applauded by every non and ex smoker, (and approved of by most smokers, 90% of whom have tried to quit at some time) with the supression of racism, and saying that both are bad things? Are you suggesting that the anti smoking campaign is some marxist occultist plot? I thought the Libertarian ideal was freedom with responsibility, not egotistical pursuit of pleasure at the cost of other people’s health and welfare.

      • May 2, 2011 at 3:42 pm

        Not in the least, not by me. First I read of it was through you, John.

  7. April 27, 2011 at 1:21 pm

    All going rather well, isn’t it? Especially here in England.

    Blog on, free souls. They haven’t suppressed us all yet. They cannot and shall not.

    Thanks, James.

  8. April 27, 2011 at 3:04 pm

    I’m afraid this post has a bit too much of a “tinfoil hat” feel for my liking.

    Perhaps everything you say is true, but ordinary text with links and citations would have been more compelling than screenshots of a YouTube video that employs a scary font.

    • April 27, 2011 at 3:28 pm

      Yes, it certainly does have that feel, SP, if one has not seen all the lead in material, which was 74 youtubes long plus about 6000 posts on variations of the theme. The proof of the pudding, of course, is the next few years.

      Your point is quite valid about the lack of links and scary font. If you go to nourishing obscurity, my blog, you’ll see it is not my usual way but I didn’t have the time to type out all the screenshots, 41 of them, with yesterday being the opening day of our new blog.

      • April 27, 2011 at 3:45 pm

        Cheers. I’ll check out Nourishing Obscurity. Congrats on setting up this site. Looks quite promising.

    • John Catherwood
      May 2, 2011 at 3:56 pm

      Doing a bit of research here – the quote attributed to Muller

      “steer our children towards global citizenship, earth-centered beliefs, socialist values and collective mindset which is becoming a requirement for the 21st century workforce.”

      does not appear to be from him It is from the right wing american Christian New Man Magazine, in 1995.

      Now it may be a pastiche or derived from something Muller said, but I can’t find an accurate source – I suspect that this is a straw man.

      • May 2, 2011 at 3:59 pm

        No, from him as quoted. Easily found for those who look.

        • John Catherwood
          May 3, 2011 at 11:21 am

          Sorry, I looked – so far all I can find is people quoting him, and they seem to be quoting this secondary source – which I think is not directly quoting him. I’m not trolling here, I just like to know that we are dealing with real problems nit ‘made up by the Daily Mail’ problems.

          Mueller was is seems a devotee of Bailey’s world unity ideas, but again we have not been shown that he (or UNESCO) bought into the whole channeled Master’s and spiritual nuttiness. I need to see real connections backed by properly authenticated quotations and unbiased sources, demonstrating that the butters really do have influence. This blog post is not properly referenced, does not show connections (although it is not as bad as some who draw inferences from the flimsiest similarities) and would not stand up to the scrutiny that any academic would put it under. So, let us assume I am simply looking in the wrong places – please do what any respectable researcher would do and supply a credible source for this quotation that is clearly from Mueller, not merely attributed to him or quoting from a secondary source.

          • May 3, 2011 at 11:28 am

            “sorry I looked”

            “properly authenticated quotations”

            John, this is exactly like me saying that Churchill wanted to attack Hitler. There is corroboration both direct and indirect. So, I quote him saying this, it doesn’t matter anyway because I show other references to it, he clearly is of that mindset, his peer group is of that mindset, yet someone comes in and says, “I can’t see that substantiated.”

            Well obviously not – that person has no interest whatever in that being substantiated.

            This is why we just let people do their own research and make up their own minds. Articles like this point one in the direction and the rest is up to the reader.

            I’ll be coming back to the WCC soon for a second post, addressing exactly that point – how far Muller’s ideas permeate the WCC [or not, of course].

          • John Catherwood
            May 3, 2011 at 10:14 pm

            No James it is not. You have not provided direct corroboration, nor an actual source of this quote showing it is from Mueller. I agree that it sounds like something he might say, given what we do know he did say – but that is not the same as him saying it.

            If you are going to say that Mueller said it then you need to show when and where he said it – otherwise it is not merely unsubstantiated, but it is potentially untrue. Articles like this that contain untrue statements (especially ones that the author knows to be untrue) have no credibility.

            That quote is at best the interpretation of what Mueller has said, by a source which may not be unbiased. Now if you would like to acknowledge this – say simply “okay, New Man Magaizine in 1995 said that Mueller’s schools aim to steer…. etc, then fine, I have no beef with that. But it is undermining of your credibility, and the credibility of your case, and of the Libertarian cause, to either misattribute, or misrepresent the positions of our opponents, and even worse to say in cavalier fashion that “it doesn’t matter anyway” whether he said it, since it chimes with other things he says.

            The Truth always matters.

          • May 3, 2011 at 10:31 pm

            to say in cavalier fashion that “it doesn’t matter anyway” whether he said it, since it chimes with other things he says.

            John, I expected better. Your wilful misreading of what is said is a clear case of trollism. Not only have you failed to debunk the quote and provided no evidence beyond not being able to find what has already been found and quoted in so many places, but when I say it is not germane to the argument about Muller anyway because there is so much else, which I quote an instance of direct from his literature, you ignore even that and come out with guff including strawmen about New Man’s magazine or whatever, whilst introducing other strawmen of your own, which serve as the springboard of your argument.

            Then you use your own conclusion, based on no introduced evidence whatever to say that the Muller quote is not his and from such devastating logic, conclude that my credibility is shot and that of the libertarian cause.

            That last one is interesting because most libertarians count me a centre-right conservative.

            You also ignore my statement that part 2 [soon] is specifically about Muller and the WCC.

            So, having debunked nothing, except in your own head, you draw all sorts of conclusions from your own strawmen.

            And the classic – then talk about truth, in general terms.

            Yes John – truth does matter. That’s why it was put in this post, quote by quote. Unbiased readers, of which you are obviously not one, as I mentioned before, can draw their own conclusions.

  9. Poppyfields
    April 29, 2011 at 11:06 am

    A very interesting article and one which only adds fuel to my belief in ‘End time’ prophesy. Education is just a small part of the one-world government which will come and there is nothing we can do to stop it, although that doesn’t mean we have to be part of it.

  10. April 30, 2011 at 7:51 am

    Your pic 5: “… the collective mindset which is becoming a requirement for the 21st century workforce.”

    For the “workforce” only?

    • John Catherwood
      May 2, 2011 at 4:02 pm

      not a real quote from Muller I think…

      • May 2, 2011 at 4:14 pm

        As you will keep saying that in your trolling role and I shall insist on the quote as the author, let’s take another tack.


        That is a text quoting Bailey:

        the doctrine of right human relations

        Now, in the current day WWC Muller school:

        to work constantly towards right human relations

        The text and quotes in the post stand, as is, I’m afraid. There are references to it from Mueller’s writings in many places and that’s the task of the impartial observer to look at.

        The RM schools use the WCC and as it’s founder, his ideas permeate it.

  11. sheila struthers
    June 1, 2011 at 5:35 pm

    See you have found the Scottish Curriculum for Excellence (global citizenship frame).

    Sadly, Scotland is blazing a trail when it comes to the cradle to grave monitoring of its citizens.

    These issues have recently been exposed by Kenneth Roy of the Scottish Review – an old school investigative journalist with his own online publication. I have been posting Kenneth’s articles and other recent coverage on this discussion thread:

    I actually found this post when trying to find out a bit more about the quasi mystical tone of some of the terms used to describe our Getting it right for every child agenda – well-becoming, golden thread, universal paths, journeys etc…

    Anyway, please have a look at how all the various components of the people processing machine fit together and pay particular attention to our prize-winning eCare as something similar is surely heading everyone’s way.

  12. Tech
    June 1, 2011 at 7:04 pm

    Interesting article, thanks 🙂

    I blogged about the religious/sex ed/home ed thing during the period of time that you mention above, you might or might not like to read that too.

  13. September 21, 2011 at 11:19 pm

    Quietly I’ve been trying for some time to acquire some of the teaching materials for ‘Curriculum for Excellence’ but it’s very difficult. All of my teaching acquaintances/friends are now retired and some have been able to sight bits and pieces, but the general consensus was ‘it is an experiment of Scottish schoolchildren’.

    Without contact with Sheila and Elaine I would have little or no knowledge of the sources for this ‘new’ style of education.

    Thanks for taking the time to post this James.

  14. September 22, 2011 at 8:29 am

    It’s when you get down to the wording that you realize what you have on your hands. Sheila’s links lead to that. It’s exactly the PC wording which has been used to blight in other areas of life, e.g. in job applications in the public sector. Heaven help Scottish children.

Comments are closed.