From Factual Education to Global Mind Control
A “Common Core” for a Global Community
“The task before UNESCO… is to help the emergence of a single world culture with its own philosophy and background of ideas and with its own broad purpose.”  Julian Huxley, the first head of UNESCO, 1947.
The goal of education has changed! Our schools no longer teach the kind of literacy, history, math, and morality that we once considered essential to responsible citizenship. The new generation of post-modern students are being trained to believe whatever might serve a pre-determined ‘common good.’
If their educators succeed, tomorrow’s students will have neither the facts nor the freedom needed for independent thinking. Their “common core” will be based on a global collective agenda, not on American freedom or Christian values. Like Nazi youth, they will be taught to react, not think, when nudged to do the unthinkable.
Dr. Thomas Sowell summarized this mind-changing process in a 1993 article titled “Indoctrinating the Children”:
“The techniques of brainwashing developed in totalitarian countries are routinely used in psychological conditioning programs imposed on American school children. These includeemotional shock and desensitization, psychological isolation from sources of support, stripping away defenses, manipulative cross-examination of the individual’s underlying moral values, and inducing acceptance of alternative values by psychological rather than rational means.”
“O our God . . . we have no might against this great company that cometh against us;
neither know we what to do: but our eyes are upon Thee. (2 Chronicles 20:12)
The Global Roots of “Common Core” Education
Parents beware! A New World Order is rising. It has no tolerance for Christianity, traditional values, or historical facts that expose its lies. The seeds for this transformation were planted long ago, but few saw the warning signs. Now that the evidence is too vast to deny, we need to prepare our children for a different kind of world: a world where an educated and responsible citizenry no longer exists in sufficient numbers to maintain the rule of law and individual freedom.
Today’s education goals were envisioned more than a century ago by socialist American and British elites who steered the process from behind the scenes. Though the labels changed through the years, they all served a globalist vision of a totalitarian world equipped to conform young minds to a socialist/Communist system.
Each decade brought us closer to the fulfillment of that anti-Christian agenda. The latest version of the international education plan is called “Common Core” (CC) or “Common Core Standards” (CCS) or “Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in America. These deceptive labels hide the global agenda—at least for the moment.
“Common Core” is the latest extension of previous programs aimed at mind-changing compliance with UNESCO’s evolving guidelines. You may remember some of the past titles: Education for All, Outcome Based Education, Quality Learning, No Child Left Behind, etc. In the years ahead, new labels and propaganda will surely continue to push this global agenda forward until the world’s elite masters decide that they have reached their goal: total control of the serfs that serve them.
In a 2009 article titled “The Spiritualization of Science, Technology and Education in a One-World Society,” Dr. Martin Erdmann writes,
“Aldous Huxley envisioned a future world society totally controlled by an elite group of scientists. His best-known fictional work explicating this dire prospect bore the title Brave New World. Years later he would “revisit” his prognostications only to conclude that he had underestimated the rate of change realizing his darkest fears.”
Aldous, brother of the prominent Julian Huxley who served as the first Director-General of UNESCO, had reason to be concerned. Raised among British socialist/globalist elites (some of whom funded Communism in Russia), he shared their vision and glimpsed their totalitarian goals. Of course, he didn’t know that more than half a century later, the global-minded Bill Gates would use his wealth to help establish that long-term vision:
“Gates’ astronomical wealth has persuaded millions that Common Core is the solution to education problems…But… the truth remains that whenever unelected philanthropists are permitted to direct public policy, the voting public gets cut out of the process.”
As you scroll down the century-long chronology, notice the powerful people, the elitist organizations, and the wealthy foundations that have planned, steered and funded the amoral transformation of our schools, churches and communities. Their common goal is global socialism: a totalitarian new world order!
Behind that long historical chronology stood influential elites who supported the global vision. They include bankers, presidents, politicians as well as members of secret societies such as The Council of Foreign Relations (CFR), Skull and Bones, Bilderberg and the Trilateral Commission. They didn’t leave Obama to rule by himself. Just as President Woodrow Wilson had Colonel Mandel House as his secretive mentor, so President Obama is surrounded by global-minded counselors such as Joe Biden, Zbigniew Brzezinski and others.
So Who Will Rule the Global School?
Seven years ago a world-changing event took place. It would revolutionize education, families, faith and basic values in our fading “land of the free.” I’m referring to the Moscow Declaration that was officially adopted on June 2, 2006, by the Education Ministers of the United States, the Russian Federation, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom. The members of this international “Group of Eight” (G-8) have committed their nations to “cooperation in education at all levels in the 21st century.”
What about America’s “Common Core” standards? How do they fit into the Moscow Declaration?
Marketed to American families as an improved education program, the actual truth about “Common Core” has been hidden from us. Our government leaders didn’t tell us that we were already committed to a multinational education agenda! But it all makes sense when we consider the century-old movement toward global education and a new world order!!
Back in 2006, Eagle Forum’s Education Reporter explained the implication of the “Moscow Declaration‘:
“Russia’s Science and Education Minister Andrei Fursenko described the declaration as ‘both a final document of the conference and the document that will be implemented by education ministers of all the world countries and international organizations, including the World Bank, UNESCO, and UN.'”
That certainly sounds like a global education system, doesn’t it? But the American people were kept in the dark! The Education Reporter continues,
“The U.S. Department of Education said the member delegates ‘pledged to share best practices across borders’ to build ‘education systems that can allow people… to live and contribute to a global society…’
“Included in previously adopted initiatives… are those from UNESCO as well as the 1985 agreement with the USSR [before the end of “the cold war”] called ‘The General Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics [USSR] on contacts, exchanges and cooperation in scientific, technical, educational, cultural and other fields.’…
“What can be expected from the Moscow Declaration? If the historical results of U.S. participation with international reforms continue in the same vein, it is not unreasonable to expect the whole of U.S. education — from preschool, elementary, secondary, and higher education — will encounter further upheaval and decline.”
Today’s sobering realities remind me of the boastful statement made by Nikita Khrushchev back in 1959. Perhaps he was right:
“You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won’t have to fight you. We’ll so weaken your economy until you’ll fall like overripe fruit into our hands.”
But God said: “My grace is sufficient for thee:
for my strength is made perfect in weakness.'” (2 Corinthians 12:9)
The Common Core Standards Guides the Global Agenda
It’s hard to define the actual Common Core standards. Shrouded in positive promises and perplexing assertions, many ordinary readers are left wondering what’s true or false. Faced with open-ended and unfamiliar terminology, concerned parents are confused and discouraged. They may recognize the false marketing and deceptive propaganda, but they don’t know where to find honest answers. For example, the mission statement posted at “Common Core State Standards Initiative” is anything but clear:
“The Common Core State Standards provide a consistent, clear understanding of what students are expected to learn, so teachers and parents know what they need to do to help them. The standards are designed to be robust and relevant to the real world, reflecting the knowledge and skills that our young people need for success in college and careers. With American students fully prepared for the future, our communities will be best positioned to compete successfully in the global economy.”
What does it mean by “robust”? Is it “relevant” to the success of all students or just to those who will embrace the spreading immorality and group thinking?
Last year, those confusing but nice-sounding promises brought rapid enthusiasm among some parents, but skepticism is now growing fast. Just ponder the statements below. How do we interpret words such as “clearer and higher” or “rigorous contents”? What does “rigorous” mean in a classroom where facts are replaced by group speculations and dialectical thinking? How can concerned parents find answers to bewildering slogans such as these:
- Fewer, clearer, and higher, to best drive effective policy and practice;
- Aligned with college and work expectations…
- Inclusive of rigorous content and applications of knowledge through higher-order skills…
- Internationally benchmarked, so that all students are prepared for succeeding in our global economy…
- Research and evidence-based.
This global agenda is far more intrusive, demanding and dangerous to Christian families than most of us can imagine. So ponder this important warning from Phyllis Schlafly:
“UNESCO’s efforts in the 1960s and 1970s to influence U.S. school curriculum were unsuccessful. But now UNESCO has found a sugar daddy. On November 17, 2004 at UNESCO’s headquarters in Paris, UNESCO signed a 26-page ‘Cooperation Agreement’ with Microsoft Corporation to develop a ‘master curriculum (Syllabus)’ for teacher training in information technologies based on standards, guidelines, benchmarks, and assessment techniques. The Agreement states that… ‘UNESCO will explore how to facilitate content development.’
“Following the signing of the Agreement, UNESCO Director General Koichiro Matsuura explained it in a speech. One of its goals, he said, is ‘fostering web-based communities of practice including content development and worldwide curricula reflecting UNESCO values.’ No doubt that is agreeable to Bill Gates because the Agreement states that ‘Microsoft supports the objectives of UNESCO as stipulated in UNESCO’s Constitution.”
Before long, Bill Gates and his UNESCO partners had prepared the following “core standards.” Notice that they are far more honest and threatening than the previous propaganda.
- Environmental education will be incorporated in formal education.
- Any value or attitude held by anyone globally that stands independent to that of the United Nations’ definition of “sustainable education” must change. Current attitudes are unacceptable.
- Education will be belief-and-spirituality based as defined by the global collective.
- Environmental education will be integrated into every subject, not just science…”
Today’s emphasis on “saving the earth” will surely involve mental manipulation and moral degradation. The suggested earth-centered spirituality in the third point would fit well in a culture of promiscuity, propaganda and paganism. And the spreading seductions of the occult will speed the rising hostility toward Biblical truth and values. The second and fourth points speak for themselves. Everything must change! “Current attitudes are unacceptable.”
This transformational process is well under way. Ponder the moral values taught through the new “Common Core ‘Exemplars’” listed here: http://www.corestandards.org/assets/Appendix_B.pdf. Notice on page 108 that this list of chosen “Text Exemplars” includes a sexually explicit novel by Julia Alvarez for ninth and tenth graders. Dr. Mary Grabar gives us a glimpse of its corrupting context:
“I must admit that I would have been too embarrassed to teach Julia Alvarez’s sexually explicit novel, In the Time of the Butterflies, to the college students I have taught for over twenty years, much less to ninth- and tenth-graders, as many Georgia high school teachers have been instructed to do.
“Some high school teachers also have a problem with its overtly feminist and leftist-leaning ideology. The men are portrayed as weak drunkards, continually cheating on their wives….
“The novel is taken straight from Common Core’s “Text Exemplars” for ninth and tenth graders. Although the “exemplars” are officially intended to be suggested readings, educrats take the suggestions literally. They know that they have to prepare students for the national tests being rolled out in 2014-2015.
“For example, there is a drunken New Year’s celebration of ‘the triumphant announcement. Batista had fled! Fidel, his brother Raul, and Ernesto they call Che had entered Havana and liberated the country.’ No indication in the novel that Fidel and Raul turned out to be tyrants, or Che a mass murderer. The novel has explicit descriptions of masturbation and intercourse, but I’m too embarrassed to quote those.”
If only the students children would be equally embarrassed! But part of the purpose for corrupt literature is to replace Biblical morality with immoral sexuality and all kinds of other hindrances to Christian values. May God show us how we can best equip our children to stand firm in Christ in the midst of the coming battles.
Envisioning an Interconnected World
“In the global village … networks will link students around the world to each other and to a vast body of information and human knowledge.”
That promise was made in 1994 during a trans-Atlantic conference between Washington and Berlin. Education Secretary Richard Riley and Labor Secretary Robert Reich shared strategies for building theGlobal Village Schools with their German counterparts. They agreed that educational accord would be vital to their goal of “enforcing social transformation.”
Do you wonder what kind of “social transformation” they planned to enforce? Was personal liberty on their agenda? Or did they seek totalitarian government control as in the French Revolution? What goals and values would guide their plans for global education and social transformation? Capitalism? Socialism? Or Communism? Or a new form of totalitarianism?
And where does militant Islam fit into this global power struggle for the collective minds of children? Its ambitious Sharia-minded leaders are unlikely to compromise! And why would they? Corrupt politicians and liberal media masters are already bending over backward to accommodate Islamic “rights.” But Islamic leaders have their own agenda in America as well as in the Middle East, and they will not tolerate our Christian beliefs.
Remember, Aldous Huxley warned us about such planned distractions long ago. Surrounded by British Fabian Socialists, he became increasingly troubled about the spread of totalitarianism. In 1958, after the deadly fallout from Communist and Nazi tyranny, he shared his concerns in a sobering 1958 book, Brave New World Revisited:
“In Brave New World [his previous book] non-stop distractions of the most fascinating nature… are deliberately used as instruments of policy, for the purpose of preventing people from paying too much attention to the realities of the social and political situation….
“In their propaganda, today’s dictators rely for the most part on repetition, suppression and rationalization: the repetition of catchwords which they wish to be accepted as true, the suppression of facts which they wish to be ignored, the arousal and rationalization of passions which may be used in the interests of the Party or the State.
“As the art and science of manipulation come to be better understood, the dictators of the future will doubtless learn to combine these techniques with the non-stop distractions…”
Bombard children with mind-changing suggestions
A familiar tale told to first-graders in Pennsylvania illustrates both the tactics and the planned transformation of the world. We all know the story of the Little Red Hen who wanted some bread to eat. She asked some of her barnyard friends to help make it. But the cat, the dog, and the goat all said “no.” Finally she did all the work herself. Yet, when the bread was done and its fragrance spread throughout the farm, her unwilling neighbors were more than willing to help her eat it.
“Won’t you share with us?” they begged.
“No,” she answered. “Since you didn’t help, you don’t get anything.”
In the context of traditional values, the moral of the story might be: you get what you work for. But those who have learned to think and see from the new global perspective are led to a different conclusion. Listen to the kinds of questions the first grade teacher asked her class:
“Why was the Little Red Hen so stingy? Isn’t it only right that everyone gets to eat? Why wouldn’t she share what she had with some who had none?”
The concerned mother who heard and reported this story asked, “What kinds of values were the children taught?” The new interpretation emphasizes love and sharing, but what is missing? How might it confuse a child’s values?
The answers are obvious. The children were taught socialist values. The new interpretation vilified values that had motivated Americans to be diligent, responsible and fair. The teacher’s questions were actually strategic suggestions prompting the group to ridicule traditional values, to see reality and society from the new politically correct perspective, and to intimidate and shame anyone who dared to disagree.
A new mental “framework” is vital to the global paradigm shift. But to launch the new system, the old patterns must be blurred, broken and forgotten. The educational establishment knows that children who are fed a daily diet of biblical truth will resist their plans for change. They also know that students bombarded with strategic suggestions will probably reject Christianity. If schools can build the “right” kind of filter in the minds of young children, the new global beliefs will fit right in.
Focus on feelings, not facts
This shift from factual education to mental manipulation and feeling-based learning began more than seventy years ago. Through the decades, the strategies used to manipulate minds in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were developed, first at the Tavistock Clinic near London and later at Germany’s Frankfurt School (originally called Frankfurt Institute for Social Research). Their mind-bending methods soon spread to a rising number of psycho-social research centers in America. They were fine-tuned at Columbia, Harvard, Stanford and other American universities, at our regionaleducational laboratories and at the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies where Elian Gonzales was remediated in preparation for his return to a Communist system.
At the 1989 Governor’s Conference on Education in Kansas, Dr. Shirley McCune, then head of the Mid-Continent Regional Educational Laboratory, summarized the policy in her keynote speech:
“The revolution… in curriculum is that we no longer are teaching facts to children…. We no longer see the teaching of facts and information as the primary outcome of education.”
“What will take the place of logic, fact and analysis in the coming age?” This rhetorical question was raised by Dr. Donald A. Cowan, president emeritus of the University of Dallas. His revealing answer exposes an important step toward the new consensus:
“The central way of thought for this new era will be imagination…. Imagination will be the active, creative agent of culture, transforming brute materials to a higher, more knowable state.”
A simple example of this process was exposed by a Christian teacher in Sunnyvale CA. During a public elementary school assembly, the students sang the words of the Peacemakers’ Planetary Anthem to the tune of the Star Spangled Banner. This melody, which has symbolized freedom to those who have loved America, now became a tactical trigger used to turn hearts from the old ways to the new vision.
To shape “world-class students” who see reality through a multicultural filter, social engineers keep testing their latest modification strategies on our children. One tactic is managed group thinking (the dialectic process) which prompts them to reject their old home-taught morality and embrace the collective values of their dialoguing classroom group.
The Left may win the next battle in this spiritual war. The signs of a global revolution are already too close for comfort. We can no longer count on the American Constitution which was based on Biblical principles. More often than not, today’s choices are totally contrary to America’s founding values and God’s wise guidelines.
But our Lord still reigns! In the midst of this spiritual war, He will surely provide His strength, wisdom and His comforting nearness to all who choose to trust and follow Him!
“The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower. I will call upon the LORD, who is worthy to be praised: so shall I be saved from mine enemies.” (Psalm 18:2)
1. Julian Huxley, the first head of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/globalism/julian-huxley.htm
2. Thomas Sowell, “Indoctrinating the Children,” in Forbes, February 1, 1993, p. 65.
3. Dr. Martin Erdmann, “The Spiritualization of Science, Technology and Education in a One-World Society,” January 2009, Volume 2, http://www.clinam.org/images/stories/pdf/volume2.1.pdf
4. Top Ten Scariest People in Education Reform: #5 – Bill Gates, August 2013. http://whatiscommoncore.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/top-ten-scariest-people-in-education-reform-5-bill-gates/
6. John Dewey, “Religion and our Schools.” Abstract: “In 1908 . . . Dewey, wrote a paper ‘Religion and our Schools’. In it he argued that religion should not be taught in schools. Yet Dewey had his own radical religious views. These views are now more widely accepted and religious education less confessional.” July 6, 2006. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0141620980200202#preview
7. Dennis Laurence Cuddy, Ph.D., Chronology of Education with Quotable Quotes, 1994, p. 18.
8. The Humanist Manifesto 1 (1933) was the first public declaration of the views and objectives of humanism. It rejected God and His values but affirmed humanist faith in the power and evolution of man.The Humanist Manifesto II (1973) reaffirmed and amplified this man-centered, relativistic, utopian belief system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_Manifesto_II
9. “Willard Givens presented a report titled “Education for the New America” at the 72nd Annual Meeting of the NEA, held in Washington, D.C. in July 1934. Cited by Dr. Dennis Cuddy, Chronology of Education with Quotable Quotes, p. 20.
10. Joy Elmer Morgan, “The United Peoples of the World,” The NEA Journal (December 1942); p.261.
11. “National Education in an International World.” Printed by the NEA in 1946.
12. J. Elmer Morgan, “The Teacher and World Government,” The NEA Journal (January 1946); p.1.
13. Julian Huxley, first head of UNESCO, (Washington DC: Public Affairs Press, 1947). See http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/globalism/julian-huxley.htm
14. Dennis Cuddy, Ph.D., The Grab for Power: A Chronology of the NEA (Marlborough NH: Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1993); p. 8.
15. John I. Goodlad & Associates, Curriculum Inquiry—the Study of Curriculum Practice (NY: McGraw Hill, 1979), 261.
16. Humanist Manifesto II, Tenet #12. http://americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_II
17. The NEA promotes “A Declaration of Interdependence: Education for a Global Community,” September, 1976. Cuddy, Chronology of Education, p. 59.
18. Muller’s beliefs and influence are explained in Brave New Schools [by Berit Kjos], Chapter 2: “The International Agenda” at http://www.crossroad.to/Books/BraveNewSchools/2-International.htm
19. The Conference on “Learning for All: Bridging Domestic and International Education” with Barbara Bush (Honorary Chair) and a Russian keynote speaker, Elena Lenskaya, October 30-November 1, 1991.
20. The text of “The United Nations World Pledge” was recited by students at a Brownsville (Texas ) school, TiVo Community Forum Archive 1, http://archive.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78176
21. Dennis Laurence Cuddy, Ph.D., Chronology of Education With Quotable Quotes (Highland City, FL: Pro Family Forum, Inc., 1993).p. 100.
22. ‘Moscow Declaration” Adopted by G-8: Education Ministers—Secretary Spellings Commits U.S., Eagle Forum, U.S. Dept. of Education, June 2, 2006.http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/2006/june06/moscow.html
25. Nikita Khrushchev, “Dark Predictions of a KGB Defector,” 1959 at http://frontpagemag.com/2010/10/19/dark-predictions-of-a-kgb-defector/print/
28. Phyllis Schlafly, “Bill Gates Teams Up With UNESCO,” Eagle Forum, November 30, 2005. http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2005/nov05/05-11-30.html
30. Mary Grabar, “Common Core ‘Exemplars’: Literature with Graphic Sex and Praising Castro,” Text Exemplars” for 9th and 10th grades, May 7, 2013,http://watchdogwire.com/florida/2013/05/07/common-core-exemplars-graphic-sex-and-praising-castro. See the new “Common Core ‘Exemplars’” listed here:http://www.corestandards.org/assets/Appendix_B.pdf.
31. From a publicity flier announcing the trans-Atlantic conference held April 10-13, 1994.
32. Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited (Perennial Library,1958), pps. 36-37. www.crossroad.to/Excerpts/books/transformation/brave-revisited.htm
33. This story was included in the first grade curriculum in New Pittsburgh, PA. The story was also told–using the new paradigm context–at a parents’ meeting explaining Character Education. Anita Hoge, formerly a Pennsylvania mother and researcher, reported the story to me.
34. At the time of her 1989 keynote speech, Shirley McCune presided over the Mid-Continent Regional Educational Laboratory (McREL). The Regional Educational Laboratories are private, non-profit corporations which are funded, in whole or in part, under Title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
35. Spoken at a 1988 forum address at the Dallas Institute of Humanities and Culture. This address formed the nucleus for his book, Unbinding Prometheus: Education for the Coming Age.
[Article Reprinted with Permission]
by Bert Kjos 2003
Original Source: http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/0013/common-core/1-common-core-lighthouse.htm
Conforming the Church to the New World Order
by Berit Kjos – 2000
“We restored the vital center, replacing outdated ideologies with a new vision anchored in basic, enduring values: opportunity for all, responsibility from all, and a community of all Americans…. We must shape a 21st Century American revolution – of opportunity, responsibility, and community. … a new nation.” President Clinton, 2000 State of the Union message.
“One Church for One World.” World Council of Churches , 1948
“. . . change will probably be radical, if not total. Those whose lives are dedicated to serving the Church of the past will resist these suggestions with a vehemence that always emerges from threatened hierarchies and dying institutions…. But the seeds of resurrection are present in the exile, and in time those seeds will sprout and bloom. When they do, we will once again be able to see continuity between the Church of the past and the purged and opened church of the future.” Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong, Why Christianity Must Change or Die 
Year 2000 has arrived, ushering in the United Nations’ “International Year of the Culture of Peace.” It brings new pressures to establish the global management system President Clinton calls the Third Way – one that allows governments to yield responsibilities, but not control, to their “private” and “civil” partners who will be required to implement the vision.
The church-state partnerships touted by candidates Bush and Gore fit the picture. These political alliances are already being established from coast to coast, not by law, but by an army of willing and often well-meaning religious leaders. Those who share the UN vision of the 21st Century community usually lead the parade. They seek a global village of peace and social equality – unified, not by faith in the Biblical God, but by faith in human nature and a pluralistic god-spirit operating in and through each person.
Christian evangelism doesn’t fit this utopian vision. It offends people of other faiths. It threatens the religious leaders who have built their platform on humanitarian ideals rather than the Bible. And it clashes with the international standards for tolerance and mental health.
This spiritual shift didn’t start in the nineties. Liberal ecclesiastical leaders realized more than fifty years ago that Biblical absolutes, separateness, and evangelism would block their agenda. To clear the way, they built the foundations for today’s worldwide movement that would
- Equate Biblical truth and evangelism with hate and intolerance
- Redefine Christianity
- Hold Christians accountable to global standards for mental health
- Conform churches to the demands in UNESCO’s Declaration on Religion in a Culture of Peace
- Build the framework for global control
- Establish the one world church
Equate Biblical Truth and Evangelism with Hate and Intolerance
It’s not surprising that Chicago’s liberal Council of Religious Leaders opposes a Baptist plan to send 100,000 missionaries into their domain next summer. Nor is it strange that the Southern Baptist Convention’s refusal to cancel its plans fueled the fury of two groups: those who equate Biblical values and evangelism with hate and intolerance and those who feel they had been specifically targeted for conversion.
“The evangelical fervor of the Southern Baptists, America’s largest Protestant denomination, remain undiminished despite criticism over their controversial ‘prayer book,’” wrote Ramesh Chandran in The Times of India News Service (12-9). The offensive prayer book describing Hindu beliefs and culture – one of several prayer books written for training purposes – dared to suggest that Hindu devotees had “darkness in their hearts” and didn’t share in Christ’s promise of salvation.
Such Christian “intolerance” and “exclusiveness” is outlawed by UNESCO’s Declaration on Tolerance and unacceptable to the Hindu, Muslim and Jewish leaders. Naturally, they don’t want Christians to pray for their salvation or write critical descriptions of their beliefs and culture in their training manuals.
Chicago’s Council of Religious Leaders has joined Mr. Chandran on this spiritual battlefield. Made up of 40 Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish institutions, this civil-minded Council wrote a letter to the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) asking that it “enter into discussion with us and reconsider your plans….” In other words, it called for conflict resolution based on the consensus process and aimed at compromise and common ground.
Rabbi Ira Youdovin, executive director of the Chicago Board of Rabbis, was the chief author of this letter. He wrote,
“While we are confident that your volunteers would come with entirely peaceful intentions, a campaign of the nature and scope you envision could contribute to a climate conducive to hate crimes.”
Richard Land, president of the SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission wrote an answer. Its warning should concern everyone who values our increasingly fragile Constitutional right to follow and express our convictions:
“…To say that Southern Baptists should refrain from an evangelistic campaign because it might, as the council said, ‘contribute to a climate conducive to hate crimes,’ is not a very far step away from then claiming that the act of witnessing itself to those whom you believe need to be saved is a ‘hate crime.’
“…those who criticize Southern Baptist’ efforts to evangelize cities or groups always preface their criticism by acknowledging Southern Baptists’ right to express our belief. It seems they affirm our right to express our beliefs as long as we agree not to do so. As soon as we seek to practice what we preach, they severely criticize our “arrogance” and our ‘presupposition’ that non-Christians ‘are outside God’s plan of salvation’…
“I grieve… that a Methodist minister would make such statements in response to fellow believers’ attempts to heed the Great Commission commandment of Jesus our Savior, who it should be remembered did say, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me.’ (John 14:6)”
You may question the wisdom of the ways the SBC trains its missionaries and handles its private training books. But its intention was to spread love, not hate, and its plans include feeding and clothing the poor. “We have a message that we think will bring encouragement and hope to people,” said Herb Hollinger, an SBC spokesman.
Still, their message will bring little hope to those who seek socialist solidarity. The Chicago Council can’t build its kind of unity without silencing contrary voices.
Few things offend the liberal church establishment more than an uncompromising faith in Jesus Christ as the only way to God. It “smacks of a kind of non-Jesus-like arrogance,” said Bishop C. Joseph Sprague, a member of the Council of Religious leaders and the head of 425 churches in the United Methodist Church’s Northern Illinois Conference. Referring to the SBC summer campaign, he continued,
“I am always fearful when we in the Christian Community move beyond the rightful claim that Jesus is decisive for us, to the presupposition that non-Christians … are outside God’s plan for salvation.”
Bishop Sprague apparently believes that people of every religious persuasion would be safe within God’s saving grace. If so, Christ’s death has little significance today, an evangelistic crusade would be futile, and the Bishop’s response would make perfect sense. This campaign could, he said, “upset the unity that has carefully developed between Protestants, Catholics and Jews in Chicago during the past few years.”
He is right. It could. Bishop Sprague’s kind of community oneness permits diversity in the non-essentials, but it demands unity in some key areas that violate Biblical truth. It forbids divisive attitudes as well as Biblical values, and it sets its new social standards above God’s word.
Small wonder, then, that when World Net Daily asked the Methodist bishop if “preaching against homosexuality could be considered a hate crime,” he answered, “…it certainly can. It creates a climate in which hate can fester.”
As chairperson of the National Shalom Committee and founder of Communities of Shalom, Bishop Sprague is committed to a course of action that would guard his city against “the offense of the cross.” He has no objections to social action, but Baptist evangelism would be unacceptable:
“They are welcome to come, if they’re coming to join with us in acts of mercy and justice on behalf of this community in general, and specifically on behalf of the marginalized and dispossessed…. We are not interested in their coming to proselytize or to suggest, however well intentioned, that Jews, Hindus, or others are second class.”
At over 260 Shalom sites across the country (including Chicago) churches are working with their communities “toward systemic change.” Collaborating with community organizations and residents, they pursue benevolent social goals such as economic development, affordable housing, multicultural relationships, and “health and healing that addresses issues affecting physical, emotional, and social wholeness.”
“Spiritual and congregational development” is encouraged through “study circles” which pair “congregations from different faith traditions” in small groups “for dialogue.” Here they “grapple with public issues and build community.”
But in these consensus groups, everyone must follow certain guidelines. They must “seek common ground,” be willing to compromise, and come to consensus. To hold on to absolute truths and refuse to conform to the group values would be considered uncooperative and intolerant.
It’s an effective process. That’s why Marx promoted it and Lenin made it the cornerstone of the Soviet education system. It’s guaranteed to destroy Biblical faith and redefine Christianity. (See Mind Control)
The Shalom website includes the standard mission and vision statements that are part of the new global management systems. It quotes the Bible but puts Scriptures into a context that changes the meaning. It also shows why, from the bishop’s perspective, the Baptist plan would undermine his efforts to establish solidarity.
“The Biblical understanding of shalom (Hebrew word for peace), is not merely the absence of conflict but everything that makes for people’s highest good. It works toward hope and wholeness in which people, individually and collectively, experience health, prosperity, security, oneness with nature, and spiritual renewal. In John 14:27, Jesus, in one of his final moments with his disciples, offers peace… not as the world gives but as God gives (NRSV). Shalom is the transforming power of God at work through the church in individuals and the community. Through the power of God, Communities of Shalom work for spiritual renewal, community economic development, and healthy communities.”
Notice the twisted truths. While Shalom is the Hebrew word for peace, John 14:27 points to a different kind of peace – an inner peace that can only be enjoyed by believers who trust and follow Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace. Unlike the world’s peace, the peace He offers doesn’t depend on comfortable circumstances. “These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace,” He told His disciples. “In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33)
In contrast, “healthy communities” refers to a U.S program linked to the World Health Organization, a specialized UN agency, which intends to impose its socialist uniformity on every community under the banner of peace. This global “mental health” system has nothing to do with God’s peace. Its “shalom” is only for those who conform to the new global values. Its aim is to measure and monitor beliefs and values everywhere, then remediate all who refuse to compromise. To “promote the… optimal development of the mental health of the population,” it must stamp out Biblical faith and obedience. (See The UN Plan for Your Mental Health)
Hold Everyone Accountable to New Standards for “MENTAL HEALTH”
Bishop Sprague is not the first American church leader touting a public health program that includes “mental health” based on politically correct standards. He and his Shalom Community partners across America have joined hands with the World Health Organization (WHO) and the US Department of Health and Human Services.
In its 1954 Biannual Report (58-196), the National Council of Churches referred to its Commission on Religion and Health which would address the “mental health problem.” In his well-documented 1958 book, Collectivism in the Church, Edgar C. Bundy explains,
“Because ‘mental health’ has become available as a lever to be used for promoting political and ideological designs, a word on the subject is in order. No one is against adequate care for people who are, beyond reasonable doubt, insane…..
“Something new has come into the subject of insanity, however, within the past several years. People who are normal in every sense of the word but who hold unpopular political ideas, such as opposition to world government and to the United Nations, Federal aid to education, and socialism, are now being branded by their political opponents as ‘lunatics,’ ‘nuts’ and ‘idiots.’
“Some of the mental health legislation which has recently been introduced on state and Federal levels gives such wide latitude of interpretations to psychiatrists and politicians… that it is conceivable that anyone who takes a stand for the sovereignty of the United States, in favor of Congressional investigations, in opposition to fluoridation of public water supplies, and in favor of state’s rights could be committed to an asylum in order to silence opposition.”
Do you find this hard to believe? Concerned that these warnings might be realized, U.S. Congressman Usher L. Burdick of North Dakota submitted Resolution 98 to the 85th Congress. Here are a few points in his resolution:
“WHEREAS … the language of this bill is subject to misinterpretations which could jeopardize Constitutional rights of the individual; and
“WHEREAS among the psychiatrists are those who advocate an ideology foreign to the United States, as set forth in ‘Mental Health and World Citizenship,’ the statement of the 1948 International Congress on Mental Health; and
“WHEREAS the mental health organizations are sponsoring in the several states commitment legislation which violates the rights guaranteed to every citizen under the Constitution of the United States….
“RESOLVED by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring) That the Congress of the United States make a complete investigation into all ramifications and implications of mental health legislative programs which are currently being promoted.”
If only the current Congress would take the same precautions. Right now, a far more sophisticated system for measuring and monitoring “the mental health of the population” is being implemented through WHO-federal-and-state partnerships that work in local communities to accomplish what Congress would never permit, the mainstream media may never tell, and the public may not realize until the system is in place.
Conform the Church to UNESCO’s Guidelines
The standards for 21st Century spirituality are outlined in UNESCO’s 1994 “Declaration on the role of religion in the promotion of a culture of peace.” You probably haven’t heard of this “soft” international law signed in Barcelona in December, 1994. Yet, its guidelines have spread throughout the world, fueled by multicultural education, interactive technology, books such as the Harry Potter series, the media, movies, television and last, but not least, American churches.
As you read these short excerpts from UNESCO’s Declaration on the Role of Religion, try to remember where and when you last heard these politically correct attitudes or assertions:
- “Religions have… led to division, hatred, and war.”
- “Peace entails that we understand that we are all interdependent…. collectively responsible for the common good.”
- “Our communities of faith have a responsibility to encourage conduct imbued with wisdom, compassion, sharing, charity, solidarity, and love; inspiring one and all to choose the path of freedom and responsibility. Religions must be a source of helpful energy.”
- “We should distinguish fanaticism from religious zeal.”
- “We will favor peace by countering the tendencies of individuals and communities to assume or even to teach that they are inherently superior to others.”
- “We will promote dialogue and harmony between and within religions… respecting the search for truth and wisdom that is outside our religion. We will establish dialogue with all, striving for a sincere fellowship….”
- “…we will build a culture of peace based on non-violence, tolerance, dialogue, mutual understanding, and justice. We call upon the institutions of our civil society, the United Nations System, governments, governmental and non-governmental organizations, corporations, and the mass media, to strengthen their commitments to peace and to listen to the cries of the victims….”
- “We call upon the different religious and cultural traditions to join hands… and to cooperate with us….” [Emphasis added]
In case you are wondering how UNESCO could possibly be linked to Chicago’s Council of Religious Leaders or to Methodist Bishop Sprague, lets go back to the fifties again. There we see both the roots of religious synthesis ( the blending and blurring of beliefs and convictions through the consensus process) and the hidden partnerships that link church leaders to powerful politicians who carry the “Christian” social and economic agenda into Congress and the White House.
Build the Framework for Global Control
In 1942, six years before the World Council of Churches was formally launched, its organizers within the Federal Council of Churches held a National Study conference at Wesleyan University in Ohio. Among the 30 delegates were 15 bishops, seven seminary presidents, and eight college and university presidents.
John Foster Dulles, who later became Secretary of State in the Eisenhower administration, chaired the conference. As head of the Federal Council’s inter-Church “Commission to Study the Bases of a Just and Durable Peace,” Dulles submitted the conference report. It recommended:
- a world government of delegated powers
- immediate limitations on national sovereignty
- international control of all armies and navies
- a universal system of money
- worldwide freedom of immigration
- a democratically controlled international bank
- even distribution of the world’s natural wealth.
That was 1942! Soon afterwards, Time magazine wrote a summary of the report. In its statement below, notice these words: “a new order… through voluntary cooperation within the framework of democracy or through explosive political revolution.” This solution, “voluntary cooperation within the framework of democracy” gives us a glimpse of the true meaning of nice-sounding words such asdemocracy, volunteerism, participation (involving everyone in the consensus process), partnerships, and civil society:
“Some of the conference’s economic opinions were almost as sensational as the extreme internationalism of its political program. It held that a ‘new order of economic life is both imminent and imperative” – a new order that is sure to come either ‘through voluntary cooperation within the framework of democracy or through explosive political revolution.’ Without condemning the profit motive as such, it denounced various defects in the profit system for breeding war, demagogues and dictators…. Instead, ‘the church must demand economic arrangements measured by human welfare…’”
In 1943, John Foster Dulles convened another Council of Churches conference. It endorsed “Six Pillars of Peace,” a plea for a world political organization – a United Nations. In his speech, recorded in the Council’s 1944 Biannual Report, Dulles said,
“Interest in this subject had been enormously increased by the declaration of the Moscow conference, which stressed the necessity of creating at the earliest possible moment a general international organization…. People in and out of the churches were urged to ‘remain united and vigorous to achieve such [an] international organization.’ … This statement, signed by more than 1,000 Protestant leaders, was given to the press and mailed to the President and members of Congress.”
The most infamous of the Council leaders, Alger Hiss, was a secret member of the Communist party. [Finally the truth about soviet spy Alger Hiss] That didn’t keep him from serving President Roosevelt both in the State Department and as his adviser at the 1945 Yalta Peace Conference where the ailing Roosevelt was persuaded to yield Eastern Europe to Stalin.
Nor did it block his acceptance as coauthor of the UN charter and as Secretary General of the United Nations organizing conference in San Francisco in 1945. The Soviet connection may even have encouraged John Foster Dulles to recommend that Hiss head up the multimillion dollar Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Strong links to high places would speed their agenda.
Establish the One World Church
While world socialism and economic redistribution  topped the Council agenda, global spirituality followed close behind. Speaking to the Methodist General Conference in 1948, Bishop G. Bromley Oxnam, President of the American wing of the newly formed World Council of Churches, announced the Council’s slogan: “One Church for One World.” He continued,
“Methodism is determined to preach a gospel that insists that all men are brothers and children of one Father, to whom final loyalty is due….
“Fifty-two years from now, when man has reached the year 2000 and has won, let us pray, the justice, the brotherhood and peace of his dreams, let us hope that the contribution of the people called Methodist may have been so significant that history may proudly record, “A Man Named Wesley Passed this Way!”
We have reached year 2000, and Bishop Oxnam’s followers still await the fulfillment of his dream. But they are closer. The mindset of the American public has slowly conformed to the global standards. That, too, was planned long ago. When the International Congress on Mental Health met in London back in 1948, it presented a report titled “Mental Health and World Citizenship.” Listen to the message:
“Social institutions such as family and school impose their imprint early…. Thus prejudice, hostility or excessive nationalism may become deeply embedded in the developing personality… often at great human cost…. Change will be strongly resisted unless an attitude of acceptance has first been engendered.”
With church and education leaders paving the way, that “attitude of acceptance” has now been engendered. To the general public, politically correct spirituality and world government seem normal and necessary. Uniformity based on compromise has become far more acceptable – even in churches — than Biblical unity based on the cross. And those who, like the Baptist evangelists, resist the new ideology are painted as enemies to peace and progress.
Today, as two thousand years ago, contrary convictions disturb religious leaders whose goals demand solidarity and compliance. That’s why Jesus’ warning has continued to encourage Christians through the centuries:
“I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you…. If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you…. because they do not know Him who sent Me.” John 15:20-21
Many churches ignore those verses. They seem so obsolete and irrelevant. But that’s changing. Those who resist “common ground” spirituality, will face increasing pressures to keep still or to compromise. History is repeating itself, and our models may be the forgotten faithful who fled to America three centuries ago seeking freedom to follow the uncompromising truth no longer tolerated by their religious leaders.
A little book called, Seeing the Invisible: Ordinary People of Extraordinary Faith, shows the similarities between politically correct 17th Century England and our nation at the dawn of the third millennium:
“October 1662 was a dark month for the church of Jesus Christ in Scotland, comparable only to Black Bartholomew’s Day in England two months earlier. Then two thousand English pastors and teachers had been evicted for their unwillingness to comply with the terms of the Act of Uniformity. Now all Scottish preachers were required to seek preordination at the hands of the bishops — a measure to which few could submit in good conscience…. Those who would not comply should lose their ministries forthwith, their pulpits being declared vacant….
The “compilers of this retrograde legislation imagined that most of Scotland’s preachers were like themselves, loving security and income above considerations of conscience. They anticipated that no more than ten men would prove awkward and refuse reordination. In the event, over four hundred Scottish preachers chose poverty, homelessness, suffering and even death rather than the path of compromise.”
The framework for control is in place. So is the process for managing, molding and monitoring “healthy communities” and “healthy people” around the world. ( Three centuries ago, this nation offered a shelter – a place of refuge from the persecution that has pursued God’s faithful followers since Christ died on the cross. When our nation shuts its doors to Biblical truth, where will Christians hide?
The answer is simple: in Jesus. The Bible tells us that “all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution.” (2 Timothy 3:12). But, in the midst of the struggles, He will fill us with a peace the world can never understand. By His grace, we will stand firm and immovable while demonstrating His gentle love to all who hunger and thirst for the everlasting peace and unity only found in Him.
“Oh, how great is Your goodness,
Which You have laid up for those who fear You,
Which You have prepared for those who trust in You
In the presence of the sons of men!
You shall hide them in the secret place of Your presence
From the plots of man;
You shall keep them secretly in a pavilion
From the strife of tongues
Blessed be the Lord,
For He has shown me His marvelous kindness…”
 John Shelby Spong, Why Christianity Must Change or Die (HarperSanFrancisco, 1998), pages 198-199.
 “Religious leaders fear Southern Baptist presence may spark hate crimes,” Associated Press, 28 November 1999.
] Frank York, “Is Christianity a ‘hate crime?‘ World Net Daily, 3 December 1999.
 Southern Baptist leaders disagree with Chicago’s Leaders’ hate Crimes Assertion,” Zondervan Newz Service, 1/3/00, at www.zondervan.com/zns.htm
 “Religious leaders fear Southern Baptist presence may spark hate crimes,” Associated Press, 28 November 1999.
[ Frank York, “Is Christianity a ‘hate crime’? World Net Daily, December 3, 1999.
 Edgar C. Bundy, Collectivism in the Church (,1958), page 196-197, referring to the World Council of Churches’ 1954 Biannual Report, page to page 58.
 Ibid., page 197-198.
 Ibid., page 165.
 Time, March 16, 1942.
 Bundy, page 91.
 Ibid., page 209. Here you see two of the three goals at the heart of Sustainable Development: Worldwide economic redistribution and socialist equality. The third is global management of the environment — another means of managing human resources. See Local Agenda – The U.N. Plan for Your Community.
 Ibid., 203.
 Ibid., 204-205. Some members of the U.S. Congress were not pleased with the World Council agenda. Some found it downright dangerous. On July 21, 1953, Bishop Oxnam was called before the Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of Representatives. (page 207)
 We have a copy of the report titled “Mental Health and World Citizenship.”
 Faith Cook, Seeing the Invisible: Ordinary People of Extraordinary Faith (Durham, England: Evangelical Press, 1998), page 141.
[Article Reprinted with Permission]
by Bert Kjos 2003
Original Source: http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/ConformingChurch1-00.html#religion
Introduction by Wayne Dyrness
In 1995, I was pleased to have been involved in helping produce a video that exposed how the education system and our government, in collusion with the United Nations (also referred to as the ‘Educational Confederacy’), planned to create a system that would reduce our schools to centers of indoctrination and social engineering, conditioning our children to blindly accept citizenship in a NEW INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ORDER, a one-world government based on a global economy, controlled by the international banking cartel and multi-national corporations .
The focus of the video was on a program called ‘Goal 2000,’ which found its roots all the way back to 1947 starting with UNESCO documents. Interestingly, a few months after producing the video, I was hired by the Kent School District (Washington State) to produce a video on how they were going to implement Goal 2000 into all the schools located in their district. The script they provided validated the charges levied in the ‘Educational Restructuring’ videos, of which I had just finished a few months earlier. Contained within their script were portions taken directly out of United Nations related documents that I had previously seen.
To make this video presentation a bit more interesting, it was decided to present the evidence as though it was done in a Court of Law. So, we constructed a set with a judge’s bench and a podium from which the expert witnesses would testify. Charges were made (as in a real court), and the evidence was presented.
At the conclusion of the trial, the jury had to make a decision as to the veracity of these charges and then render a verdict, and take action to stop it.
The ‘court’ in this video presentation is the ‘Court of Public Opinion,’ and the jurors are you, the viewer of the video, who sit on the Grand Jury to hear the demonstrative evidence that validates these charges.
This is a transcript of the actual video. Jed Brown (who ran for State School Superintendent in the State of Washington two times) and Katie Levans, both educators, spent hundreds of hours researching. Their presentation was heavily documented and substantiated by the presence of the actual books, manuscripts, and writings that were discussed in the video.
Video copies of this entire 4-part series can be purchased through Katie Levans. If you’re interested, contact her at Katie.firstname.lastname@example.org
you may watch them below courtesy of YouTube & TheBloomerGal.
Click below for the transcript in PDF form: