EDUCATION AND THE NEW WORLD ORDER
By Erica Carle
April 11, 2002
An organization called the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) which is an offshoot of the National Education Association and a promoter of the New World Order, has claimed power to determine what students should learn and should not learn in history, geography, government, economics, religion, psychology, etc.. These subjects were consolidated decades ago so they could be treated together under one agenda called, ‘social studies.’ The leaders of NCSS claim the right to decide what students should be taught, how they should be taught, and how achievement will be evaluated.
In addition to the National Council, the various states have state councils for the social studies. What is passed down from the National Council can then be programmed into the states. Bills are then presented to legislators to make NCSS curriculum standards for the social studies legal requirements. From then on your local school boards and parents have little to say. If your schools do not try to live up to NCSS standards for the New World Order they can be closed, or your community punished by depriving it of federal, foundation, and state money.
Control over education was accomplished by forming and influencing groups. People who are emotionally involved with groups tend to feel group loyalty, and frequently accept whatever the leaders say. Elected officials are no exception. When meeting with officials from other areas, they frequently get carried away by the oratory and comradeship--often forgetting the loyalty they owe to you and the citizens of the states, cities, and counties they are supposed to represent.
It is unfortunate that not enough of our elected officials have been sufficiently alert to detect the behavior management and control that have been directed toward them when they attend national and international meetings. Many of them have been deceived, flattered, coerced, and bribed into surrendering their legitimate authority to New World Order decision makers.
Most of the governors of the United States are members of the National Governor’s Association. They have national meetings to consolidate their policy decisions. In 1990 a policy was declared to promote the adoption of national educational goals. The Republican Bush Administration had endorsed the idea in 1989. The U. S. Chamber of Commerce and multinational corporations supported it. Then in 1992 Congress (Democrats and Republicans) passed and funded the Goals 2000: Educate America Act.
Originally social studies was not included, but the NCSS saw to it that social studies was annexed to the national agenda, and appointed a task force to develop consolidated curriculum standards. These were later adopted in most states as part of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act.
The eight educational goals of the Goals 2000 were not the important part of this operation. Any goals that sounded good, along with the money promised, could have enticed governors and state legislators to pass enabling legislation in their states. The real object was to claim jurisdiction over curriculum, and to control what students learn.
It is no surprise to find now that the eight goals have not been reached. Does this mean that national goal-setting and visioning will be discontinued? On the contrary! Even when failure is obvious and promises are not fulfilled, control once gained is never willingly relinquished by the New World Order promoters.
For decades all kinds of excuses have been brought forward for educational failure:
The problem is with parents because they do not take an interest in their children’s schooling. . .
The problem is with students because they do not work hard enough or take an interest in learning. . .
The schools are not using the right system of teaching. We need to experiment with new systems. . .
The problem is not enough money for education. If schools had more money they would produce better results. . .
The problem is segregation. We need integration. . .
Classrooms are overcrowded... And so it has gone for decades.
Few of the explainers have revealed that students are not being properly taught because the NWO world management system does not want Americans to know too much. In his book, A Sociological Philosophy of Education, published in 1928 by the MacMillan Company, Ross L. Finney, Assistant Professor of Educational Sociology at the University of Minnesota wrote the following about what should, and should not be offered to students: . . . a larger place in the curriculum ought to be given to the new humanities and the fine arts, especially the former; and that correspondingly less time and energy ought to be allotted to mathematics, formal English, and the foreign languages.
What we obviously need is a science of society. Since the time of Comte this has been the aspiration of modern scholarship. Instead of blundering and bungling along from one crisis to the next, science might render society really telic, and reduce social phenomena to control, as it has done in the natural world. 
If leadership by the intelligent is ever to be achieved, followership by the dull and ignorant must somehow be assured. Followership, quite as much as leadership, is, therefore, the crucial problem of the present crisis. 
The safety of democracy is not to be sought, therefore, in the intellectual independence of the duller masses, but in their intellectual dependence. Not in what they think, but in what they think they think. 
The problem of democracy is which specialized sub-group is to function as cerebral cortex. That will depend upon who succeeds in drilling epigrams into the memories of the duller masses. If scientists and educators fail to do it, then selfish deceivers and exploiters will. But think for themselves the duller masses never can. 
Those of us who do not agree with sociologists like Ross L. Finney are called selfish deceivers, exploiters, or members of the ‘duller masses.’ NWO usurpers have nothing but contempt for us and our need to learn. Many parents, teachers, administrators, legislators, state governors, etc. have been taken in by the NWO agenda. There is little chance that your state and school are independent of NWO management system. Therefore, it is important that you begin to recognize these enemies of learning, even when they have college educations, advanced degrees, university, government, and foundation support, and all the preplanned publicity they need to try to impress those of us whom they consider to be selfish deceivers, exploiters, or the “duller masses.”
We need to understand that those who seek to control education in order to limit access to knowledge are not doing it because they love or respect us, but because they want to claim and control us. The more we know about their goals and techniques, the easier it becomes to recognize efforts to control. The more we know about history, geography, mathematics, English, science, etc. the more power we have to defend ourselves against falsehood, deceit and domination.
By establishing goals and visions, the NCSS has found a way to limit knowledge. The social studies goal statement that has been chosen by the National Council for the Social Studies and adopted in similar, and sometimes identical form by the states is:
. . .to help young people develop the ability to make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good as citizens of a culturally diverse, democratic society in an interdependent world. 
To most people this sounds good, but please notice that it is all about politics. Nothing is mentioned about what is good for students, about giving them the knowledge to make intelligent personal decisions based on fact. Nothing is mentioned about helping them to prepare for a career of their own choice. Nothing is mentioned about what is good for the United States of America. No--students are treated as dependent members of the New World Order’s interdependent world.
Curriculum goals and guidelines for states and local communities are patterned after those of the NCSS and NWO. In all cases the curriculum is based on the idea of reasoned, or rational, problem-solving and decision-making; and on what the NWO crowd calls ‘interdependence.’ Students are asked to make decisions on selected social problems based on the limited information available to them through classroom assignments. The moment they express an opinion about a social or personal problem, they can be classified according to the opinions they express. Much time is wasted when students listen to and argue with classmates about selected social issues. After the discussions students are often taught they should be willing to act on the opinions they express.
The most dangerous part of this type of teaching is that attempts are made to get students emotionally involved. Also, it is assumed that none of the problems presented can be avoided or solved by moral behavior. Why? Because any statement regarding morality is considered to be an unexamined belief based on authority. According to the National Council for the Social Studies decision-making in the classroom should be what they call rational, rather than decision-making based on conscience. For example, in Wisconsin teachers were advised:
A child generally comes to school with what R. J. Havighurst calls an authoritarian conscience acquired from his parents through a progression of punishments and rewards. He soon learns that he is not equipped to deal with all the new situations which confront him. Peers and teachers join and sometimes supplant parents in helping him to find solutions which are often in conflict with those offered by his parents. His task, then, is to change from this early authoritarian conscience to a rational one. This requires that he learn a process for resolving to his own satisfaction the conflicts that will inevitably arise whenever change or confrontation with an opposing view makes him question his existing values. 
Students are taught to doubt their own conscience so that many types of destructive, obnoxious, and immoral behavior will no longer be objectionable to them. In Wisconsin teachers were warned against holding students to what they called traditional standards:
Traditionally there was little question that the schools should promote such values as the following:
1. Respect Property.
2. Be respectful of adults.
3. Say please and thank you at appropriate times.
4. Do not use profane language or bad grammar.
5. Be neat and clean.
6. Do not lie or cheat.
Now, however, in some situations these are quite controversial. Many lawsuits and community controversies have focused on the meaning of “neat and clean,” for example. Several recent surveys indicate that cheating in school, rather than being unacceptable, has become the norm, and most students feel no guilt about cheating. Standards of profanity are constantly changing and words that one rarely heard used in public a few years ago are now heard a great deal. While many may not like these developments, it is very necessary for teachers to recognize that they are taking place. 
Knowing what you now know about the goals of the New World Order, the above instruction to teachers could be taken as a veiled threat, telling them they had better not criticize the behaviors mentioned. Doing so might make them vulnerable to law suits, or perhaps discipline by their superiors. Thus, the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, following the guidelines of the NCSS actually promoted the idea that it is acceptable for students to be thieving, disrespectful, ungrateful, profanity-using, sloppy, and dirty, lying cheaters.
Teaching problem-solving, decision-making may have sounded good to many teachers, school board members, legislators, parents, and students, but if they had the opportunity to read the above, and what the curriculum planners mean when they promote problem-solving and decision-making, they might be more hesitant before giving their sanction to this type of instruction.
But as if that were not enough, according to the NCSS one of the main duties of teachers is to create emotional problems for students.
Any attempt by a teacher to create a problem without arousing students emotionally can only result in a pseudo-problem. When students are disturbed, upset, perhaps even angry, they are closer to having a problem than is ever the case when teachers make the preservation of objectivity their only concern. A teacher can sometimes create in students a feeling that their beliefs, concepts, or values are inadequate in some respect. When students are puzzled over what to believe, they are more likely to have an authentic problem in their possession. 
If the student is to become engaged in problem-solving he must be doubtful, uncertain or puzzled concerning something within his experience and have the desire through inquiry to remove the doubt. As long as he is certain of the truth or goodness of a particular idea or action, or as long as he is unconcerned, indifferent about the matter, he is not involved in problem-solving.
Hence, the initial task confronting the teacher is that of creating the state of uncertainty or doubt in the mind of the student. . .the teacher must implant the element of doubt. 
Since the presence of the element of doubt or puzzlement is a necessary condition for the initiation of problem-solving activity, let us consider teaching strategies which are likely to evoke such reactions. . .
The teacher can present the students with a problem within the context of the content.
The teacher can encourage the students to discover a problem within the context of the content.
The teacher can convert the unexamined beliefs of students into problems.
The teacher can point up conflicts within the students’ pattern of beliefs, thus creating problems.
The teacher can point up conflicts within the course content, thus creating problems. 
Remember, the NWO planners and managers want control, but they know for certain that they cannot make students go along with their plans if they are firmly convinced that to do so would be wrong. That is why so many methods have been devised to help students question or change their minds about what they believe. If the New World Order is to succeed in reaching its goals, Judaism and Christianity are among the religions which have to be eliminated. People who are guided by the Bible and what the Bible teaches about God cannot be depended upon to be totally dedicated to the sociological goals of a world management system. Auguste Comte, the father of sociology wrote:
“The final blow was inevitably given to Theology. . . when the establishment of my system of sociology cut from under it its old title to teach morality and direct society. . .”  and “Sociology is once for all substituted for Theology as the basis for the religious government of mankind.” 
In 1929 Ross L. Finney was among those working on a new morality for the managed society. He wrote:
Nor can the new regime be operated with the beliefs of the old regime. . . As for the ideals by which we live, they too must be thought out de novo, and built into an adequate and effective new system of moral education. 
The new system of moral education has nothing to do with the principles and ideals on which our nation was founded. For example, the late Harvard University psychologist, B. F. Skinner, put it this way:
The hypothesis that man is not free is essential to the application of scientific method to the study of human behavior. 
If we and our children do not want to be a sociologically-controlled and semi-ignorant members of the United Nations New World Order, we need to recognize the importance of knowledge, and reject attempts at emotional manipulation and knowledge limitation. Today’s problem-solving and decision-making system of education uses students, plays on their emotions, and tries to alienate them from those who should be closest to them. It creates animosity between classmates; wastes valuable learning time by forcing students to form opinions and listen to the uninformed opinions of their classmates; and discourages intelligent and moral behavior. It turns students against their own country and its Constitution in favor of the United Nations New World Order management system. Is this what we want for America’s children? If not, let’s get to work informing our state’s legislators that they must reclaim the schools and restore the Constitution.
© Erica Carle, All Rights Reserved
1. Ross L. Finney, Ph.D., Asst. Prof. of Educational Sociology, University of Minnesota; A Sociological Philosophy of Education, The MacMillan Company, New York, 1929, P. 187.2. Ibid, P. 280.3. Ibid, P. 386.4. Ibid, P. 389.5. Ibid, P. 387.6. National Council for the Social Studies, Curriculum Standards for SocialStudies Bulletin 89, 1994, P. vii.7. Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction; Knowledge, Processes & Valuesin the New Social Studies, Bulletin No. 185, 1968-1970, P. 43.8. Ibib, P. 45.9. National Council for the Social Studies; Problem-Centered Social StudiesInstruction, Curriculum Series, Number Fourteen, 1971; P. 1.10. Ibid, P. 59.11. Ibid.12. Auguste Comte; System of Positive Polity, BVol. 2, P. 290.13. Ibid, Vol. 1, P. 364.14. Ross L. Finney, A Sociological Philosophy of Education, P. 112.15. Skinner, B. F. ; Science and Human Behavior; The Free Press (Div.MacMillan Co.) 1953; P. 447.
Erica Carle is an independent researcher and writer. She has a B.S. degree from the University of Wisconsin. She has been involved in radio and television writing and production, and has also taught math and composition at the private school her children attended in Brookfield, Wisconsin. For ten years she wrote a weekly column, "Truth In Education" for WISCONSIN REPORT, and served ad Education Editor for that publication. Her books are available through Education Service Council, P. O. Box 271, Elm Grove, Wisconsin 53122.
GIVE US THE YOUNG--$5 Plus $2.00 P&H
WHY THINGS ARE THE WAY THEY ARE--$16 PLUS $4.00 P&H
BOTH BOOKS -- $25 Total