Intro­duc­tion

Hijack: To seize con­trol of (a moving vehicle) by use of force, espe­cially in order to reach an alter­nate destination.

This issue demon­strates the vir­tual takeover, or hijacking, of Amer­ican edu­ca­tion by the same global elite who have already been noted in other issues of The August Review. The time period for this hijacking is roughly the same as the eco­nomic plun­dering of America detailed in For Sale: The United States of America — it started roughly in 1973, and is still in progress today.

The suc­cess of glob­alism rides on the back of manip­u­lating the minds of stu­dents to reflect pat­terns of global dogma. These stu­dents may be aca­d­e­m­i­cally infe­rior to their 1970 coun­ter­parts, but schol­ar­ship was easily traded for the globalist-friendly char­acter traits of a global cit­izen — traits that will not ques­tion the glob­alist agenda, but that will indeed wel­come it as an inevitable evo­lu­tion of civilization.

It will be shown that the hijacking…

• had careful fore­thought and planning
• antic­i­pated a spe­cific timetable for implementation
• was actu­ally imple­mented according to the stated timetable
• included plans to remove resis­tance and obstacles
• was steeped in decep­tion and double-talk

The common thread through all of this will be seen most clearly in the common pat­terns of financing that repeat­edly sur­faces: Foun­da­tions like Carnegie Cor­po­ra­tion, Rock­e­feller Foun­da­tion, Ford Foun­da­tion, and others, who backed those working toward glob­alist ends.

The result is the total sub­ver­sion of Amer­ican edu­ca­tion into the hands of a rel­a­tively small band of global elit­ists. There was no public or polit­ical man­date for their poli­cies or actions. By and large they oper­ated behind the scenes by blur­ring the dis­tinc­tions between public and pri­vate poli­cies, and by making sure no one con­nected the dots to accu­rately dis­play the “big picture.”

The mis­sion of The August Review has been “Follow the money, follow the power”. In this case, we are fol­lowing the money. The big pic­ture will reveal to the reader a star­tling scene that few have expe­ri­enced before.

Back­ground: Policy and Planning

In his con­tri­bu­tion to the 1979 book, Schooling for a Global Age, Robert Leestma of the U.S. Office of Edu­ca­tion wrote:

“National secu­rity today involves more than mil­i­tary prepa­ra­tion. Global edu­ca­tion is one of the essen­tial new dimensions.

“The glob­al­iza­tion of the human con­di­tion is inter­weaving the des­tinies of all nations and peo­ples at an accel­er­ating rate and affecting many aspects of life. Global edu­ca­tion involves mul­ti­dis­ci­pli­nary per­spec­tives about the extended human family, the existing con­di­tion of mankind and the planet, and fore­see­able con­se­quences of present trends and alter­na­tive choices.”1

The back side of the dust cover noted the finan­cial backers of the studies:

The Dan­forth Foun­da­tion
The John D. Rock­e­feller III Fund
Martha Holden Jen­nings Foun­da­tion
Charles F. Ket­tering Foun­da­tion
Charles Stewart Mott Foun­da­tion
The Needmor Fund
The Rock­e­feller Foun­da­tion
The Spencer Foun­da­tion
U.S. Office of Edu­ca­tion
National Insti­tute of Education2

Emphasis is added to note two things: first, the Rock­e­feller and Ket­tering foun­da­tions orig­i­nally funded the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion. Second, public funds were inter­mixed with pri­vate funds to facil­i­tate and imple­ment a non-public sup­ported or autho­rized endeavor.

Schooling for a Global Age was an excel­lent example of global edu­ca­tion strategy because of its authority of schol­ar­ship, finan­cial backing and sub­se­quent impact. Although it was not an “offi­cial” US gov­ern­ment pub­li­ca­tion, gov­ern­ment offi­cials were quoted and sub­stan­tial gov­ern­ment funds were pro­vided so the study could be undertaken.

In short, this book typ­i­fied the then-current thinking of the National Edu­ca­tion Asso­ci­a­tion (NEA), the Depart­ment of Edu­ca­tion, the var­ious foun­da­tions listed and most impor­tantly, the thinking of David Rock­e­feller et al.

A Phi­los­ophy of Edu­ca­tion for World Citizenzhip

Keeping in mind The August Review’s treat­ment of Humanism in Global Reli­gion for Global Gov­er­nance, the fol­lowing “pur­pose state­ment” from Schooling for a Global Age exem­pli­fies and mag­ni­fies the Humanist phi­los­ophy on global education:

“To develop stu­dent under­standing of them­selves as indi­vid­uals.
” To develop stu­dent under­standing of them­selves as mem­bers of the human species.
“To develop stu­dent under­standing of them­selves as inhab­i­tants and depen­dents of planet Earth.
“To develop stu­dent under­standing of them­selves as par­tic­i­pants in global society.
“To develop within stu­dents the com­pe­ten­cies required to live intel­li­gently and respon­sibly as indi­vid­uals, human beings, earth­lings, and mem­bers of global society. 3
“…We endeavor to create in world-centered schools the kind of social order, the orga­ni­za­tional cli­mate, the phys­ical envi­ron­ment, and the formal cur­riculum that sup­port and fur­ther the pur­poses of global education.”

“Iden­ti­ties, loy­al­ties, and com­pe­ten­cies as well as rights, duties, oblig­a­tions, and priv­i­leges are asso­ci­ated with each of these goals. For example, stu­dents might explore the issues involved and dis­cuss the rights one has by virtue of being a member of the human species. The Uni­versal Dec­la­ra­tion of Human Rights, the Humanist Man­i­festo, and UNICEF and the Rights of the Child are among many doc­u­ments and other mate­rials which can be used in con­sid­ering this ques­tion. “4

According to another con­trib­utor, Irving H. Buche, the stu­dent “…will be capable of sus­taining many alle­giances, without con­tra­dic­tion, on both a national and inter­na­tional scale, and be closer to being, espe­cially through the con­cept of global per­spec­tives, a world citizen.”5

The Aspen Insti­tute for Human­istic Studies was in total agree­ment and sup­port of this. In its white paper, Amer­ican Edu­ca­tion and Global Inter­de­pen­dence, it stated:

“The edu­ca­tional enter­prise has a vital role to play in preparing present and future gen­er­a­tions of Amer­i­cans to cope with inter-dependence. Uni­ver­si­ties con­tain intel­lec­tual skills needed to develop the knowl­edge base about global inter­de­pen­dence; devel­oping a more secure knowl­edge base should facil­i­tate greatly the building of polit­ical con­sensus on what we should do about global interdependence.

“The mass media by their very nature are event-centered, imposing on schools and col­leges an oblig­a­tion to pro­vide stu­dents with the con­ti­nuity and depth of under­standing demanded by com­plex long-term inter­de­pen­dence issues.

“Schools, fur­ther­more, have the golden oppor­tu­nity, if they will but use it, of shaping the world views of future gen­er­a­tions of Amer­i­cans along lines more com­pat­ible with the real­i­ties of global inter­de­pen­dence before these views become hard­ened through mat­u­ra­tion along other less com­pat­ible lines. “6

Global edu­ca­tion required the trans­for­ma­tion of existing local edu­ca­tional sys­tems — pri­marily those at the ele­men­tary and sec­ondary school levels – to pro­duce stu­dents who saw them­selves not so much as Amer­i­cans but as cit­i­zens of a world society.

Why? Because “nation­alism” and “indi­vid­u­alism” are lumped in with the “other less com­pat­ible lines,” and stand in the way of glob­alist progress.

Society must be planned, they said, in overt and covert ways; indi­vidual ethnic, cul­tural and intel­lec­tual dif­fer­ences were to be sub­or­di­nated to some pre­de­ter­mined set of char­ac­ter­is­tics set forth by the elitist group preparing us for global interdependence.

An Action Plan Was Launched

The Aspen Insti­tute study noted, “The task of bringing about the kind of trans­for­ma­tion which will make edu­ca­tion a better instru­ment for coping with inter­de­pen­dence is formidable.”7 To achieve their plan, global edu­ca­tors pro­posed to iden­tify and con­cen­trate action upon what they called “crit­ical leverage points” in the edu­ca­tional system.

The plan was to sub­vert and change these crit­ical points into a pro­gram to achieve global goals. When ana­lyzed, Aspen’s six point plan of action was nothing less than cul­tural genocide:

“Point 1: Revise cur­ricula, the con­tent of teacher training and com­mu­nity edu­ca­tion toward global edu­ca­tion. It is pro­posed to use the U.S. Depart­ment of Edu­ca­tion as well as inde­pen­dent foun­da­tions and local school sys­tems for this purpose.

“Point 2: To obtain sup­port from polit­ical and edu­ca­tional leaders at both national and local levels, par­tic­u­larly from boards of trustees and pro­fes­sional orga­ni­za­tions, to mold public sup­port for global education.

“Point 3: To use uni­ver­si­ties and research insti­tu­tions to develop a “knowl­edge base” on inter­de­pen­dence in order to help build the polit­ical con­sensus nec­es­sary for global policies.

“Point 4: To shape existing world out­looks within Amer­ican pop­ular culture.

“Point 5: To reach out­ward to the world through edu­ca­tional insti­tutes, par­tic­u­larly through the United Nations.

“Point 6: To influ­ence mass media to these ends, par­tic­u­larly through the use of intern­ships that are part of pro­fes­sional training in mass com­mu­ni­ca­tions.“8

(Editor’s note: by this time, there were many college-age stu­dents who had been raised in pro­to­type “global schools” who thought in global terms. They were “interned” in strategic places within the media.)

Lastly, Aspen made it clear that this was an activist plan: “Achieving the edu­ca­tional trans­for­ma­tion, which the future demands will require all of the spirit of con­quest and aspi­ra­tion which we possess.9

Cen­tral­ized, Government-Controlled Edu­ca­tion Required

Glob­al­ists rec­og­nized that Amer­ican edu­ca­tion was essen­tially de-centralized and that public edu­ca­tion had his­tor­i­cally played a role in the teaching of Amer­ican his­tory and gov­ern­ment. Thus, one objec­tive was to heavily reduce the amount of time devoted to the study of these sub­jects that were required in the cur­ricula of most states. These America-oriented cur­ricula were to be replaced with ones con­cen­trating on world his­tory and politics.

They described the cur­rent edu­ca­tional system as a “con­sti­tu­tional incon­gruity.” Cer­tain con­sti­tu­tional con­flicts existed that could not be over­come as long as edu­ca­tion remained in the hands of local and state gov­ern­ments. A major answer to this was the cre­ation of the Depart­ment of Edu­ca­tion, which was heavily lob­bied by the global-minded National Edu­ca­tion Asso­ci­a­tion (NEA).

The Aspen study also cited Roger Ulrich’s The Con­trol of Human Behavior. According to Ulrich, con­di­tioning is sup­posed to start at the age of two years.10 It is rec­og­nized within the global edu­ca­tion com­mu­nity that the crit­ical years for the estab­lish­ment of values and ideas is around seven to twelve. Con­se­quently, it was planned to sub­ject stu­dents to a cur­ricula which employed behav­ioral tech­niques involving so-called “values clar­i­fi­ca­tion” and sit­u­a­tional ethics.

This whole plan was to manip­u­late stu­dents into an arti­fi­cial belief struc­ture. Who picked the values they were to be taught? Which set of ethics were used? The obvious answer is theirs and not yours!

The Timetable: Exe­cuting the Plan

Many made the mis­take of under­es­ti­mating the forces behind global schooling. This was not some pas­sive, “pie-in-the-sky” ide­o­log­ical exer­cise of acad­emia – it was highly orga­nized, com­pletely funded and well staffed. It swept the country.

The fol­lowing “timetable” is quoted exactly from pages 240 – 241 of Schooling for a Global Age.

“PHASE 1, PREPARATORY PERIOD – BY 1980:

Every state edu­ca­tion depart­ment and most school sys­tems and teacher edu­ca­tion pro­grams would have a col­lec­tion of some basic ref­er­ences on global edu­ca­tion and would have pro­vided oppor­tu­ni­ties for selected staff mem­bers to become aware of the global edu­ca­tion con­cept, some rel­e­vant research, suc­cessful pro­grams else­where, and local pos­si­bil­i­ties.
In-service edu­ca­tion pro­grams would be avail­able in every region of the country to begin to acquaint teachers and others with the global edu­ca­tion con­cept.
A survey of the role of the world in the com­mu­nity, region, or state and vice versa would have been con­ducted, planned, or under con­sid­er­a­tion in a majority of states.

“PHASE 2 – BY THE MID-1980s:

Study groups would be at work in a size­able pro­por­tion of state edu­ca­tion depart­ments, local school sys­tems, and teacher edu­ca­tion insti­tu­tions to ana­lyze and enrich existing cur­ricula, require­ments, and mate­rials from a global per­spec­tive.
In-service edu­ca­tion oppor­tu­ni­ties would be avail­able in the majority of states, including through teacher cen­ters.
Pre-service edu­ca­tion pro­grams would be offering some ori­en­ta­tion to global edu­ca­tion, at least as an option.
Ini­tial research agendas would be estab­lished and studies and sur­veys begun.
A national base­line survey of the knowl­edge and atti­tudes of stu­dents, teachers, admin­is­tra­tors, par­ents, and com­mu­nity leaders on global edu­ca­tion con­cerns would be com­pleted.
Every state edu­ca­tion depart­ment and a size­able pro­por­tion of school dis­tricts would become involved in an inter­na­tional edu­ca­tional exchange pro­gram for stu­dents and/ or staff
State and local school board policy state­ments would be giving explicit sup­port to global edu­ca­tion.
National public aware­ness and local com­mu­nity sup­port would be growing, in part, because of increased atten­tion to global prob­lems and issues in the mass media, par­tic­u­larly tele­vi­sion, and in the schools.

“PHASE 3 – BY 1990:

Teachers in every state would have access to in-service edu­ca­tion pro­grams for global edu­ca­tion, at least at the aware­ness level.
Good case-study mate­rial on the ini­ti­a­tion or improve­ment of global edu­ca­tion pro­grams in a variety of school and com­mu­nity sit­u­a­tions would be becoming widely avail­able.
All school dis­tricts, state edu­ca­tion depart­ments, and pre-service teacher-education pro­grams would have access to infor­ma­tion clear­ing­houses and resource cen­ters on global per­spec­tives in edu­ca­tion.
Teacher cer­ti­fi­ca­tion require­ments in a size­able number of states would begin to reflect global edu­ca­tion con­cerns.
State cur­riculum require­ments in a size­able number of states would begin to reflect global edu­ca­tion objec­tives.
School accred­i­ta­tion require­ments would begin to reflect atten­tion to global edu­ca­tion.
Local, state, and national assess­ments of edu­ca­tional progress would include atten­tion to global edu­ca­tional con­cerns.
Text­books and other edu­ca­tional mate­rials would increas­ingly pro­vide more ade­quate treat­ment of global issues and per­spec­tives. “11
PARENTS NEEDED TO BE EDUCATED ALSO

John I. Goodlad wrote in Schooling for a Global Age:

“Par­ents and the gen­eral public must be reached also. Oth­er­wise, chil­dren and youth enrolled in glob­ally ori­ented pro­grams may find them­selves in con­flict with values assumed in the home. And then the edu­ca­tional insti­tu­tion fre­quently comes under scrutiny and must pull back. “12

The ques­tion boiled down to this: Were your values good enough for your chil­dren, or not?

This thinking was expanded by Carl Rogers:

“Par­ents should under­stand that devel­oping inde­pen­dent indi­vid­uals is not a goal of gov­ern­ment edu­ca­tion, and this becomes apparent only with an under­standing of the educator’s view of an indi­vidual: ‘The emerging modern indi­vidual places his con­fi­dence not in society’s norms, not religion’s rules, nor par­ents’ dic­tates, but in his own changing expe­ri­ence. He is, in a very deep sense, his own highest authority. He chooses his own way.’ “13

The greatest obstacle to the imple­menting of global schooling was not lack of funding, trained teachers or global text­books – it was the parent who was skep­tical about the fed­eral gov­ern­ment (with its blurred dis­tinc­tions between pri­vate and public insti­tu­tions) being better qual­i­fied to say how their child should be raised and educated.

“Rebel” par­ents who chose to edu­cate their chil­dren at home have become “exam­ples” to glob­al­ists who drag the par­ents into court on civil and crim­inal charges of negligence.

Pri­vate schools across the country have con­tin­u­ously fought an onslaught of leg­is­la­tion that would destroy them, if passed. When­ever a stu­dent is trans­ferred to a pri­vate school, the public school he or she attended loses state and fed­eral budget funds for the fol­lowing year. In many cases, the for­mula for deter­mining funding was dis­pro­por­tionate to the total number of stu­dents in atten­dance; thus, if 40% of the stu­dents with­drew to pri­vate schools, those public schools could lose 70 or 80% of their funding. This was intol­er­able to public edu­ca­tors, and pres­sure was put on the parent to re-enroll the stu­dent in public school.

One of the key activist groups that dealt with parent as well as stu­dent prob­lems was the National Edu­ca­tion Asso­ci­a­tion (NEA); it was the most pow­erful spe­cial interest group in oper­a­tion at the time: The NEA sent more del­e­gates to the Demo­c­ratic National Con­ven­tion in 1980 than any other interest group, including trade unions.

The NEA worked closely with the Tri­lat­er­ally ori­ented Carter admin­is­tra­tion in set­ting up the long sought after Fed­eral Depart­ment of Edu­ca­tion that was needed to cen­tralize US education.

The NEA was also suc­cessful at blocking leg­is­la­tion that would have allowed tuition tax credits for par­ents of stu­dents enrolled in pri­vate schools. If passed, it would have dealt a fatal blow to global edu­ca­tors because it would have encour­aged par­ents to seek better, pri­vate edu­ca­tion for their chil­dren; in turn, public schools would have their funding auto­mat­i­cally chopped.

Early Financing of Global Education

We noted in Global Reli­gion for Global Gov­er­nance that the Aspen Insti­tute for Human­istic Studies was funded pri­marily by Atlantic Rich­field, Rock­e­feller, Ket­tering, Wey­er­haeuser, Ford and the Markle Foun­da­tions. In addi­tion, we saw that almost 40% of Aspen’s funding came from the National Endow­ment for the Human­i­ties (NEH).

NEH granted a whop­ping total of $185.3 mil­lion in 1979 to many dif­ferent Human­istic and glob­alist endeavors, including Aspen Insti­tute. While the US tax­payer con­tributed about 80% of NEH’s annual funding, the remaining 20% came from Lilly Endow­ment, the Ford Foun­da­tion and the Andrew W. Mellon and Alfred P. Sloan Foundations.

Watchers of the Public Broad­casting System saw many global-oriented shows spon­sored by the Ford Foundation.

We noted ear­lier that Ket­tering was a sup­porter of Schooling for a Global Age. That book also states, “Sub-study on the teaching of global edu­ca­tion in schools [is] sup­ported by an addi­tional grant from the Charles F. Ket­tering Foundation.”14

Among the Ket­tering direc­tor­ship, we found two notable Human­ists: George Gallup and Norman Cousins. Cousins was a director of National Edu­ca­tional Tele­vi­sion and the U.N. Asso­ci­a­tion of the U.S. Gallup sur­veys, which were always pitched as being so “unbi­ased,” were fre­quently called upon when glob­al­ists needed to “prove” their case to the public by doing a public opinion survey.

Side Show: Mass Media and the Markle Foundation

In Global Reli­gion for Global Gov­er­nance, The Markle Foun­da­tion was iden­ti­fied as a prime con­trib­utor to the Aspen Insti­tute, with its ties to the Morgan banking establishment.

Markle’s state­ment of pur­pose reads: “The goal of the cur­rent pro­gram is to strengthen edu­ca­tional uses of the mass media and com­mu­ni­ca­tions technology.”15

This foun­da­tion deserves extra cov­erage as a prime pur­veyor of global edu­ca­tion. The pres­i­dent of Markle Foun­da­tion was Lloyd N. Mor­risett. Over ten years before, when Mor­risett was a vice-president of Carnegie Cor­po­ra­tion, he and Joan Cooney (wife of Tri­lat­er­alist Peter G. Peterson) orig­i­nated the idea for Sesame Street . He sub­se­quently served as chairman of the board of trustees of the Children’s Tele­vi­sion Work­shop, which pro­duced Sesame Street.

According to the 1978 Annual Report of the Markle Foundation:

“In its first oper­ating year, 1969 – 1970, the Work­shop had 36 employees and a budget of$6.8 mil­lion. Almost all this money came from three sources: The Office of Edu­ca­tion, the Carnegie Cor­po­ra­tion of New York , and the Ford Foun­da­tion. The Work­shop itself was able to pro­vide only $119,000 from its own income. “16

The report fur­ther stated that:

“CTW has estab­lished its status as a public charity under the Tax Reform Act of 1969. The value of the public charity clas­si­fi­ca­tion to an orga­ni­za­tion such as CTW is that it allows the receipt of indi­vidual or cor­po­rate con­tri­bu­tions on a fully tax deductible basis for the donor. It also facil­i­tates phil­an­thropic dona­tions by foun­da­tions. “17

This paved the way for glob­alist ven­tures like Sesame Street to be per­sis­tently bailed out finan­cially, year after year, because they could not make their own way. In addi­tion, major sup­ple­mental funding came from your taxes.

Into High Gear: The Center on Edu­ca­tion Policy

In 1995, the Center on Edu­ca­tion Policy (CEP) was founded and financed by glob­alist foun­da­tion money, and staffed by oper­a­tors who would carry out elite wishes. Its innocuous-sounding State­ment of Pur­pose that CEP is an “inde­pen­dent advo­cate for public edu­ca­tion and for more effec­tive public schools” is shat­tered by its own admis­sion of who is pro­viding the pri­mary funding:

The Atlantic Phil­an­thropies
The George Gund Foun­da­tion
The Joyce Foun­da­tion
The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foun­da­tion
The Carnegie Cor­po­ra­tion
The Hewlett Foun­da­tion
The Gates Foun­da­tion
The Ford Foun­da­tion
The Spencer Foun­da­tion
The William T. Grant Foun­da­tion
Phi Delta Kappa International18

Its State­ment of Pur­pose has the audacity to pro­claim “We do not rep­re­sent any spe­cial inter­ests.” “Instead”, they say, “we try to help cit­i­zens make sense of the con­flicting opin­ions and per­cep­tions about public edu­ca­tion and create the con­di­tions that will lead to better public schools.”

“Con­flicting opin­ions and per­cep­tions”, indeed! Cit­i­zens and par­ents every­where are still scratching their head as to what has hap­pened to our edu­ca­tional system. Johnny can’t read, write or do math, but he’s been thor­oughly indoc­tri­nated with glob­alist pap. If par­ents and cit­i­zens had under­stood this chi­canery in the early years, they would have col­lec­tively run the glob­al­ists out of town on a prover­bial rail.

CEP is not the only glob­alist edu­ca­tion activist orga­ni­za­tion financed by the likes of Carnegie and Ford Foun­da­tions, but it is clearly rep­re­sen­ta­tive that the orig­inal global agenda is not only alive and well, but gath­ering momentum with every passing year.

One might antic­i­pate that the CEP has been care­fully tracking Pres­i­dent George W. Bush’s “No Child Left Behind Act” since its pas­sage in 2002.

No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)

On the sur­face of it, the rhetoric of NCLB (nick-named as “nickle-bee” by edu­ca­tors) seems to address turning the edu­ca­tion system around. “Leaving no child behind” is as sen­sible as the old mar­keting line, “because a mind is a ter­rible thing to waste.” Cer­tainly all Amer­i­cans would like to see every child have a good edu­ca­tion, thus allowing each one to rise to their max­imum potential.

Prior to NCLB, fed­eral aid for edu­ca­tion was focused mostly on cer­tain groups of stu­dents (immi­grants, minori­ties, hand­i­capped, etc.) rather than stu­dents across the board. This changes with NCLB. It was the cap­stone of an effort started in the 1980′s to fed­er­alize edu­ca­tion for all stu­dents. Pre­vious efforts by Pres­i­dents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton failed to achieve this end.

NCLB achieved two major goals for global edu­ca­tion oper­a­tives: First, and for the first time in the his­tory of the U.S., it cen­tral­izes con­trol of all edu­ca­tion stan­dards under the umbrella of the fed­eral gov­ern­ment. Second, it cre­ates a mech­a­nism for manda­tory national testing and data col­lec­tion for chil­dren in public schools.

Both of these goals are worthy of discussion.

Standards-based reform looks to nor­malize var­ious local, dis­trict, state and fed­eral stan­dard into a con­sis­tent body of stan­dards that all schools will look to for guid­ance in cre­ating cur­riculum and even indi­vidual lesson plans. Osten­sibly, a math stu­dent in New York will learn algebra in the same way as a stu­dent in Oregon.

Fed­er­al­ized standards-based reform is rein­forced by manda­tory national testing. If stu­dents in an indi­vidual school don’t score “up to par” with the national tar­gets, that school will be sub­ject to dis­ci­pli­nary action, up to and including closing the school.

If whole schools and teacher jobs are on the line, they will quickly learn to “teach to the test” and they will accept any and all guide­lines from above to make sure their school does well.

Test results are not merely aggre­gated how­ever. NCLB requires addi­tional stu­dent data to be attached to each test, such as racial, reli­gious, socio-economic, etc. This allows research sci­en­tists to slice and dice the data in order to draw all sorts of infer­ences about the state of mind of each little seg­ment of society. It also allows them to deter­mine psy­cho­log­ical con­di­tion of groups of stu­dents, such as their pre­pared­ness for global citizenship.

The real danger of NCLB, how­ever, is not with the aca­d­emic mechanics of the three “R’s” of edu­ca­tion: readin’, writin’, ‘rith­metic. Rather, the real danger is in spec­i­fying the text­books used in car­rying out these lesson plans. For the first time in his­tory, such “rec­om­mended” reading lists will come from one cen­trally con­trolled location.

Any parent in America who has raised school-age chil­dren in the last 15 years has expe­ri­enced cur­riculum bat­tles with local schools. When objec­tion­able mate­rial is “slipped in” to the class­room, par­ents have fought pas­sion­ately with teachers, admin­is­tra­tors, school board mem­bers to have the mate­rial replaced. In many cases, stunned (because there was resis­tance) edu­ca­tors have given way to these angry par­ents by drop­ping the con­tested material.

This will not be a problem in the future. With the embed­ding of NCLB, par­ents will simply be greeted with a shrug: “It’s a fed­eral stan­dard, Mrs. Jones, and we’re really sorry, but it’s out of our con­trol”. Thus, take your cur­riculum wars to the fed­eral gov­ern­ment. Good luck.

Prior to its pas­sage in 2002, NCLB was pas­sion­ately show­cased as Pres­i­dent Bush’s per­ma­nent legacy to the field of edu­ca­tion. Even though this was very close on the heels of 9/11, a very big deal was made in the press about how it would finally turn our failing school system around. Well, it’s turning it around all right, but in the oppo­site direc­tion from what you were led to believe!

It must be noted, how­ever, that there is a growing grass-roots resis­tance against NCLB from all quar­ters, from the NEA to states, schools, teachers and par­ents. Their rea­sons have little to do with what is written here, but it is resis­tance nonetheless.

Mis­sion ACLU: Antic­i­pate and Neu­tralize the Opposition

As you are already aware, the Amer­ican Civil Lib­er­ties Union (ACLU) has used and abused the U.S. legal system in order to com­pletely axe the trap­pings and prac­tices (Ten Com­mand­ments and prayer) of Judeo-Christian her­itage from the public school system in America.

The ACLU’s seem­ingly irra­tional hatred and rhetoric against any­thing Chris­tian in public schools con­tinues to rise. Not sat­is­fied with purely legal harass­ments, they are now resorting to what they would be first to call “hate speech” if spoken against any other reli­gious group in the country.

Con­sider this recent example. Joe Cook, exec­u­tive director of the Louisiana chapter of the ACLU, on August 16, 2005 pub­licly lam­basted a school board who sought to exer­cise its rights of free speech regarding prayer on school cam­puses. Cook stated,

“They [the school board] believe that they answer to a higher power, in my opinion. Which is the kind of thinking that you had with the people who flew the air­planes into the build­ings in the country, and the people who did the kind of things in London.”19

Such attacks are not coincidental.

As we will show, the Amer­ican Civil Lib­er­ties Union is an inte­gral part of the elitist plan that has been funded by the same glob­alist foun­da­tions that are funding global education.

While the mere men­tion of the let­ters “ACLU” is a cause for heart­burn for tens of mil­lions of Amer­i­cans, few under­stand the his­tory and pur­pose of this trojan-horse orga­ni­za­tion. The ACLU has never been an inde­pen­dent orga­ni­za­tion to pro­mote civil rights; rather, it has been the legal lapdog of the global elite since its founding in 1920. It’s first director, Roger Nash Baldwin, was fanat­i­cally pro-communist, except that he was also a paci­fist. This branch of paci­fistic Marxism was orig­i­nally pro­moted by the Fabian Society in Eng­land starting in 1857.

Fabian Social­ists and Marxist rev­o­lu­tion­ists were iden­tical in basic ide­ology, but dis­agreed only in the means to the end: The Bol­shevik rev­o­lu­tion used mil­i­tary force to imple­ment Marxism while the Fabian Society pro­moted quiet sub­ver­sion. Fabian Society thinking was proven right when the USSR failed under its own weight, and that same Fabian thinking is now gaining more and more trac­tion with every passing year.

The director of the ACLU from 1932 to 1954 was civil rights activist and Humanist/Marxist author Corliss Lamont, the son of Thomas W. Lamont..

To prop­erly under­stand the Lamont family, we must go back to the First World War.

Thomas W. Lamont (1870 – 1948) was one of the orig­inal orga­nizers of the Round Table group cited by Quigley in Tragedy and Hope.

Thomas Lamont’s auto­bi­og­raphy was appro­pri­ately enti­tled Across World Fron­tiers. He was not only a senior partner in J.P. Morgan & Co., but was also a director of Guar­anty Trust Com­pany, Inter­na­tional Har­vester Co. and the law firm of Lamont Corliss & Co. Thomas Lamont was a key figure in the Morgan finan­cial group. (For fur­ther infor­ma­tion and exten­sive doc­u­men­ta­tion on the links between J.P. Morgan and the devel­op­ment of the early Soviet Union, see Wall Street and the Bol­shevik Rev­o­lu­tion by Antony Sutton.)

Mrs. Thomas Lamont was a member of sev­eral unusual organizations:

• Fed­eral Union
• American-Russian Insti­tute (on the Attorney General’s sub­ver­sive list)
• National Council of American-Soviet Friend­ship
• Amer­ican Com­mittee for Friend­ship with the Soviet Union… and numerous others. (See above cita­tion for full list.)

In short, the Lamont family epit­o­mized the links between:

• Humanism
• Com­mu­nism
• New York finan­cial interests

So much for his­tory of the ACLU– let’s look at the recent past.

Between 2000 and 2004, major financiers of the ACLU include:

Foun­da­tion    Dona­tions (2000 – 2004) 20
Ford Foun­da­tion
$9,120,000
Carnegie Cor­po­ra­tion
$300,000
William and Flora Hewlett Foun­da­tion
$500,000
David and Lucile Packard Foun­da­tion
$2,650,000
MacArthur Foun­da­tion
$1,250,0000
Rock­e­feller Foun­da­tion
$325,000
Open Society Insti­tute (George Soros)
$2,827,175

As the old saying goes, “Cash talks, B.S. walks.” In short, the ACLU has been com­pletely inter­twined with and financed by globalist/Marxist powers since its very incep­tion. Indeed, hirelings do the bid­ding of those who sign their paychecks!

Having laid this short ground­work, you are asked to answer this ques­tion: What orga­ni­za­tion has single-handedly caused the strike-down of both a) prayer and b) dis­play of the Ten Com­mand­ments any­where in public schools? By “single-handedly”, this writer point­edly means that there have been no other public con­testers against these issues except for the ACLU. Not one.

Why would global elit­ists want all ves­tiges of Judeo-Christian tra­di­tion removed from the classroom?

Because their global edu­ca­tion agenda would not and could not work as long as stu­dents could com­pare their pro­pa­ganda to the “inflex­i­bility” and “intol­er­ance” of the Judeo-Christian ethic.

In com­mu­nist Russia, Lenin and Stalin’s solu­tion to Chris­tianity and Judaism was simple: kill the Chris­tians and Jews. Of course, they killed cap­i­tal­ists and the intel­li­gentsia also– totaling some 60,000,000 inno­cent people over sev­eral years. With Fabian socialism, where vio­lence was eschewed as unnec­es­sary, less-direct but equally potent means are used to neu­tralize its ene­mies: kill the intel­lec­tual and moral imple­ments of Chris­tians and Jews — the Ten Com­mand­ments and prayer. In short, wipe the Judeo-Christian ethic off the face of the country!

The ACLU has single-handedly killed both (prayer and the Ten Com­mand­ments), and they did it with money directly con­tributed by the same glob­alist elite who sought to con­trol the edu­ca­tional system for their own nefar­ious purposes.

Con­clu­sion

Every con­di­tion of a hijack is now met: The moving vehicle is the pre-existing system of edu­ca­tion; the force used is gen­er­ated by mas­sive amounts of pri­vate and diverted public money; the alter­nate des­ti­na­tion is social­istic globalism.

The data pre­sented in this paper should not imply that edu­ca­tion was not in the cross hairs of glob­al­ists prior to the early 1970′s. In fact, there is a long his­tory of elitist med­dling and social engi­neering exper­i­ments dating well back into the 1800′s. Rather, the sig­nif­i­cant fact about modern his­tory (1973-present) is that glob­alist efforts and suc­cesses have shifted into high gear.

It is also not implied that there are no other orga­ni­za­tions or areas of attack involved in the global assault on edu­ca­tion. There are many. It was suf­fi­cient here to demon­strate one coherent set of data and evi­dence, even in skeleton form, to prove the basic point. If this paper only draws a stick-man, com­plete data and his­tor­ical inquiry will cer­tainly result in a more com­plete picture.

The reader is finally reminded again that the proof of this takeover is not seen by looking at direct evi­dence. Trying to pin down specifics is like picking up a slip­pery bar of soap. The pat­tern of things can be very clearly seen, how­ever, by exam­ining the people and orga­ni­za­tions who have put their own money on the line to bring it about: after all, is there any stronger proof of involve­ment than com­mit­ting your own money?

End­notes

1. Robert Leestma, Schooling for a Global Age, ed. James M. Becker, p. 233.
2. Ibid., Dust cover.
3. Lee and Char­lotte Anderson, Op. cit., pg. 8.
4. James Becker, Op. cit., pg. 41.
5. Irving Buche, Learning for Tomorrow, ed. Alvin Tof­fler, p. 137.
6. Amer­ican Edu­ca­tion and Global Inter­de­pen­dence, Aspen Insti­tute.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Roger Ulrich, Con­trol of Human Behavior.
11. Robert Leestma, Op. cit., p. .240, 241.
12. John I. Goodlad, Ibid., 17.
13. Carl Rogers, Courses by News­paper.
14. James Becker, Op. cit., p. vii.
15. Markle Foun­da­tion Annual Report (1977), p. 4.
16. Ibid., p. 8.
17. Ibid., p. 17.
18. http://www.cep-dc.org/aboutcep.htm
19. Prayer school board likened to ter­ror­ists, World­Net­Daily, 8/17/2005
20. The Foun­da­tion Direc­tory Online, http://www.fdncenter.org.