A Paris-based, specialized U.N. organization that was designed by Sir Julian Huxley, who also was its first director general. In his founding 1946 document, Huxley defines Unesco’s two main aims as popularizing the need for eugenics, and protecting wildlife through the creation of national parks, especially in Africa. The real goal behind what is taking place in education is more than just mass-producing uneducated people unable to resist planetary totalitarianism. It is about transforming human society, bringing the world together under a single system, and preparing children not just to accept tyranny — but to love it and demand it. With a $550 million annual budget, Unesco funds a vast network of conservation groups; it defines protection of the environment as one of its three main goals.
Sir Julian Huxley, described the key “task” before UNESCO in 1947 as “to help the emergence of a single world culture, with its own philosophy and background of ideas, and with its own broad purpose.” He explained clearly that its outlook “must be” what he called “world humanism.” John Dewey, the founding father of America’s government education regime, had a very similar vision.
Huxley described as “necessary” the “political unification in some sort of world government.” And in a widely quoted 1949 series on using the classroom to promote “world understanding,” UNESCO laid out the means: “As long as the child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism, education in world-mindedness can only produce precarious results.” So, schools should “combat family attitudes.” In other words, UNESCO will implant attitudes and values in children, regardless of what parents want. Government schools are the vehicle.
UNESCO is a corrupt agency put into place to foster a “peaceful world” but has foul intentions and is aiding in building the new world order. Originally the League of Nations before World War II, it’s publicly known purpose is, “to contribute to peace and security by promoting international collaboration through educational, scientific, and cultural reforms to increase universal respect for justice, the rule of law, and human rights.” What isn’t spoken of is the dark past of UNESCO, it’s creation and ultimate goal.
It’s predecessor the League of Nations was interested in disarmament to create world peace; its legacy lives on today as the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs. Thomas Jefferson was famously quoted saying, “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” The founding fathers of the United States were interested in a nation that was for the people by the people, but as the belief system of collectivism creeps further and further into the moral of our country, our rights have continually come into question.
The United Nations believes that “the world is over-armed and peace is underfunded.” How can the United States work hand in hand with the UN when their goals go against our very Constitution? The broad agenda the UN is calling into action entails becoming the very thing Americans have fought so hard not to be. They seek “world peace”, or in other words, a one world government that rules over all aspects of life: religion, commerce, food, healthcare, child care, etc. As we dig deeper into the history of UNESCO, we will find that their Philosophy states their poor intentions quite blatantly.
The agency was called International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation within the League of Nations before they transferred the name to UNESCO due to failure to prevent a world war. The intentions of the agency never changed, they only became clouded by flowery words in more recent years. The International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation “aimed to promote international cultural/intellectual exchange between scientists, researchers, teachers, artists and other intellectuals.”
Despite receiving little media coverage in the United States, the UN and its sprawling array of agencies have been remarkably transparent about the agenda to bring the world together under a single tyrannical system.. and love it! For instance, the UN’s “Universal Declaration of [pseudo-] Human Rights,” which declares in Article 29 that rights and privileges may not be used “contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations,” states openly in Article 26 that education “shall further the activities of the United Nations.”
And part of the UN’s agenda when it comes to education is eliminating understanding of God-given rights. Instead, children will learn about UN-granted pseudo-rights that can be revoked at will. The UN is also working to sexualize children, promote homosexuality, replace allegiance to nations with what the UN calls “global citizenship,” and turn children into promoters of the UN ideology known as “sustainable development.” There is also an occult element.
In a 1968 publication by Louis Francois [PDF – The right to education; from proclamation to achievement, 1948-1968] for the brainwashing division of the UN, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) the author elaborates on the need for a worldwide education-system as opposed to the old, discarded one which still recognized sovereignty of the nation-state (page 18): ‘We are witnessing the establishment of a new world order based upon the system of the United Nations’, Francois explains.
He links a growing world population as one of the main obstacles to be overcome in the quest for a global educational system (page 25): ‘(…) not only is the population of the world increasing; it is also growing younger (…). So the first obstacle to be overcome by education is that of quantity. The first problem to be solved by a ministry of education is that of accommodating and teaching these rapidly increasing multitudes of young people.’
On page 32 the author comes to the point, when he arrives at the diabolically logical conclusion of his train of thought:
Educational expansion is hard put to it to keep up with the huge growth of population.’ In order to effectively guide the population toward slavery, the number of people should be reduced lest its effectiveness wear off. ‘Wherever we look’, says Francois on page 36, ‘education is striving to forestall the demographic explosion.’
With a sharp sense of foresight when it comes to media matters, the UN-representative describes the future of education and what its ground principles are on which this future should be founded (page 80):
‘Promoting the recognition of the fact that, if the countries of the world are still divided by their interests and their political convictions, they are, day by day, growing more closely interdependent in matters of economics, science, technology and culture. Promoting awareness of the fact that nations must cooperate, that is to say work together for their common good within international organizations.’
‘To sum up,’ the author concludes on page 98, ‘UNESCO serves as a catalyst for dynamic ideas. Well placed to hear of what is happening in the world, sensitive to the nation’s needs, UNESCO is aware of the very first stirring of ideas, follows their development and can, at the proper time, co-ordinate, harmonize and finally impose them in their full force.’
It would almost be amusing, this notion that UNESCO is merely picking up on ideas, if it were not so horribly cynical. This calculated and synchronized move toward a brave new world is not a bottom-up thing, somehow evolving naturally from the grass roots, it is a top-down system, posing as grass roots, to be imposed on as large an audience as it can reach through the use of mass media, schooling systems and other available instruments of propaganda. In 1974, the Director-General of UNESCO, Rene Maheu, stressed the importance of gathering all media, irrespective of its medium, under the great wing of UNESCO and the globalists. At a banquet of the ‘International Co-ordinating Council of the Man and the Biosphere Program’ in Williamsburg, USA, Maheu starts out by giving some insight in Unesco’s long-term vision for mankind (page 2): ‘The rationale behind the MAB (Man and the Biosphere) program is to ensure that the physical, biological and other environmental requirements of man are placed in the hands of each of us (present) and remain under our overall control.’
Explaining to his listening audience that the earth will disintegrate if not for ‘a collective effort planned, organized and executed by the international community acting in concert.’, the Director-General goes on to state: ‘I believe that we have now reached the point in world affairs where we must have a systematic reorganization of international relations on all levels.’ He of course favors the UN as the proper body to do the reorganizing before which he gives it its proper name (page 4): ‘I wish to reiterate my firm conviction- together with my hope- that a new world order- political, monetary, economic and social- should now be established.’
Exactly then years after Louis Francois outlined the plans for a new world order, a meeting of ‘consultants’ was organized at UNESCO Headquarters discussing ‘the free and balanced flow of information in a new communication order.’
The participants were carefully selected to match the designs of the globalist organizers (page 1): ‘Fifteen consultants and observers from university and professional circles and representatives of international journalists’ organizations attended this meeting. The main purpose of the meeting was to review briefly the origins of the concept of a free and balanced flow of information, to analyze the current state of discussions and the components of a new world order, together with its legal, technological and socio-economic implications, and to maker suggestions and recommendations for future action by UNESCO and other international organizations.’
One of the aims described in the document, was (page 2): ‘Preparing and carrying out “pilot programs” of education incorporating these principles.’ Regarding the before mentioned ‘legal implications’, one of the proposals was to ‘Draw up regulations relating to international mass communications (page 3).’
There is nothing like a strong chokehold to force your subjects into submission. When the status of the journalist in this new world order was discussed, the participants agreed that they would first have to ‘assess the feasibility of establishing an international code of ethics which would be adopted by journalists possessing a “universal” sense of mission, that is to say transcending their national origin in the defence of peace and fraternity (page 3)’. When we strip off the Orwellian euphemisms, a code of ethics off course equals an oath of obedience.
Among the many disturbing recommendations made by the panel, such as setting up ‘an international fund for the purpose of renting news transmission channels’, the need was expressed ‘to set up a “World Press Council” to help ensure the truthfulness and objectivity of information, in the event of it proving impossible to devise and adapt an “international code of ethics (page 6)”’.
A transnational body, in other words, that will decide whether a news item is truthful or not. While the going was good, the participants also called for (page 4) ‘seminars for professionals in order to make them understand the need to broaden the concerns of those who, in the mass communication process, have the responsibility for selecting information, in other words, those who act as information filters (Gate-Keepers).’
At a 1983 UNESCO conference, there seemed to be an even greater consensus on the strategies that should be implemented in order to reach a new world order and it appears that those in attendance had a swell time debating semantics (page 16):
The participants regarded the new world order as a recognized concept, developing but irreversible, which would be established stage by stage.(…) The establishment of a new world communication order appeared to one participant as a participation, a world response to the communications revolution, whereas another emphasized the importance of the word “new” in describing the concept.
Some statements emphasized the importance of speaking of a new order and not the new order since the concept was steadily evolving and also stressed the important difference between a new international order, concerned only with inter-State relations, and a new world order, which took into account all communication problems in a global context.’ Bordering on the ridiculous, this exchange between globalists is nevertheless significant for it occurred long before papa Bush delivered his famous ‘new world order’ speech before the US congress in 1991. It became part of the nomenclature long before that within the seclusion of key globalist meetings. On page 10 some participants of the conference declared that ‘the effort to establish a new world information and communication order in stages could not be separated from the effort to promote a new international economic order.’
Their final idea and plan for a world government is not some magical or mysterious force that can only be understood by an arduous reading between the lines, on the contrary: it’s being spelled out for us word for word by overeager transnationalists. As professor Saul Mendlovitz, Co-Director of World Order Models Project (WOMP) said in his acceptance speech at the award ceremony of the 1990 UNESCO ‘Prize for Peace Education’ (page 36): ‘it is my personal belief (not shared by all members of WOMP) that there is an overwhelming surge in the direction of global polity and that a world state is emerging. Indeed, some of the policy elite are beginning to discuss a single world central bank and a single currency.’
In the years since UNESCO’s founding, the UN agency has pursued its mission vigorously. In 1990, UNESCO and other agencies brought governments from around the world together for the “World Conference on Education for All.” The main product of that summit was an agreement to globalize education dubbed the World Declaration on Education for All: Meeting Basic Learning Needs, also known as the “Jomtien Declaration.”
In Article 10, the declaration claims that meeting the “basic learning needs” of children, defined as the “essential learning tools” and “the basic learning content” that is “required by all human beings,” is “a common and universal human responsibility.” In short, deciding what children will learn was no longer to be the responsibility of families, communities, or even nations. Instead, basic learning — including content — was declared to be a UN responsibility. All children must be subjected to “the same standards of learning,” the document says in Article 5, adding that “equitable and fair economic relations” (global wealth redistribution) was needed to meet basic learning needs.
Ten years later, UN members reconvened to sign the “Dakar Framework for Action: Education for All: Meeting our Collective Commitments.” And again, social engineering was trumpeted as crucial to education. The Dakar deal demanded that governments “implement integrated strategies” in education “which recognize the need for changes in attitudes, values and practices.” The same document also claimed “changes in attitudes, values and behavior are required.”
There have been countless similar summits and agreements since then. In the summer of 2016, a UN summit in Korea came up with a planetary “Action Plan” outlining how to use “education” to transform children into “global citizens.” The title of the summit, “Education for Global Citizenship: Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals Together,” offered a good summary of the agenda. Among other points, the envisioned “global-citizenship” program must promote “integrated development of the whole person emotionally, ethically, intellectually, physically, socially, and spiritually,” the action plan declared, touting the “spirit of global citizenship” while demanding that “education must advance the cause of global citizenship.” (Emphasis added.)
The document reveals that the spirituality the would-be global educators envision has nothing in common with Christianity or Western civilization. Schooling must, for instance, inculcate “a sense of care for the earth” and “reverence for the interdependent kinship of all life.” If that sounds like paganism and pantheism, it should — because it is. More on spirituality later. The document goes on to “commit” the signatories to an educational regime that promotes “a deep appreciation for diversity,” “gender equality” (read: radical feminism), “interdependence,” “multicultural competence,” “social justice,” “sustainable development,” and more.
At another UN summit held the year before, UNESCO boss Irina Bokova boldly declared the UN’s intentions when it comes to advancing globalism with education. “We have the collective duty to empower every child and youth with the right foundations — knowledge, values and skills — to shape the future as responsible global citizens,” she boasted. (Emphasis added.) “We need new skills for new times — to foster greater respect and understanding between cultures, to give learners tools to make the most of diversity, to develop new values and behaviors of solidarity and responsibility, to harness the energy of young women and men for the benefit of all.”
The sort of “new values and behaviors” envisioned by UNESCO and Bokova are not hard to discern. Consider that Bokova, as The New American documented extensively, is a well-known Communist Party operative from Bulgaria who unapologetically served the mass-murdering regime. She was educated at an elite KGB-dominated university in Moscow. And she was a “red diaper baby” whose ruthless father was on the Politburo of the party responsible for slaughtering literally hundreds of thousands of people. The values, attitudes, and beliefs the UN wants to instill in children are also made clear in a set of sexual education standards unveiled by UNESCO in early 2018.
This- in their own words- is the endgame of the elite. But the road is not without obstacles, as they themselves are acutely aware of. In the same acceptance speech- champagne glass in hand- the professor expresses his concern about a smooth going in the near future: ‘My fear’, Mendlovitz added, ‘is that we will be put off by notions of centralization and legal form and attempt to realize values ‘at a local level’, thus permitting the centralizing forces of the dominant states and classes to maintain control of both the transition and governance of the global polity. What I believe is called for then is the liberating from within ourselves the idea of specie identity. That is, to cultivate that capacity in each of us to identify, empathize and act with and on behalf of the human specie, and in the end the planet we inhabit.’
In order to further inspire this detachment of humans from their own tribe- and divert this natural inclination towards a sense of world citizenry- replacing the tribe for the ‘global tribe’- a great propaganda-infrastructure was forced into being, with a special seat reserved in it for the mass media to incrementally commence with the brainwashing. The globalists have meanwhile spread their tentacles very wide indeed, in an attempt to suck out our survival instincts ‘stage by stage’, and pumping human creative energy straight into their desired new world order.
In the future, children will all be learning from the same script, literally. Parents will become increasingly sidelined as globalized schools take over everything from mental and dental health to sexuality and nutrition. Indeed, even as Americans fought against the nationalization of education via Common Core, the United Nations was globalizing education and pushing its World Core Curriculum. The UN has decreed that it will decide what children learn and what values they should have. UN leaders have boasted that children’s behavior, attitudes, beliefs, views, and even “spirituality” will be shaped by global programs. And incredibly, national governments have gone along with it.
If current trends continue, the future of U.S. education is globalization and indoctrination — on steroids. It has been happening for decades, of course. It accelerated under the Obama administration. But years before Obama was even a candidate, Microsoft boss Bill Gates — the chief nongovernmental financier of Common Core — signed a global education partnership with the UN. And it is going to get worse. Instead of actually educating children, government schools in America and all over the world are being transformed into indoctrination centers. Using a century of psychological research, these indoctrination centers are designed to transform children into unthinking cogs in a globalist machine. Many of its architects have boasted of their agenda to weaponize public schools against individualism, Christianity, religion, and more. Now it is under way.
True critical thinking is on the way out — logic, truth, real philosophy, and more have been replaced with emotionalism and post-modernism. Teaching real history is becoming a thing of the past. Legitimate science, too, is going by the wayside, as “science” lessons increasingly focus on the man-made global-warming hypothesis, false religious doctrines of atheism disguised as science, and sexual perversion. Even reading, writing, and arithmetic — the “Three R’s” — are being replaced with social justice, values clarification, and absurd math that confuses even professional mathematicians. It’s by design.
World Core Curriculum’s “Spirituality”
Perhaps the most bizarre example of the UN’s efforts to globalize education is the “World Core Curriculum,” developed by UN Assistant Secretary-General Robert Muller. The curriculum, he said, is “the product of the United Nations, the meta-organism of human and planetary evolution.” In a letter to “all the educators in the world,” Muller described his creation as a “curriculum of our universal knowledge which should be taught in all schools of Earth.” Kind of like a Common Core, but for the whole planet. The resemblance between the names of both programs is more than coincidental, as this article will show.
Muller was serious about getting the UN curriculum in every school on the planet. As he made clear in his writings blasting his French and German educational experiences, national education systems, in his view, were outdated. “In the middle of my life I discovered that the only true, objective education I had received was from the United Nations where the earth, humanity, our place in time and the worth of the human being were the overriding concerns,” his letter explained.
It gets weirder. In the World Core Curriculum Manual by Muller, the preface contains a stunning admission. “The underlying philosophy upon which The Robert Muller School is based,” he wrote, “will be found in the teachings set forth in the books of Alice A. Bailey by the Tibetan teacher, Djwhal Khul.” To the uninitiated, it would be easy to read right over that. But to those who know anything about Bailey and the “Lucifer Publishing Company” she created, the reference is more than a red flag.
Among other dubious distinctions, Bailey was one of the founders of the occult New Age movement. She was also a key figure in theosophy, which even theosophists have admitted helped inspire the National Socialists (Nazis) in Germany. And she channeled spirits, described as “ascended masters,” chief among them the so-called Tibetan referenced in the World Core Curriculum Manual. These spirits supposedly wrote dozens of books through Bailey, predicting a new global religion that would smash biblical Christianity, national sovereignty, and everything else at odds with the coming “Age of Aquarius.”
“There will not be any dissociation between the Universal Church, the Sacred Lodge of all true Masons and the inner circles of the esoteric societies,” Bailey’s spirits wrote in Externalisation of the Hierarchy, one of her best-known books. “In this way, the goals and work of the United Nations shall be solidified and a new Church of God, led by all the religions and by all of the spiritual groups, shall put an end to the great heresy of separateness.” The “great heresy of separateness” refers to Christians, Jews, and others who insist on being separate from the New Age global religion.
In her book Education and the New Age, Bailey explained how ending individualism was crucial to global government. “World Citizenship should be the goal of the enlightened, with a world federation and a world brain,” the spirits wrote. “Our problem is to attain the kind of overall synthesis that Marxism and neo-Scholasticism provide for their followers, but to get this by the freely chosen cooperative methods that [John] Dewey advocated. In the broadest terms such a world-view will make possible a planetary civilization.”
This is the woman whose writings the World Core Curriculum is primarily based upon. In Muller’s World Core Curriculum Manual, one other source is also acknowledged: “the teachings of M. Morya as given in the Agni Yoga Series Books.” As with Bailey’s occultism, the teachings come from a “spiritual Master,” in this case “Master Morya.” This alleged spiritual guru — an entity Christians would describe as demonic — was instrumental in helping infamous occultist Helena Blavatsky establish the occult Theosophical Society. This movement, which inspired top Nazis, flips the biblical story upside down, with Lucifer as liberator and God as tyrant.
Muller, who reveled in the title “Father of Global Education,” did not conceal his aims. In his book New Genesis: Shaping a Global Spirituality, he wrote about the supposed “need for global education” on the path “towards a new spiritual ideology.” “What the world needs today is a convergence of the different religions in the search for and definition of the cosmic or divine laws which ought to regulate our behavior on this planet,” he wrote, calling for “world-wide spiritual ecumenism, expressed in new forms of religious cooperation and institutions.”
His deification of the UN was blasphemous. “There is a famous painting and poster which shows Christ knocking at the tall United Nations building, wanting to enter it,” he explained. “I often visualize in my mind another even more accurate painting: that of a United Nations which would be the body of Christ.” The Bible says the church is the body of Christ, not the UN. For globalists, though, the UN seems to be the body of a Christ they invented for themselves. In My Testament to the UN, Muller again deified the UN. “The United Nations is the vision-light of the Absolute Supreme,” he wrote. “At his choice hour, the Absolute Supreme will ring His own victory-bell here on Earth through the loving and serving heart of the United Nations.”
Like Dewey in America, Muller did not just seek to eliminate Christianity through education, but individual liberty and self-government too. “Assisting the child in becoming an integrated individual who can deal with personal experience while seeing himself as a part of ‘the greater whole,’” he wrote. “In other words, promote growth of the group idea, so that group good, group understanding, group interrelations and group goodwill replace all limited, self-centered objectives, leading to group consciousness.”
These are the sort of teachings that underpin the World Core Curriculum. And there should be little doubt that when UN officials and UNESCO bosses speak of teaching children spirituality, this is what is meant. UNESCO continues to promote the World Core Curriculum, and its ideas increasingly permeate education around the world, with UNESCO leading the charge.
Continued on next page…
