FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Normalising perversion/fornication: Alfred Kinsey BBC Teens

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> The War On Children, Marriage and the Family
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Caz
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Posts: 714

PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 2:06 am    Post subject: Normalising perversion/fornication: Alfred Kinsey BBC Teens Reply with quote

The following posts were originally under the BBC Teens Page thread, link here: http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=12273

and are now available below:


Quote:
Posted by Caz Fri Nov 16, 2007 8:33 pm

Quote:
You're right. I have yet to figure out how ARK 'charity' turns a profit out of orphans in Romania. Maybe I'm missing something.


Posted by Mark Gobell Fri Nov 16, 2007 8:57 pm

Quote:
I looked at the Ark web site and glanced through their accounts and statements about mission and funding.

Most of the principles seem to be have investment banking, finance backgrounds.

As it's a charity I guess it doesn't need to turn a profit as such.

So what's the attraction for these guys in running schools ?


Posted by karlos: Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:46 pm

Quote:
dont forget ARK will own the school and lease it to the local education and collect a rental plus a fee per pupil.
If they accept special needs pupils that fee increases

so the school will certainly not be a loss maker - teachers wages are paid by the LEA

And dont forget Billionaires donations to 'charity' are tax deductable

finally these academies will be pipelines of productive workers already trained up and ready for years of servitude to the corporations




Posted by Mark Gobell Sat Nov 17, 2007 8:01 am

Quote:
Wow. Didn't know that they own the real estate.

That would be akin to a "right to buy" policy for schools.

Got a link ?


Last edited by Caz on Fri Aug 21, 2009 1:56 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Caz
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Posts: 714

PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 2:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Posted by Caz Sun Nov 18, 2007 1:53 am

Quote:
Mark Gobell
As it's a charity I guess it doesn't need to turn a profit as such.
So what's the attraction for these guys in running schools ?


I think you might be a bit confused as to what 'charities' are now about. There is a book around called 'The Other Invisible Hand:Remaking Charity for the 21st Century'. I haven't read it but it looks like a few have. The following is where we are with 'charities' in the 21st Century. www.ridley.unimelb.edu.au/study/images/assets/Acrobat/BC27_0511.pdf.

Under the title ‘God and the Money Men’:

Quote:
Even the name ‘Absolute Return for Kids’ is a play on a commonly used hedge fund boast, of achieving an “absolute return” for investors.


http://education.guardian.co.uk/newschools/story/0,,1495943,00.html

Quote:
If we can apply the entrepreneurial principles we have brought to business to charity, we have a shot at having a really strong impact, to be able to transform the lives to children’…Funding decisions are made by the board only after months of what bankers refer to as due diligence – a forensic study of the books to ensure the investment will pay off. Funding is maintained only if key targets are met. ‘Charities must treat donors as if they were shareholders.’ Busson says simply.


The 'key' and 'lesser' targets will be determined by the 'charities'. And must charities treat donors like shareholders, just because Busson says so??

http://search.ft.com/ftArticle?sortBy=gadatearticle&queryText=%22Chris +Hohn%22&id=070728001088&ct=0&nclick_check=1

Quote:
‘new philanthropists’ regard charity in much the same way as they do standard investments. They are looking to take more of an active interest in the direction of the charities they support and look for proven returns. ‘I am a Scotsman and we don’t give things away.’ Sir Tom explained this month. ‘We see it as an investment and we are looking for a return on that investment.’ More clients are turning to organisations such as the Institute of Philanthropy and New Philanthropy Capital, two prominent consulting groups, for direction as they attempt to find a portfolio of "charities" they should support. New Philanthropy Capital, which was founded by four former Goldman Sachs partners, employs a team of 20 analysts to assess the performance of various charities and suggest ones that are suitable for investment. Philanthropy has become a thriving industry. The Institute of Philanthropy offers a three-week-long class for founders of charitable trusts and foundations. The programme, which this year is staged in London, New York and Saigon and costs £8,000, aims to offer instruction on how to conduct appropriate due diligence on charities by assessing their budgets, meeting management and gaining an understanding of their governance structure and funding sources.


If you are not considered a suitable investment (with respect to financial gain for the ‘investors’ as Busson calls them) then you get no help. No matter how much it may be needed, or how genuinely. There is money, too, to be made in charging people for your services as an advisor. Lots.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2007/04/21/smphil 21.xml&page=3

Quote:
There's a feeling here that you should do things anonymously, for altruistic reasons,' he says. 'But in America we believe in the concept of enlightened self-interest.

…In other words, this is not about altruism, this is a variation of self-interest, ‘enlightened’ self-interest www.arkonline.org/resources/B0629-ARKPressRelease.pdf:

Quote:
As ARK grows, it is maintaining its rigorous approach to philanthropy, ensuring measurability and accountability of all its innovative programmes. These focus on three core themes: combating HIV/AIDS; delivering Education; and Closing Abusive Orphanages.

Again, the 'core themes' are chosen by the 'charity', so if you have 'self-interest' in a certain area of deprivation, you can 'invest' your money in that area. What's more, this I think is the first time I have heard the word 'theme' mentioned with repect to HIV/AIDS and orphanages. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/11/nhain1 1.xml

Quote:
"There's a real problem of people on average incomes feeling there's a sort of super rich class right at the top," he said. "What is it? Four thousand city workers receiving more than a million pounds each in bonuses. People don't feel that's proportionate. We've lost a sense of moral corporate responsibility here. That sort of thing creates a society where you start getting envy being promoted and a sense of real antagonism and that breeds all sorts of socially undesirable behaviour…….Why don't they give two-thirds of that £8.8 billion and invest it in charity, or invest it in regeneration schemes for unemployed kids who are living a mile away from the opulence that there is in the City? If they don't want to invite attacks for greater regulation or changes in taxation, if they don't want to get into that kind of arena, then they have to show a lead.'

People on average incomes do not feel that there is a 'sort of super rich class right at the top', they know that there is exactly a super rich class at the top. What Hain is saying is that 'philanthropy’ is to maintain social order, before there is social unrest, and prevent public anger which may lead to changes in taxation or regulations. When they show a ‘lead’ Hain means they need to cover their own backs and create ‘diversion’. So, some excellent reasons for these people to 'invest' money in their favourite 'themes'.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Caz
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Posts: 714

PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 3:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark Gobell Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 5:16 am
Quote:
OK so can someone explain, clearly, how these philanthropists will achieve a return on their investment?



Caz Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:41 pm

Quote:
The following are a set of excerpts from the ebook ‘The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America’ by Charlotte Iserbyt available free at http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/index.html .

‘Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, former Senior Policy Advisor in the U.S. Department of Education, blew the whistle in the `80s on government activities withheld from the public.’ I know it's long, but hey it's not the 700 pages the ebook is...(A teacher might even read it!)

I specifically searched for references to Rockefeller, as this is a particular issue in the UK now, the ‘Institute for Philanthropy’ in London being an offshoot of the Rockefeller Foundation, where those who sponsor schools are being trained.
I also suggest you watch: Who controls your children? http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4398419790115760009&q=who+c ontrols+your+children&total=137&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plinde x=9 Also, The E-Files: The Truth About Education www.e-files.org is very informative.


A summary of 'The Deliberate Dunbing Down of America':

Quote:
1874 As briefly stated by Thorndike himself, psychology was the “science of the intellect, character, and behavior of animals, including man.” To further excerpt The Leipzig Connection’s excellent treatment of Thorndike’s background:

Quote:
Thorndike was the first psychologist to study animal behavior in an experimental psychology laboratory and (following Cattell’s suggestion) apply the same techniques to children and youth; as one result, in 1903, he published the book Educational Psychology. In the following years he published a total of 507 books, monographs, and articles. Thorndike’s primary assumption was the same as Wundt’s: that man is an animal, that his actions are actually always reactions, and that he can be studied in the laboratory in much the same way as an animal might be studied. Thorndike equated children with the rats, monkeys, fish, cats, and chickens upon which he experimented in his laboratory and was prepared to apply what he found there to learning in the classroom. He extrapolated “laws” from his research into animal behavior which he then applied to the training of teachers, who took what they had learned to every corner of the United States and ran their classrooms, curricula, and schools, on the basis of this new “educational” psychology. In The Principles of Teaching Based on Psychology (1906), Thorndike proposed making “the study of teaching scientific and practical.” Thorndike’s definition of the art of teaching is

Quote:
the art of giving and withholding stimuli with the result of producing or preventing certain responses. In this definition the term stimulus is used widely for any event which influences a person—for a word spoken to him, a look, a sentence which he reads, the air he breathes, etc., etc. The term response is used for any reaction made by him—a new thought, a feeling of interest, a bodily act, any mental or bodily condition resulting from the stimulus. The aim of the teacher is to produce desirable and prevent undesirable changes in human beings by producing and preventing certain responses. The means at the disposal of the teacher are the stimuli which can be brought to bear upon the pupil—the teacher’s words, gestures, and appearance, the condition and appliances of the school room, the books to be used and objects to be seen, and so on through a long list of the things and events which the teacher can control.




1896 PSYCHOLOGY by John Dewey, the father of 'progressive education' was published. (University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1896). This was the first American textbook on the “revised” subject of education. Psychology would become the most widely-read and quoted textbook used in schools of education in this country. Just prior to the publication of his landmark book, Dewey had joined the faculty of the Rockefeller-endowed University of Chicago as head of the combined departments of philosophy, psychology and pedagogy (teaching). In that same year, 1895, the university allocated $1,000 to establish a laboratory in which Dewey could apply psychological principles and experimental techniques to the study of learning. The laboratory opened in January 1896 as the Dewey School, later to become known as The University of Chicago Laboratory School. Dewey thought of the school as a place where
Quote:
Quote:
his theories of education could be put into practice, tested, and scientifically evaluated….…Dewey… sought to apply the doctrines of experience and experiment to everyday life and, hence, to education... seeking via this model institution to pave the way for the “schools of the future.” There he had put into actual practice three of the revolutionary beliefs he had culled from the new psychology: that to put the child in possession of his fullest talents, education should be active rather than passive; that to prepare the child for a democratic society, the school should be social rather than individualist; and that to enable the child to think creatively, experimentation rather than imitation should be encouraged.


20th Century: Seventy years later, the carefully laid plans to change America from a sovereign, constitutional republic with a free enterprise economic base to just one of many nations in an international socialist (collectivist) system (New World Order) are apparent. Only a dumbed down population, with no memory of America’s roots as a prideful nation, could be expected to willingly succumb to the global workforce training planned by the Carnegie Corporation and the John D. Rockefellers, I and II, in the early twentieth century which is being implemented by the United States Congress in the year 1999.

1902 THE GENERAL EDUCATION BOARD (GEB) WAS INCORPORATED BY AN ACT OF THE UNITED States Congress. Approved January 12, 1902, the General Education Board was endowed by Mr. John D. Rockefeller, Sr., for the purpose of establishing an educational laboratory to experiment with early innovations in education.

1913 JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR.’S DIRECTOR OF CHARITY FOR THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION, Frederick T. Gates, set up the Southern Education Board (SEB), which was later incorporated into the General Education Board (GEB) in 1913, setting in motion “the deliberate dumbing down of America.” The Country School of Tomorrow: Occasional Papers No. 1 (General EducationBoard: New York, 1913) written by Frederick T. Gates contained a section entitled “A Vision of the Remedy” in which he wrote the following:
Quote:
Quote:
Is there aught of remedy for this neglect of rural life? Let us, at least, yield ourselves to the gratifications of a beautiful dream that there is. In our dream, we have limitless resources, and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hand. The present educational conventions fade from our minds; and, unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive rural folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or of science. We are not to raise up from among them authors, orators, poets, or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians. Nor will we cherish even the humbler ambition to raise up from among them lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we now have ample supply.



1914 A RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE NORMAL SCHOOL SECTION OF THE NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOciation at its annual meeting in St. Paul, Minnesota in the year 1914. An excerpt follows:
Quote:
Quote:
We view with alarm the activity of the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations—agencies not in any way responsible to the people—in their efforts to control the policies of our State educational institutions, to fashion after their conception and to standardize our courses of study, and to surround the institutions with conditions which menace true academic freedom and defeat the primary purpose of democracy as heretofore preserved inviolate in our common schools, normal schools, and universities.



1918 CARNEGIE AND ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATIONS PLANNED THE DEMISE OF TRADITIONAL ACADEMIC education in 1918. Rockefeller’s focus would be national education; Carnegie would be in charge of international education.

1921 The late Professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University described the CFR as “a front for J.P Morgan and Company in association with the very small American Round Table Group.” Quigley further commented:
Quote:
Quote:
The board of the CFR have carried ever since the marks of their origin…. There grew up in the 20th century a power structure between London and New York which penetrated deeply into university life, the press, and the practice of foreign policy…. The American branch of this “English Establishment” exerted much of its influence through five American newspapers (New York Times, New York Herald Tribune, Christian Science Monitor, Washington Post, and the late lamented Boston Evening Transcript).

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., penned a tome entitled A Thousand Days in 1965 in which he wrote that

Quote:
the New York financial and legal community was the heart of the American establishment….Its front organizations [were] the Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie foundations and the Council on Foreign Relations.

1922
ON DECEMBER 15, 1922 THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS ENDORSED WORLD GOVERNment.

1925
THE INTERNATIONAL BUREAU OF EDUCATION, FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE INSTITUTE JEAN-Jacques Rousseau, was established in 1925 with a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation. The Bureau became part of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

1932 PRESIDENT HERBERT HOOVER APPOINTED A RESEARCH COMMITTEE ON RECENT SOCIAL TRENDS to implement the planned society in 1932. (In 1919 Franklin Roosevelt had told a friend that he personally would like to see Hoover in the White House.) The Research Committee was not approved nor funded by Congress; it became an Executive Action and was underwritten by the Rockefeller Foundation. No report was made to Congress or to the people during the time it functioned. The work of that committee has been called “a monumental achievement by the largest community of social scientists ever assembled to assess the social condition of a nation.”

1948 To prove the march toward sexual revolution had, indeed, reached the courts, Reisman further quotes Manfred S. Guttmacher, M.D., author of The Role of Psychiatry and Law (Charles C. Thomas: Springfield, Ill., 1968) and special consultant to the American Law Institute Model Penal Code Committee:
Quote:
Quote:
In 1950 the American Law Institute began the monumental task of writing a Model Penal Code. I am told that a quarter of a century earlier the Institute had approached the Rockefeller Foundation for the funds needed to carry out this project, but at that time, Dr. Alan Gregg, man of great wisdom, counseled the Foundation to wait, that the behavioral sciences were on the threshold of development to the point at which they could be of great assistance. Apparently, the Institute concluded that the time has arrived.



1953 After the war, the Carnegie Endowment trustees reasoned that if they could get control of education in the United States they would be able to prevent a return to the way of life as it had been prior to the war. They recruited the Rockefeller Foundation to assist in such a monumental task. According to Dodd’s Reece Committee report: “They divided the task in parts, giving to the Rockefeller Foundation the responsibility of altering education as it pertains to domestic subjects, but Carnegie retained the task of altering our education in foreign affairs and about international relations.”

1953 ALFRED C. KINSEY, ALONG WITH WARDELL POMEROY, CLYDE MARTIN, AND PAUL GEBHARD, published Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (W.B. Saunders: Philadelphia, Pa., 1953). According to Professor David Allyn, lecturer in the Department of History at Princeton
University, this book, along with Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, served to solidify the move which changed the way social scientists studied sexuality by breaking from the accepted social hygienic, psychoanalytic, psychiatric and physiological approaches.... [Kinsey’s work] played [a] critical role in the mid-century privatization of morality. In the post-WWII era, experts abandoned the concept of “public morals,” a concept which had underpinned the social control of American sexuality from the 1870’s onward…. In the 1950’s and 60’s, however, sexual morality was privatized, and the state-controlled, highly regulated moral
economy of the past gave way to a new, “deregulated” moral market.... Kinsey’s [work] argued against government interference in private life.
[Ed. Note: The above statement by Allyn was made during a presentation entitled “Private Acts/Public Policy: Alfred Kinsey, the American Law Institute and the Privatization of American Sexual Morality” at the 1995 Chevron Conference on the History of the Behavioral and Social Sciences as part of a special symposium on Alfred Kinsey. Allyn acknowledged the
Charles Warren Center at Harvard University and the Rockefeller Archive Center as providing grants which made his research possible.]

1976 TODAY’S EDUCATION, THE JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, CARRIED an article in the September–October 1976 edition entitled “The Seven Cardinal Principles Revisited.” On page 1 this article stated that:

Quote:
In 1972, the NEA established a Bicentennial Committee charged with developing a “living commemoration of the principles of the American Revolution.” This 200th anniversary celebration of the Declaration of Independence was to focus on the next 100 years of education in an interdependent global community. The initial work of the Committee culminated in the NEA Bicentennial Idea Book. Among its ideas was that of developing a definitive volume to “contain a reframing of the Cardinal Principles of Education and recommendations for a global curriculum.” After recognizing the importance of the original Cardinal Principles, which were published in 1918, the Committee made the point that “today, those policy statements about education are obsolete, education taken as a whole is not adequate to the times and too seldom anticipates the future.” A report to be issued by the NEA, proposing cardinal premises for the twenty-first century is the direct and immediate outgrowth of the
Bicentennial Committee’s belief that “educators around the world are in a unique position to bring about a harmoniously interdependent global community based on the principles of peace and justice….” Early in September 1975, a 19-member Preplanning Committee began the task of recasting the seven Cardinal Principles of Education by developing 25 guidelines for the project.

[Ed. Note: Members of the Preplanning Committee read like a “Who’s Who of Leading Globalists.” It included: former Secretary of Education T.H. Bell, “Mr. Management-by-Objectives,” who was responsible for the grant to William Spady of the Far West Laboratory to pilot OBE (Outcomes -Based Education) in Utah, with plans to “put OBE in all schools of the nation”; Professor Luvern Cunningham, Ohio State University, who subsequently served as advisor to the Kentucky Department of Education during its education restructuring in the 1990s; Willis Harman, Stanford Research Institute; Robert Havighurst, University of Chicago; Theodore Hesburgh, University of Notre Dame; Ralph Tyler, Center for Advanced Study in Behavioral Science; Professor Theodore Sizer, Coalition for Essential Schools, which calls for a “less is more” curriculum and removal of graduation standards (the Carnegie Unit); David Rockefeller; Professor Benjamin Bloom, father of Mastery Learning (the international learning method); the late McGeorge Bundy of the Ford Foundation; and others.]

1981 A STUDY OF SCHOOLING IN THE UNITED STATES BY JOHN GOODLAD, PH.D., DEAN OF THE Graduate School of Education, University of California, Los Angeles and associated with the Institute for Development of Educational Activities (I.D.E.A., funded by Kettering Foundation), was compiled in 1979 after being researched over a period of several years. Under Dr. Goodlad’s direction, trained investigators went into communities in most regions of the country. The sample of schools studied was enormously diverse in regard to size, family income, and racial composition of the student body. The result of the landmark report was A Place Called School: Prospects for the Future (McGraw-Hill: New York, 1984) by Goodlad. [Ed. Note: The reader should keep in mind that Effective School Research has been used over the past twenty years in inner city schools and schools located in the South; that its track record, if judged by academic test scores, leaves much to be desired. In fact, Washington, D.C. and Secretary Riley’s home state of South Carolina—both of which have used Effective School Research—had the lowest academic test scores in the nation, to be followed by many inner city schools, especially those in the southern part of the nation. In this regard, the reader should re-read the 1913 entry containing quotes from Frederick T. Gates, director of charity for the Rockefeller Foundation.]

1986 Mr. Norman Dodd, as research director of the Reece Committee, provided a great service to our nation by exposing the real designs of the tax-exempt foundations, such as, who else but the Rockefeller Foundation, and the bottom line of it is, fundamentally to alter our cultural life so that socialism instead of freedom becomes the American way of life.


1988 DR. SUE E. BERRYMAN, DIRECTOR OF THE INSTITUTE ON EDUCATION AND THE ECONOMY AT Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, presented a paper entitled “Education and the Economy: A Diagnostic Review and Implications for the Federal Role” at a seminar on the federal role in education held at the Aspen Institute, Aspen, Colorado on July 31–August 10, 1988. Under acknowledgments one reads:

Quote:
This Seminar was sponsored by The Carnegie Corporation, The Ford Foundation, The Hewlitt Foundation, The Primerica Foundation, and the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation. This paper is based heavily on, and could not have been written without, research conducted under the auspices of The National Center on Education and Employment, funded by the Office of Research, Office of Educational Research and Improvement of the U.S. Department of Education. The paper also relies on research funded by the National Assessment of Vocational Education.

An excerpt from Dr. Berryman’s resumé, which was attached to her paper, follows:
Quote:
Quote:
1973–1985 Behavioral Scientist, Behavioral Sciences Department, The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California, and Washington, D.C. Analyzed individuals’ educational and employment choices and the nature and consequences of military, corporate, and federal human resource policies.


1992 JOHN CHUBB: Team member John E. Chubb, senior fellow with the Brookings Institution, was a participant at the 1989 White House Workshop on Choice in Education at which he also introduced speaker Governor Rudy Perpich of Minnesota. Chubb is on the Executive Committee of the Center for Educational Innovation, “an independent project of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research... [whose goal]... is to improve the educational system in America by challenging conventional methods and encouraging new approaches... seeks to accomplish this through... research, discussion and dissemination directed at a broad public audience. The Center’s work is made possible by grants and gifts from the following: Karen and Tucker Anderson, The Chase Manhattan Bank, Exxon Education Foundation, The Lauder Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation and others.” (From “Education Policy Paper, Number 1, Model for Choice: A Report on Manhattan’s District 4, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research” included in the notebook entitled Choosing Better Schools, Regional Strategy Meetings on Choice in Education which came from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Intergovernmental and Interagency Affairs, Jack Klenk, special advisor.) John Chubb is one of a 14-member task force who issued a study that “proposed a set of bold, innovative solutions designed to bring about... improvements in Texas public schools,” entitled Choice in Education: Opportunities for Texas (March, 1990). In addition to Chubb, “Members of the Task Force producing this study included... Dr. John Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, Dallas; Allan Parker, associate professor of law, St. Mary’s University, San Antonio; Dr. Linus Wright, former under secretary of education; Dr. Kathy Hayes, associate professor of economics; and Fritz Steiger, president, Texas Public Policy Foundation.” (Texas Public Policy Foundation REPORT, Summer, 1990, Vol. 11, Issue 11, pages 3–4.) check the former Dallas Eagle Forum also reportedly co-sponsored the John Chubb-Terry Moe conferences in March, 1990....

1992 VOUCHERS (“CHOICE”), EDISON PROJECT AND NASDC DESIGN TEAMS:
Since vouchers (educational “choice”) are important to the success of this scheme to “privatize” and “decentralize” education through “Design Teams,” the Edison Project and other private programs, with the assistance of waivers and “flexibility,” vouchers need to be examined in the new context.... Mainstream news sources have pointed out that vouchers will benefit Chris Whittle’s Edison Project, as well as any “privatized” school projects. Examples are:

Quote:
NEWSWEEK (6/8/92)—”There’s no question that Whittle schools could be extremely rewarding... if Congress approves a voucher system....”
TIME (6/8/92)—[owned by Time-Warner]—”...the Bush Administration strongly supports the concepts that underlie the Edison Project.... Many observers believe Whittle’s longterm plan anticipates the use of these (voucher) funds. If adopted, the reform (vouchers) could funnel billions of public dollars into private schools....”



1992 CHUBB & CONSERVATIVES:
Most conservatives have been conspicuously silent on John Chubb’s partnership in The
Edison Project, and the benefits to be accrued from government voucher assistance. Many call this “privatization” of education, leaving the impression that it is “free market enterprise,” which is absolutely ridiculous since the venture is taxpayer funded and, consequently, government controlled! Chubb’s role may now be an embarrassment to those, who with great fanfare and publicity, sponsored his tour around the country extolling the virtues, but not the consequences, of education “choice.” Nor were people informed of Chubb’s liberal connections. And, only later did people learn of the other “designs” on “choice” money which came to light with the introduction of America 2000, The Edison Project, and the other for profit programs. The Design Teams projects were probably part of a veiled plan that drove the promotion of vouchers to begin with—from top down. Before letting the cat out of the bag, however, it was necessary to garner support for the strategy, especially from Christian conservatives. “Choice” had to be sold to them as beneficial. And, so it was. Many fell for it, following certain leaders. John Chubb was at the top of the sales team.... [John Chubb is also a supporter of the Skinnerian DISTAR/Reading Mastery program developed by Siegfried Engelmann and thoroughly discussed in this book, ed.]

1992 LAYING THE GROUNDWORK
Regional strategy meetings on choice in education were held in the fall of 1989, following the White House Workshop on Choice in January, where John Chubb, Dennis P. Doyle, Joe Nathan, Governor Rudy Perpich of Minnesota, Governor Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin, and then-Governor of Tennessee Lamar Alexander were speakers. At the strategy meetings, research papers, position statements, and policy analyses were presented and the information compiled in a large notebook entitled, Choosing Better Schools: Regional Strategy Meetings on Choice in Education. The notebook contained two “Education Policy Papers,” from the Center for Educational Innovation (CEI), a project of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. The list of CEI Executive Committee members included John Chubb, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution, and Joe Nathan, Senior Fellow, Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs. Among the CEI supporters were... The Chase Manhattan Bank, Exxon Education
Foundation... The Rockefeller Foundation.... (THIS ISN’T GRASSROOTS CONSERVATISM, FOLKS!) CEI’s Education Policy Paper #2, “The Right to Choose,” contained presentations by John Chubb, Joe Nathan, Chester Finn, Jr., and James S. Coleman. James S. Coleman has been busy, too. His work penetrates the entire educational environment, including restructuring. He’s been quoted in educational materials for at least 25 years. Recently, a paper by Coleman, entitled “Parental Involvement in Education,” was included with the America 2000 issues paper, “What Other Communities Are Doing, National Educational Goal #1,” distributed after the third America 2000 satellite town hall meeting (7/28/92).... Coleman gives yet another reason for approving “choice,” one less publicized. He said that the “choice system” would give the school more authority, making it possible to require more of parents and children by having them accept and obey a set of rules as a condition of entering and continuing in the school....

1992 PRIVATE VOUCHERS:
Does the information just presented tell us something about the evolution of arguments for vouchers; from one of assisting those in private schools to that of aiding the poor who can’t afford a private school? Does it explain why all voucher legislation/amendments are directly or indirectly connected to Title I, Chapter I of ESEA, which addresses the “Disadvantaged”? Does it suggest that the purpose of the whole scheme is “homogenization” through more integration, economically and socially... for total equality through redistribution of wealth and children, via vouchers?

1992G.I. BILL FOR CHILDREN, OR INTEGRATION BY VOUCHER?
Recall these statements: Albert Shanker, American Federation of Teachers—”It may be that we can’t get the big changes we need without choice.” President George Bush—”Choice is the one reform that drives all others.” Former U.S. Secretary of Education Lauro Cavazos—”President Bush and I are determined to use the power of choice to help restructure American education.”

1992 ON NOVEMBER 11, 1992, SEVERAL DAYS AFTER THE 1992 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, MARC Tucker, director of the National Center on Education and the Economy in Rochester, New York, wrote a letter to Hillary Clinton on NCEE letterhead in which he outlined a lifelong, (socialist) workforce agenda, most of which—interestingly enough—had no problem being approved by a Republican-controlled Congress within three years. 24 (See Appendix XV and XVIII.) The letter’s introductory paragraph stated:
Quote:
Quote:
I still cannot believe you won! But utter delight that you did pervades all the circles in which I move. I met last Wednesday in David Rockefeller’s [Jr.] office with him, John Sculley [Apple Computer executive] et al. It was a great celebration. Both John and David R. were more expansive than I have ever seen them—literally radiating happiness. My own view and their’s is that this country has seized its last chance... . …We propose, first, that the President appoint a national council on human resource development.... It would be established in such a way to assure continuity of membership across administrations, so that the consensus it forges will outlast any one administration....Second, we propose that a new agency be created, the National Institute for Learning, Work and Service.



1992 MESSAGE FROM PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH WAS DELIVERED REGARDING THE NATIONAL Youth Apprenticeship Act (House Doc. #102–320, The Congressional Record) on May 3, 1992. Excerpts follow:
Quote:
Quote:
I am pleased to transmit herewith for your immediate consideration The National Youth Apprenticeship Act of 1992.... This legislation would establish a national framework for implementing comprehensive youth apprenticeship programs.... These programs would be a high-quality learning alternative for preparing young people to be valuable and productive members of the 21st century work force.... There is widespread agreement that the time has come to strengthen the connection between the academic subjects taught in our schools and the demands of the modern, high technology workplace.... Under my proposal, a student could enter a youth apprenticeship program in the 11th or 12th grade. Before reaching these grades, students would receive career and academic guidance to prepare them for entry into youth apprenticeship programs.... A youth apprentice would receive academic instruction, job training and work experience.... Standards of academic achievement, consistent with voluntary national standards, will apply to all academic instruction, including the required instruction in the core subjects of English, mathematics, science, history, and geography. Students would be expected to demonstrate mastery of job skills.... My proposal provides for involvement at the Federal, State and local levels to ensure the success of the program. Enactment of my proposal will result in national standards applicable to all youth apprenticeship programs. Thus, upon the completion of the program, the youth will have a portable credential that will be recognized wherever the individual may go to seek employment or pursue further education and training... .I believe that the time has come for a national, comprehensive approach to work- based learning. The bill I am proposing would establish a formal process in which business, labor, and education would form partnerships to motivate the Nation’s young people to stay in school and become productive citizens.... I urge the Congress to give swift and favorable consideration to the National Youth Apprenticeship Act of 1992.



1992 AN ARTICLE BY LAURA ROGERS ENTITLED “IN LOCO PARENTIS, PART II—THE ‘PARENTS AS Teachers’ Program Lives On” was published in the September 1992 issue of Chronicles.23 Ms. Rogers rendered all Americans a great service by providing a seminal work on this totalitarian program. Excerpts from her excellent article follow:

Quote:
For the uninitiated, the PAT [Parents as Teachers] program was begun in Missouri in 1981, ostensibly for the purpose of curbing the high dropout rate and winning back parental support for the public school system. In 1985 the state legislature mandated that the PAT program be offered to all schools and children in Missouri and since then the PAT program has been proposed in at least forty other states. Simply put, the program pivots on assigning to all parents and children a “certified parent educator.” This state employee evaluates the child (under the guise of educational screening), assigns the child a computer code classification, and initiates a computer file that the state will use to track the child for the rest of his or her life. All of the computer code designations label the child to some degree “at risk,” and there is no classification for “normal.” The state agent conducts periodic home and school visits to check on the child and the family, dispensing gratis such things as nutritional counseling, mental health services, and even food. Schools under the PAT program provide free day and overnight care. The “certified parent” might forbid the biological parents to spank their child, and might prescribe, if the child is deemed “unhappy,” psychological counseling or a drug such as Ritalin. If the parents refuse the recommended services or drugs, the state may remove the child from the home, place him in a residential treatment center, and force the parents to enroll in family counseling for an indefinite period.



1992 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS AFFILIATE, THE PHILADELPHIA FEDERATION OF TEACHers, stated its opposition to Outcome-Based Education (OBE) in a November 20, 1992 letter to Pennsylvania state senators as follows:

Quote:
OBE should be a pilot project at best, and tested in several schools as a welcome addition to the existing Carnegie Units. It should not be implemented statewide because it could be a costly disaster. OBE has no grade designations. OBE has minimal “benchmark” designations. There are no time designations. For example, a student completes all English requirements in one and one-half years. This student is not required to further develop English skills in the remaining two and one-half years of his/her high school career. There are NO safety nets for students. OBE is really non-graded schools and non-graded classrooms. It is a very dishonest approach to slipping this whole structure into place. Parents, teachers, and students have a right to honestly discuss these very important educational plans. We would appreciate your support in the closing days of this legislative session to block any implementation of Outcomes-Based Education here in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

As an example of the above collaboration toward global workforce training taking the place of education, please refer back to the 1976 entry for NEA’s “Cardinal Principles Revisited, 1976,” which included on its panel: David Rockefeller, Chase Manhattan Bank; McGeorge Bundy, Ford Foundation; Francois Blanchard, Syndicat National des Enseignements de Second Degre (France); Lester Brown, Worldwatch Institute; Willis Harman, Stanford Research Institute; Fred Jarvis, National Union of Teachers (England); Sally Swing Shelley, United Nations; Sir Walter Perry, The Open University (England); and Joe H. Foy, Houston Natural Gas Co. The author has selected the above, primarily non-educator individuals, from a lengthy list to help the reader understand how the education establishment at the very top is “in bed with,” or more likely controlled by, leading international think tanks and multinational corporations.




Caz Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:57 am
Quote:
http://72.30.186.56/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=bertelsmann+CCS&rd=r1&fr=y fp-t-501&u=www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/bst/en/media/xcms_bst_dms_19827 _19828_2.pdf&w=bertelsmann+ccs&d=FoC1grXiP7HG&icp=1&.intl=uk

Quote:
“In a world seen as increasingly shifting, complex and uncertain, children, precisely because they are seen as especially unfinished, appear as a good target for controlling the future”.


Says it all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Caz
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Posts: 714

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:39 pm    Post subject: BBC Teens Page/ARK Reply with quote

Quote:
Caz: Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 8:33 pm

You're right. I have yet to figure out how ARK 'charity' turns a profit out of orphans in Romania. Maybe I'm missing something.

______________________________________________________________________ _____________

Mark Gobell: Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 8:57 pm

I looked at the Ark web site and glanced through their accounts and statements about mission and funding.
Most of the principles seem to be have investment banking, finance backgrounds.
As it's a charity I guess it doesn't need to turn a profit as such.
So what's the attraction for these guys in running schools ?
______________________________________________________________________ _________________

Karlos: Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:46 pm

dont forget ARK will own the school and lease it to the local education and collect a rental plus a fee per pupil.
If they accept special needs pupils that fee increases

so the school will certainly not be a loss maker - teachers wages are paid by the LEA

And dont forget Billionaires donations to 'charity' are tax deductable

finally these academies will be pipelines of productive workers already trained up and ready for years of servitude to the corporations
______________________________________________________________________ _________________

Mark Gobell Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 8:01 am

Wow. Didn't know that they own the real estate.
That would be akin to a "right to buy" policy for schools.
Got a link ?
______________________________________________________________________ _________________
Caz Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 1:53 am 

Quote:
Mark Gobell
As it's a charity I guess it doesn't need to turn a profit as such.
So what's the attraction for these guys in running schools ?


I think you might be a bit confused as to what 'charities' are now about. There is a book around called 'The Other Invisible Hand:Remaking Charity for the 21st Century'. I haven't read it but it looks like a few have. The following is where we are with 'charities' in the 21st Century. www.ridley.unimelb.edu.au/study/images/assets/Acrobat/BC27_0511.pdf. Under the title ‘God and the Money Men’:

Quote:
Even the name ‘Absolute Return for Kids’ is a play on a commonly used hedge fund boast, of achieving an “absolute return” for investors.


http://education.guardian.co.uk/newschools/story/0,,1495943,00.html

Quote:
If we can apply the entrepreneurial principles we have brought to business to charity, we have a shot at having a really strong impact, to be able to transform the lives to children’…Funding decisions are made by the board only after months of what bankers refer to as due diligence – a forensic study of the books to ensure the investment will pay off. Funding is maintained only if key targets are met. ‘Charities must treat donors as if they were shareholders.’ Busson says simply.


The 'key' and 'lesser' targets will be determined by the 'charities'. And must charities treat donors like shareholders, just because Busson says so??

http://search.ft.com/ftArticle?sortBy=gadatearticle&queryText=%22Chris +Hohn%22&id=070728001088&ct=0&nclick_check=1
Quote:
‘new philanthropists’ regard charity in much the same way as they do standard investments. They are looking to take more of an active interest in the direction of the charities they support and look for proven returns. ‘I am a Scotsman and we don’t give things away.’ Sir Tom explained this month. ‘We see it as an investment and we are looking for a return on that investment.’ More clients are turning to organisations such as the Institute of Philanthropy and New Philanthropy Capital, two prominent consulting groups, for direction as they attempt to find a portfolio of "charities" they should support. New Philanthropy Capital, which was founded by four former Goldman Sachs partners, employs a team of 20 analysts to assess the performance of various charities and suggest ones that are suitable for investment. Philanthropy has become a thriving industry. The Institute of Philanthropy offers a three-week-long class for founders of charitable trusts and foundations. The programme, which this year is staged in London, New York and Saigon and costs £8,000, aims to offer instruction on how to conduct appropriate due diligence on charities by assessing their budgets, meeting management and gaining an understanding of their governance structure and funding sources.


If you are not considered a suitable investment (with respect to financial gain for the ‘investors’ as Busson calls them) then you get no help. No matter how much it may be needed, or how genuinely. There is money, too, to be made in charging people for your services as an advisor. Lots.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2007/04/21/smphil 21.xml&page=3

Quote:
There's a feeling here that you should do things anonymously, for altruistic reasons,' he says. 'But in America we believe in the concept of enlightened self-interest.


…In other words, this is not about altruism, this is a variation of self-interest, ‘enlightened’ self-interest www.arkonline.org/resources/B0629-ARKPressRelease.pdf:
Quote:

As ARK grows, it is maintaining its rigorous approach to philanthropy, ensuring measurability and accountability of all its innovative programmes. These focus on three core themes: combating HIV/AIDS; delivering Education; and Closing Abusive Orphanages.


Again, the 'core themes' are chosen by the 'charity', so if you have 'self-interest' in a certain area of deprivation, you can 'invest' your money in that area. What's more, this I think is the first time I have heard the word 'theme' mentioned with repect to HIV/AIDS and orphanages.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/11/nhain1 1.xml

Quote:
"There's a real problem of people on average incomes feeling there's a sort of super rich class right at the top," he said. "What is it? Four thousand city workers receiving more than a million pounds each in bonuses. People don't feel that's proportionate. We've lost a sense of moral corporate responsibility here. That sort of thing creates a society where you start getting envy being promoted and a sense of real antagonism and that breeds all sorts of socially undesirable behaviour…….Why don't they give two-thirds of that £8.8 billion and invest it in charity, or invest it in regeneration schemes for unemployed kids who are living a mile away from the opulence that there is in the City? If they don't want to invite attacks for greater regulation or changes in taxation, if they don't want to get into that kind of arena, then they have to show a lead.'


People on average incomes do not feel that there is a 'sort of super rich class right at the top', they know that there is exactly a super rich class at the top. What Hain is saying is that 'philanthropy’ is to maintain social order, before there is social unrest, and prevent public anger which may lead to changes in taxation or regulations. When they show a ‘lead’ Hain means they need to cover their own backs and create ‘diversion’. So, some excellent reasons for these people to 'invest' money in their favourite 'themes'.
______________________________________________________________________ _________________

Mark Gobell: Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 5:16 am
OK so can someone explain, clearly, how these philanthropists will achieve a return on their investment?



.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Caz
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Posts: 714

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Caz Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:41 pm

Quote:
The following are a set of excerpts from the ebook ‘The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America’ by Charlotte Iserbyt available free at http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/index.html . ‘Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, former Senior Policy Advisor in the U.S. Department of Education, blew the whistle in the `80s on government activities withheld from the public.’ I know it's long, but hey it's not the 700 pages the ebook is...(A teacher might even read it!) I specifically searched for references to Rockefeller, as this is a particular issue in the UK now, the ‘Institute for Philanthropy’ in London being an offshoot of the Rockefeller Foundation, where those who sponsor schools are being trained. I also suggest you watch: Who controls your children? http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4398419790115760009&q=who+c ontrols+your+children&total=137&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plinde x=9 Also, The E-Files: The Truth About Education www.e-files.org is very informative.


1874 As briefly stated by Thorndike himself, psychology was the “science of the intellect, character, and behavior of animals, including man.” To further excerpt The Leipzig Connection’s excellent treatment of Thorndike’s background:


Quote:
Thorndike was the first psychologist to study animal behavior in an experimental psychology laboratory and (following Cattell’s suggestion) apply the same techniques to children and youth; as one result, in 1903, he published the book Educational Psychology. In the following years he published a total of 507 books, monographs, and articles. Thorndike’s primary assumption was the same as Wundt’s: that man is an animal, that his actions are actually always reactions, and that he can be studied in the laboratory in much the same way as an animal might be studied. Thorndike equated children with the rats, monkeys, fish, cats, and chickens upon which he experimented in his laboratory and was prepared to apply what he found there to learning in the classroom. He extrapolated “laws” from his research into animal behavior which he then applied to the training of teachers, who took what they had learned to every corner of the United States and ran their classrooms, curricula, and schools, on the basis of this new “educational” psychology. In The Principles of Teaching Based on Psychology (1906), Thorndike proposed making “the study of teaching scientific and practical.” Thorndike’s definition of the art of teaching is

Quote:

the art of giving and withholding stimuli with the result of producing or preventing certain responses. In this definition the term stimulus is used widely for any event which influences a person—for a word spoken to him, a look, a sentence which he reads, the air he breathes, etc., etc. The term response is used for any reaction made by him—a new thought, a feeling of interest, a bodily act, any mental or bodily condition resulting from the stimulus. The aim of the teacher is to produce desirable and prevent undesirable changes in human beings by producing and preventing certain responses. The means at the disposal of the teacher are the stimuli which can be brought to bear upon the pupil—the teacher’s words, gestures, and appearance, the condition and appliances of the school room, the books to be used and objects to be seen, and so on through a long list of the things and events which the teacher can control



1896 PSYCHOLOGY by John Dewey, the father of 'progressive education' was published. (University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1896). This was the first American textbook on the “revised” subject of education. Psychology would become the most widely-read and quoted textbook used in schools of education in this country. Just prior to the publication of his landmark book, Dewey had joined the faculty of the Rockefeller-endowed University of Chicago as head of the combined departments of philosophy, psychology and pedagogy (teaching). In that same year, 1895, the university allocated $1,000 to establish a laboratory in which Dewey could apply psychological principles and experimental techniques to the study of learning. The laboratory opened in January 1896 as the Dewey School, later to become known as The University of Chicago Laboratory School. Dewey thought of the school as a place where



Quote:
his theories of education could be put into practice, tested, and scientifically evaluated….…Dewey… sought to apply the doctrines of experience and experiment to everyday life and, hence, to education... seeking via this model institution to pave the way for the “schools of the future.” There he had put into actual practice three of the revolutionary beliefs he had culled from the new psychology: that to put the child in possession of his fullest talents, education should be active rather than passive; that to prepare the child for a democratic society, the school should be social rather than individualist; and that to enable the child to think creatively, experimentation rather than imitation should be encouraged.




20th Century: Seventy years later, the carefully laid plans to change America from a sovereign, constitutional republic with a free enterprise economic base to just one of many nations in an international socialist (collectivist) system (New World Order) are apparent. Only a dumbed down population, with no memory of America’s roots as a prideful nation, could be expected to willingly succumb to the global workforce training planned by the Carnegie Corporation and the John D. Rockefellers, I and II, in the early twentieth century which is being implemented by the United States Congress in the year 1999.

1902 THE GENERAL EDUCATION BOARD (GEB) WAS INCORPORATED BY AN ACT OF THE UNITED States Congress. Approved January 12, 1902, the General Education Board was endowed by Mr. John D. Rockefeller, Sr., for the purpose of establishing an educational laboratory to experiment with early innovations in education.

1913 JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR.’S DIRECTOR OF CHARITY FOR THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION, Frederick T. Gates, set up the Southern Education Board (SEB), which was later incorporated into the General Education Board (GEB) in 1913, setting in motion “the deliberate dumbing down of America.” The Country School of Tomorrow: Occasional Papers No. 1 (General EducationBoard: New York, 1913) written by Frederick T. Gates contained a section entitled “A Vision of the Remedy” in which he wrote the following:



Quote:
Is there aught of remedy for this neglect of rural life? Let us, at least, yield ourselves to the gratifications of a beautiful dream that there is. In our dream, we have limitless resources, and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hand. The present educational conventions fade from our minds; and, unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive rural folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or of science. We are not to raise up from among them authors, orators, poets, or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians. Nor will we cherish even the humbler ambition to raise up from among them lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we now have ample supply.


1914 A RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE NORMAL SCHOOL SECTION OF THE NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOciation at its annual meeting in St. Paul, Minnesota in the year 1914. An excerpt follows:

Quote:
We view with alarm the activity of the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations—agencies not in any way responsible to the people—in their efforts to control the policies of our State educational institutions, to fashion after their conception and to standardize our courses of study, and to surround the institutions with conditions which menace true academic freedom and defeat the primary purpose of democracy as heretofore preserved inviolate in our common schools, normal schools, and universities.


1918 CARNEGIE AND ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATIONS PLANNED THE DEMISE OF TRADITIONAL ACADEMIC education in 1918. Rockefeller’s focus would be national education; Carnegie would be in charge of international education.

1921 The late Professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University described the CFR as “a front for J.P Morgan and Company in association with the very small American Round Table Group.” Quigley further commented:

Quote:
The board of the CFR have carried ever since the marks of their origin…. There grew up in the 20th century a power structure between London and New York which penetrated deeply into university life, the press, and the practice of foreign policy…. The American branch of this “English Establishment” exerted much of its influence through five American newspapers (New York Times, New York Herald Tribune, Christian Science Monitor, Washington Post, and the late lamented Boston Evening Transcript).


Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., penned a tome entitled A Thousand Days in 1965 in which he wrote that
Quote:

the New York financial and legal community was the heart of the American establishment….Its front organizations [were] the Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie foundations and the Council on Foreign Relations.


1922
ON DECEMBER 15, 1922 THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS ENDORSED WORLD GOVERNment.

1925
THE INTERNATIONAL BUREAU OF EDUCATION, FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE INSTITUTE JEAN-Jacques Rousseau, was established in 1925 with a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation. The Bureau became part of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

1932 PRESIDENT HERBERT HOOVER APPOINTED A RESEARCH COMMITTEE ON RECENT SOCIAL TRENDS to implement the planned society in 1932. (In 1919 Franklin Roosevelt had told a friend that he personally would like to see Hoover in the White House.) The Research Committee was not approved nor funded by Congress; it became an Executive Action and was underwritten by the Rockefeller Foundation. No report was made to Congress or to the people during the time it functioned. The work of that committee has been called “a monumental achievement by the largest community of social scientists ever assembled to assess the social condition of a nation.”

1948 To prove the march toward sexual revolution had, indeed, reached the courts, Reisman further quotes Manfred S. Guttmacher, M.D., author of The Role of Psychiatry and Law (Charles C. Thomas: Springfield, Ill., 1968) and special consultant to the American Law Institute Model Penal Code Committee:

Quote:
In 1950 the American Law Institute began the monumental task of writing a Model Penal Code. I am told that a quarter of a century earlier the Institute had approached the Rockefeller Foundation for the funds needed to carry out this project, but at that time, Dr. Alan Gregg, man of great wisdom, counseled the Foundation to wait, that the behavioral sciences were on the threshold of development to the point at which they could be of great assistance. Apparently, the Institute concluded that the time has arrived.


1953 After the war, the Carnegie Endowment trustees reasoned that if they could get control of education in the United States they would be able to prevent a return to the way of life as it had been prior to the war. They recruited the Rockefeller Foundation to assist in such a monumental task. According to Dodd’s Reece Committee report: “They divided the task in parts, giving to the Rockefeller Foundation the responsibility of altering education as it pertains to domestic subjects, but Carnegie retained the task of altering our education in foreign affairs and about international relations.”

1953 ALFRED C. KINSEY, ALONG WITH WARDELL POMEROY, CLYDE MARTIN, AND PAUL GEBHARD, published Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (W.B. Saunders: Philadelphia, Pa., 1953). According to Professor David Allyn, lecturer in the Department of History at Princeton
University, this book, along with Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, served to solidify the move which changed the way social scientists studied sexuality by breaking from the accepted social hygienic, psychoanalytic, psychiatric and physiological approaches.... [Kinsey’s work] played [a] critical role in the mid-century privatization of morality. In the post-WWII era, experts abandoned the concept of “public morals,” a concept which had underpinned the social control of American sexuality from the 1870’s onward…. In the 1950’s and 60’s, however, sexual morality was privatized, and the state-controlled, highly regulated moral
economy of the past gave way to a new, “deregulated” moral market.... Kinsey’s [work] argued against government interference in private life.
[Ed. Note: The above statement by Allyn was made during a presentation entitled “Private Acts/Public Policy: Alfred Kinsey, the American Law Institute and the Privatization of American Sexual Morality” at the 1995 Chevron Conference on the History of the Behavioral and Social Sciences as part of a special symposium on Alfred Kinsey. Allyn acknowledged the
Charles Warren Center at Harvard University and the Rockefeller Archive Center as providing grants which made his research possible.]

1976 TODAY’S EDUCATION, THE JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, CARRIED an article in the September–October 1976 edition entitled “The Seven Cardinal Principles Revisited.” On page 1 this article stated that:

Quote:
In 1972, the NEA established a Bicentennial Committee charged with developing a “living commemoration of the principles of the American Revolution.” This 200th anniversary celebration of the Declaration of Independence was to focus on the next 100 years of education in an interdependent global community. The initial work of the Committee culminated in the NEA Bicentennial Idea Book. Among its ideas was that of developing a definitive volume to “contain a reframing of the Cardinal Principles of Education and recommendations for a global curriculum.” After recognizing the importance of the original Cardinal Principles, which were published in 1918, the Committee made the point that “today, those policy statements about education are obsolete, education taken as a whole is not adequate to the times and too seldom anticipates the future.” A report to be issued by the NEA, proposing cardinal premises for the twenty-first century is the direct and immediate outgrowth of the
Bicentennial Committee’s belief that “educators around the world are in a unique position to bring about a harmoniously interdependent global community based on the principles of peace and justice….” Early in September 1975, a 19-member Preplanning Committee began the task of recasting the seven Cardinal Principles of Education by developing 25 guidelines for the project.


[Ed. Note: Members of the Preplanning Committee read like a “Who’s Who of Leading Globalists.” It included: former Secretary of Education T.H. Bell, “Mr. Management-by-Objectives,” who was responsible for the grant to William Spady of the Far West Laboratory to pilot OBE (Outcomes -Based Education) in Utah, with plans to “put OBE in all schools of the nation”; Professor Luvern Cunningham, Ohio State University, who subsequently served as advisor to the Kentucky Department of Education during its education restructuring in the 1990s; Willis Harman, Stanford Research Institute; Robert Havighurst, University of Chicago; Theodore Hesburgh, University of Notre Dame; Ralph Tyler, Center for Advanced Study in Behavioral Science; Professor Theodore Sizer, Coalition for Essential Schools, which calls for a “less is more” curriculum and removal of graduation standards (the Carnegie Unit); David Rockefeller; Professor Benjamin Bloom, father of Mastery Learning (the international learning method); the late McGeorge Bundy of the Ford Foundation; and others.]

1981 A STUDY OF SCHOOLING IN THE UNITED STATES BY JOHN GOODLAD, PH.D., DEAN OF THE Graduate School of Education, University of California, Los Angeles and associated with the Institute for Development of Educational Activities (I.D.E.A., funded by Kettering Foundation), was compiled in 1979 after being researched over a period of several years. Under Dr. Goodlad’s direction, trained investigators went into communities in most regions of the country. The sample of schools studied was enormously diverse in regard to size, family income, and racial composition of the student body. The result of the landmark report was A Place Called School: Prospects for the Future (McGraw-Hill: New York, 1984) by Goodlad. [Ed. Note: The reader should keep in mind that Effective School Research has been used over the past twenty years in inner city schools and schools located in the South; that its track record, if judged by academic test scores, leaves much to be desired. In fact, Washington, D.C. and Secretary Riley’s home state of South Carolina—both of which have used Effective School Research—had the lowest academic test scores in the nation, to be followed by many inner city schools, especially those in the southern part of the nation. In this regard, the reader should re-read the 1913 entry containing quotes from Frederick T. Gates, director of charity for the Rockefeller Foundation.]

1986 Mr. Norman Dodd, as research director of the Reece Committee, provided a great service to our nation by exposing the real designs of the tax-exempt foundations, such as, who else but the Rockefeller Foundation, and the bottom line of it is, fundamentally to alter our cultural life so that socialism instead of freedom becomes the American way of life.

1988 DR. SUE E. BERRYMAN, DIRECTOR OF THE INSTITUTE ON EDUCATION AND THE ECONOMY AT Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, presented a paper entitled “Education and the Economy: A Diagnostic Review and Implications for the Federal Role” at a seminar on the federal role in education held at the Aspen Institute, Aspen, Colorado on July 31–August 10, 1988. Under acknowledgments one reads:

Quote:
This Seminar was sponsored by The Carnegie Corporation, The Ford Foundation, The Hewlitt Foundation, The Primerica Foundation, and the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation. This paper is based heavily on, and could not have been written without, research conducted under the auspices of The National Center on Education and Employment, funded by the Office of Research, Office of Educational Research and Improvement of the U.S. Department of Education. The paper also relies on research funded by the National Assessment of Vocational Education.


An excerpt from Dr. Berryman’s resumé, which was attached to her paper, follows:

Quote:
1973–1985 Behavioral Scientist, Behavioral Sciences Department, The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California, and Washington, D.C. Analyzed individuals’ educational and employment choices and the nature and consequences of military, corporate, and federal human resource policies.


1992 JOHN CHUBB: Team member John E. Chubb, senior fellow with the Brookings Institution, was a participant at the 1989 White House Workshop on Choice in Education at which he also introduced speaker Governor Rudy Perpich of Minnesota. Chubb is on the Executive Committee of the Center for Educational Innovation, “an independent project of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research... [whose goal]... is to improve the educational system in America by challenging conventional methods and encouraging new approaches... seeks to accomplish this through... research, discussion and dissemination directed at a broad public audience. The Center’s work is made possible by grants and gifts from the following: Karen and Tucker Anderson, The Chase Manhattan Bank, Exxon Education Foundation, The Lauder Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation and others.” (From “Education Policy Paper, Number 1, Model for Choice: A Report on Manhattan’s District 4, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research” included in the notebook entitled Choosing Better Schools, Regional Strategy Meetings on Choice in Education which came from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Intergovernmental and Interagency Affairs, Jack Klenk, special advisor.) John Chubb is one of a 14-member task force who issued a study that “proposed a set of bold, innovative solutions designed to bring about... improvements in Texas public schools,” entitled Choice in Education: Opportunities for Texas (March, 1990). In addition to Chubb, “Members of the Task Force producing this study included... Dr. John Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, Dallas; Allan Parker, associate professor of law, St. Mary’s University, San Antonio; Dr. Linus Wright, former under secretary of education; Dr. Kathy Hayes, associate professor of economics; and Fritz Steiger, president, Texas Public Policy Foundation.” (Texas Public Policy Foundation REPORT, Summer, 1990, Vol. 11, Issue 11, pages 3–4.) check the former Dallas Eagle Forum also reportedly co-sponsored the John Chubb-Terry Moe conferences in March, 1990....

1992 VOUCHERS (“CHOICE”), EDISON PROJECT AND NASDC DESIGN TEAMS:
Since vouchers (educational “choice”) are important to the success of this scheme to “privatize” and “decentralize” education through “Design Teams,” the Edison Project and other private programs, with the assistance of waivers and “flexibility,” vouchers need to be examined in the new context.... Mainstream news sources have pointed out that vouchers will benefit Chris Whittle’s Edison Project, as well as any “privatized” school projects. Examples are:

Quote:
NEWSWEEK (6/8/92)—”There’s no question that Whittle schools could be extremely rewarding... if Congress approves a voucher system....”
TIME (6/8/92)—[owned by Time-Warner]—”...the Bush Administration strongly supports the concepts that underlie the Edison Project.... Many observers believe Whittle’s longterm plan anticipates the use of these (voucher) funds. If adopted, the reform (vouchers) could funnel billions of public dollars into private schools....”


1992 CHUBB & CONSERVATIVES:
Most conservatives have been conspicuously silent on John Chubb’s partnership in The
Edison Project, and the benefits to be accrued from government voucher assistance. Many call this “privatization” of education, leaving the impression that it is “free market enterprise,” which is absolutely ridiculous since the venture is taxpayer funded and, consequently, government controlled! Chubb’s role may now be an embarrassment to those, who with great fanfare and publicity, sponsored his tour around the country extolling the virtues, but not the consequences, of education “choice.” Nor were people informed of Chubb’s liberal connections. And, only later did people learn of the other “designs” on “choice” money which came to light with the introduction of America 2000, The Edison Project, and the other for profit programs. The Design Teams projects were probably part of a veiled plan that drove the promotion of vouchers to begin with—from top down. Before letting the cat out of the bag, however, it was necessary to garner support for the strategy, especially from Christian conservatives. “Choice” had to be sold to them as beneficial. And, so it was. Many fell for it, following certain leaders. John Chubb was at the top of the sales team.... [John Chubb is also a supporter of the Skinnerian DISTAR/Reading Mastery program developed by Siegfried Engelmann and thoroughly discussed in this book, ed.]

1992 LAYING THE GROUNDWORK
Regional strategy meetings on choice in education were held in the fall of 1989, following the White House Workshop on Choice in January, where John Chubb, Dennis P. Doyle, Joe Nathan, Governor Rudy Perpich of Minnesota, Governor Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin, and then-Governor of Tennessee Lamar Alexander were speakers. At the strategy meetings, research papers, position statements, and policy analyses were presented and the information compiled in a large notebook entitled, Choosing Better Schools: Regional Strategy Meetings on Choice in Education. The notebook contained two “Education Policy Papers,” from the Center for Educational Innovation (CEI), a project of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. The list of CEI Executive Committee members included John Chubb, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution, and Joe Nathan, Senior Fellow, Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs. Among the CEI supporters were... The Chase Manhattan Bank, Exxon Education
Foundation... The Rockefeller Foundation.... (THIS ISN’T GRASSROOTS CONSERVATISM, FOLKS!) CEI’s Education Policy Paper #2, “The Right to Choose,” contained presentations by John Chubb, Joe Nathan, Chester Finn, Jr., and James S. Coleman. James S. Coleman has been busy, too. His work penetrates the entire educational environment, including restructuring. He’s been quoted in educational materials for at least 25 years. Recently, a paper by Coleman, entitled “Parental Involvement in Education,” was included with the America 2000 issues paper, “What Other Communities Are Doing, National Educational Goal #1,” distributed after the third America 2000 satellite town hall meeting (7/28/92).... Coleman gives yet another reason for approving “choice,” one less publicized. He said that the “choice system” would give the school more authority, making it possible to require more of parents and children by having them accept and obey a set of rules as a condition of entering and continuing in the school....

1992 PRIVATE VOUCHERS:
Does the information just presented tell us something about the evolution of arguments for vouchers; from one of assisting those in private schools to that of aiding the poor who can’t afford a private school? Does it explain why all voucher legislation/amendments are directly or indirectly connected to Title I, Chapter I of ESEA, which addresses the “Disadvantaged”? Does it suggest that the purpose of the whole scheme is “homogenization” through more integration, economically and socially... for total equality through redistribution of wealth and children, via vouchers?

1992G.I. BILL FOR CHILDREN, OR INTEGRATION BY VOUCHER?
Recall these statements: Albert Shanker, American Federation of Teachers—”It may be that we can’t get the big changes we need without choice.” President George Bush—”Choice is the one reform that drives all others.” Former U.S. Secretary of Education Lauro Cavazos—”President Bush and I are determined to use the power of choice to help restructure American education.”

1992 ON NOVEMBER 11, 1992, SEVERAL DAYS AFTER THE 1992 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, MARC Tucker, director of the National Center on Education and the Economy in Rochester, New York, wrote a letter to Hillary Clinton on NCEE letterhead in which he outlined a lifelong, (socialist) workforce agenda, most of which—interestingly enough—had no problem being approved by a Republican-controlled Congress within three years. 24 (See Appendix XV and XVIII.) The letter’s introductory paragraph stated:
Quote:

I still cannot believe you won! But utter delight that you did pervades all the circles in which I move. I met last Wednesday in David Rockefeller’s [Jr.] office with him, John Sculley [Apple Computer executive] et al. It was a great celebration. Both John and David R. were more expansive than I have ever seen them—literally radiating happiness. My own view and their’s is that this country has seized its last chance... . …We propose, first, that the President appoint a national council on human resource development.... It would be established in such a way to assure continuity of membership across administrations, so that the consensus it forges will outlast any one administration....Second, we propose that a new agency be created, the National Institute for Learning, Work and Service.



1992 MESSAGE FROM PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH WAS DELIVERED REGARDING THE NATIONAL Youth Apprenticeship Act (House Doc. #102–320, The Congressional Record) on May 3, 1992. Excerpts follow:

Quote:
I am pleased to transmit herewith for your immediate consideration The National Youth Apprenticeship Act of 1992.... This legislation would establish a national framework for implementing comprehensive youth apprenticeship programs.... These programs would be a high-quality learning alternative for preparing young people to be valuable and productive members of the 21st century work force.... There is widespread agreement that the time has come to strengthen the connection between the academic subjects taught in our schools and the demands of the modern, high technology workplace.... Under my proposal, a student could enter a youth apprenticeship program in the 11th or 12th grade. Before reaching these grades, students would receive career and academic guidance to prepare them for entry into youth apprenticeship programs.... A youth apprentice would receive academic instruction, job training and work experience.... Standards of academic achievement, consistent with voluntary national standards, will apply to all academic instruction, including the required instruction in the core subjects of English, mathematics, science, history, and geography. Students would be expected to demonstrate mastery of job skills.... My proposal provides for involvement at the Federal, State and local levels to ensure the success of the program. Enactment of my proposal will result in national standards applicable to all youth apprenticeship programs. Thus, upon the completion of the program, the youth will have a portable credential that will be recognized wherever the individual may go to seek employment or pursue further education and training... .I believe that the time has come for a national, comprehensive approach to work- based learning. The bill I am proposing would establish a formal process in which business, labor, and education would form partnerships to motivate the Nation’s young people to stay in school and become productive citizens.... I urge the Congress to give swift and favorable consideration to the National Youth Apprenticeship Act of 1992.


1992 AN ARTICLE BY LAURA ROGERS ENTITLED “IN LOCO PARENTIS, PART II—THE ‘PARENTS AS Teachers’ Program Lives On” was published in the September 1992 issue of Chronicles.23 Ms. Rogers rendered all Americans a great service by providing a seminal work on this totalitarian program. Excerpts from her excellent article follow:

Quote:
For the uninitiated, the PAT [Parents as Teachers] program was begun in Missouri in 1981, ostensibly for the purpose of curbing the high dropout rate and winning back parental support for the public school system. In 1985 the state legislature mandated that the PAT program be offered to all schools and children in Missouri and since then the PAT program has been proposed in at least forty other states. Simply put, the program pivots on assigning to all parents and children a “certified parent educator.” This state employee evaluates the child (under the guise of educational screening), assigns the child a computer code classification, and initiates a computer file that the state will use to track the child for the rest of his or her life. All of the computer code designations label the child to some degree “at risk,” and there is no classification for “normal.” The state agent conducts periodic home and school visits to check on the child and the family, dispensing gratis such things as nutritional counseling, mental health services, and even food. Schools under the PAT program provide free day and overnight care. The “certified parent” might forbid the biological parents to spank their child, and might prescribe, if the child is deemed “unhappy,” psychological counseling or a drug such as Ritalin. If the parents refuse the recommended services or drugs, the state may remove the child from the home, place him in a residential treatment center, and force the parents to enroll in family counseling for an indefinite period.


1992 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS AFFILIATE, THE PHILADELPHIA FEDERATION OF TEACHers, stated its opposition to Outcome-Based Education (OBE) in a November 20, 1992 letter to Pennsylvania state senators as follows:

Quote:
OBE should be a pilot project at best, and tested in several schools as a welcome addition to the existing Carnegie Units. It should not be implemented statewide because it could be a costly disaster. OBE has no grade designations. OBE has minimal “benchmark” designations. There are no time designations. For example, a student completes all English requirements in one and one-half years. This student is not required to further develop English skills in the remaining two and one-half years of his/her high school career. There are NO safety nets for students. OBE is really non-graded schools and non-graded classrooms. It is a very dishonest approach to slipping this whole structure into place. Parents, teachers, and students have a right to honestly discuss these very important educational plans. We would appreciate your support in the closing days of this legislative session to block any implementation of Outcomes-Based Education here in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania


As an example of the above collaboration toward global workforce training taking the place of education, please refer back to the 1976 entry for NEA’s “Cardinal Principles Revisited, 1976,” which included on its panel: David Rockefeller, Chase Manhattan Bank; McGeorge Bundy, Ford Foundation; Francois Blanchard, Syndicat National des Enseignements de Second Degre (France); Lester Brown, Worldwatch Institute; Willis Harman, Stanford Research Institute; Fred Jarvis, National Union of Teachers (England); Sally Swing Shelley, United Nations; Sir Walter Perry, The Open University (England); and Joe H. Foy, Houston Natural Gas Co. The author has selected the above, primarily non-educator individuals, from a lengthy list to help the reader understand how the education establishment at the very top is “in bed with,” or more likely controlled by, leading international think tanks and multinational corporations.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Caz
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Posts: 714

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 11:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Caz Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:57 am

http://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/bst/en/media/xcms_bst_dms_19827_198 28_2.pdf

Quote:

“In a world seen as increasingly shifting, complex and uncertain, children, precisely because they are seen as especially unfinished, appear as a good target for controlling the future”.


Says it all.



.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Whitehall_Bin_Men
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 1749
Location: Westminster, LONDON, SW1A 2HB.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2016 9:48 pm    Post subject: Post war de-Christianising Britain: 60s sex 'revolution' Reply with quote

England used to be a more Christian country – true or false?
http://gettingtothetruthofthings.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/england-used-t o-be-more-christian.html?m=1

(Note: This blog is a summary of Matthew Grimley’s brilliant journal article ‘The Religion of Englishness: Puritanism, Providentialism, and “National Character,” 1918-1945’. With a few asides from me.)

Ever heard this said? “Forget it, when was this supposed golden age? It’s a total myth. Britain isn’t a Christian country now and it never was anyway.”

Get ready for the surprising truth. Get ready for some facts. And when you hear them, I think you will conclude that there really was a more Christian England, and it wasn’t very long ago. Even non-Christians agreed: Englishness had a lot to do with the church. And the church had a lot to do with Englishness. Despite what some would have you think, this English Christianity was not a jingoistic England of imperialist religious institutions. This was the gentle humane Christian-styled culture of the ‘ordinary’ English people. When was this? Broadly, this essay reflects the changing world of 1900 to 1960. Growing up in the 60s and 70s, I could see that world still existed in part, but that’s another story.

As recent as the Second World War, “The Miracle of St Paul’s” gave the English people hope. What was this, you may ask? In the blitz of falling German bombs, with London burning, St Paul’s Cathedral was intact. It stood proud. This was God’s providence, people said. It was a symbol that God would deliver the nation from the terror of Hitler’s forces, and the nation drew hope from it. Don’t just put this down to the war. This was possible because people were used to seeing pictures of churches as part of the beautiful English land, as a symbol of the English people, and not just in books. Day-trippers in the 1930s visited churches. Novels featured churches as a positive symbol. The wartime images were riding a popular wave that had already been flowing before the war.

What kind of Christianity was this? It was distinctly English, with deep roots in English history. It was Protestant , it was tolerant, it wasn’t very demonstrative. For the first half of the twentieth century, that was how the national character of England was thought of. You may have thought that the 20th century church was always in decline – not so! Church attendance for one thing yo-yoed up and down. Protestant churches gained numbers in the 1920s. That goes for the Church of England and for other Protestant churches, such as Congregationalists, Baptists and Methodists. Then in the 1930s they all declined, although the Church of England managed to keep people on its electoral rolls by and large – it seems people still felt more attached to the Church of England. Indeed after the ravages of war, the Church of England’s numbers by 1960 were back to pre-war levels. But the other denominations were shrinking.

But here’s the thing. Don’t just look at numbers. That’s the sort of mistake that lazy newspaper editors make. The church had something much more powerful, what some people call ‘soft power’. Whereas church membership would be ‘hard power’, this soft influence was seen in the Christian aspects of British culture, politics and ethics. Our older generations can remember how it was just taken for granted that there would be regular Christian broadcasts on the BBC, or that there would be Christian remembrances of the war dead. These things were started then, but are being challenged now. They were more acceptable to society then because it was felt that England’s “national culture and identity were inexorably tied up with Protestantism.” (Matthew Grimley’s words).

This idea of English ‘national character’ applied to the broad mass of English people around the nation, not just their politicians and leaders. This character wasn’t really about jingoistic colonial patriotism, even if some would have you think that. Actually, writers across the political spectrum thought of English national character as celebrating gentle virtues: “tolerance, modesty, eccentricity, and individualism.” (Grimley) It was something about the English. Scottish writers said so too – they saw the English as having a different character from the Scots. Of course, we have these things from a small pool of writers from those times, but there was a national audience that lapped it up – the evidence is there in the records of talks on the radio, popular history books, newspapers. This was not merely the stuff of old institutions, as some would have you think. It was of the people too. The spiritual dimension of Englishness – if there was one – was a thing fused from England’s memories, its religion, its language, its education and law. Another nation could have a story to tell of its own character, and the English had a character of their own.

This was not about the English people as a ‘race’. It was an idea of the English as a ”people”. The racial part of English national character was less significant compared to the bigger factors of the environment of England and English culture, including its religion. To make the point that it was not just about an English “race.” even between the wars, there were writers making a virtue of the diverse ancestry of the English – for example the benefit brought to the country by Christian-heritage refugees from France – the Protestant French Huguenots.

To make the point that this was not just about institutions, take the fact that England’s most influential religious teachers were laymen in church terms, from lay preacher Wycliffe’s English Bible translation, through the poet George Herbert, John Bunyan, or the ordinary people as Puritans. The English people love a layman, and were - still are - a bit suspicious of professional experts. (Perhaps the influence of amateur political thinker Russell Brand on young people – a huge irritant to many including myself - is actually quite a traditional English phenomenon, dressed up in modern fashions. He’s a nod to the English eccentric too.) The English always saw practical experience and tradition as the best teacher in life. Some have thought that this was the reason that ideologies, especially ones that demand obedience – for example, communism – never really captured the public imagination enough to break the English way of life.

Now you may know that Wycliffe, Bunyan and others were persecuted for their faith. True enough. But in the tolerant Christian England of the early 20th century, it was safe to rehabilitate the memory of long-dead Christians who had been mistreated by the so-called Christian State.

The English were – and are - a bit inward-looking, a bit restrained, so the tendency of their religion to be one of private piety (with occasional flourishes) is not surprising. Let’s qualify that a bit. On the one hand, the Church of England is traditionally celebrated for being moderate, able to compromise between its different traditions, and able to live with Non-conformists next door. On the other hand, the Non-conformist churches are traditionally celebrated for volunteering themselves to bring needed change to society – from the temperance movement to the Salvation Army’s social work among the cast-offs of society. In the 20th century, these two wings were no longer really seen as rivals for the soul of England, but as historic shapers of English Protestant character.

Between the wars, Englishness had more or less stopped being anti-Catholic too, because Ireland seemed less of a national threat after it achieved its independence in 1922. Catholics weren’t really seen as English but Englishness was no longer seen as a movement away from Catholicism. In fact, Englishness was freed a bit from broader Britishness too by other events – such as when the Welsh Anglican church was disestablished (in 1919) as well as the Irish church. Welsh and Scottish churches were asserting different cultural traditions, so the English were free to be English in a distinct way. And Nonconformists, with more freedom in the nations, were more comfortable with the Church of England being part of national life and being an emblem of national character and more representative of the nation’s Christianity. It wasn’t all like this of course. The Oxford Group (heard of them?) was paving a path to more charismatic Christian spirituality, while the likes of Brethren churches as ever liked to keep themselves to themselves. But the Church of England and the Non-conformists in general were the big influence. (The steadfastness of Nonconformist churches over the generations was, in the 20th century, recognised as a healthy influence on English character.)

Meanwhile, the English (King James Version) Bible – along with the Book of Common Prayer - was seen as a healthy and vibrant influence on the English language. I remember an old Brethren elder very attached to his King James Version, resisting the growing influence of the New International Version Bible in my church. This, I think, was an example of this English attachment to the literary English brilliance of the KJV. I wasn’t appreciative of it then, but now I realise that it was part and parcel of Christian England. It was the translation loved by both by the Church of England and the Non-conformist Christians. It is the Bible people had in their homes and their churches. I don’t use it – language has moved on – but it is beautiful English and it was a source of the language of the ordinary people. Even non-Christians like George Orwell loved it, and regretted that others did not know it as well as they should by the mid-20th century. Even in the early 70s, in school assemblies we infants were praying to our Father 'which art' in heaven. Not just because this was fossilised religion, but because this was the religion a people long held.

Come to that, in those same school assemblies, a parable usually called The Unforgiving Servant was expounded and it has stayed with me ever since, just as a few old hymns do: There Is A Green Hill, We Plough The Fields, He Who Would Valiant Be. This was the stuff of Christian England.


That brings me back to the ‘ordinary’ people. I was surprised to discover that before 1960, common English people would be proud to be called ‘Puritan’. Why was I surprised? Simply, because in my lifetime the word has been used as an insult to suggest religious people are killjoys, sexually repressed ‘Puritanical’ types, a negative influence on life. This has how things have been spun. I feel I’ve been sold short. Because now I know that Puritanism was – to the ordinary English people – the beating heart of the English. The Puritan tradition had shaped our national character. Once the provenance of the Non-conformists, the term ‘Puritan’ had become a common term of approval. It embodied tolerance – the Nonconformists strove to be tolerated by the establishment in past centuries and showed tolerance in return. Puritanism also embodied the virtues of following one’s conscience, independence, hard working, taking life seriously, even “manly vigour” (Grimley). Writers on England’s national character wrote positively of the Puritan tradition in national life.

How on earth did such a positive word as ‘Puritan’ come to mean sexual repression and negativity? Because like so often in the confusion of the modern world, lies and spin have buried England’s Christian past in a grave of untruth. Barely glimpses remain in our language today, but you see its legacy here and there. The veteran Labour MP, Dennis Skinner, not a name on the lips of many Christians, was once noted for his ‘puritan and temperance brand of socialism’. In a recent interview for the Morning Star (a socialist newspaper), Skinner said this on drinking alcohol in Parliament:

“Coming from a mining background , if anybody had been in the Miner’s Welfare [a bar] before they went in the shaft, if the onesetter knew that someone had been going in the pub they’d not go on shift. So I decided I wouldn’t go in the bars [in Parliament]. It’s not because I’m puritanical. People said I was eccentric and it wouldn’t last, but it has. And I don’t feel any the worse for it after 44 years [as an MP].”

Funnily enough, although Skinner uses the word ‘puritanical‘ in a negative tone, he is speaking up exactly for the traditional attitudes of the English Puritan – temperance, integrity, independence, hard work – and here too is that hint of English eccentricity. Here, in this Englishman of a working class mining town, is the old Puritan Christian England, but without Christian faith. He is precisely an Englishman of the 20th century, an elegy for a world disappearing around him. The hints are everywhere when you start to see them. Even D.H. Lawrence whose heavily sexualised novels have played a part in the de-Christianisation of sexual ethics in England, saw Non-conformist hymns as “the clue to the ordinary Englishman.”

The greater weight given to democracy in post-World War One England came from the Christian Puritan’s independent conscience and from the practices of Congregationalist assemblies. This democracy was a tradition that had grown and developed separately from the institutions of the State. It was voluntary – it was a product of the Christian people. Our political freedom and social progress owe a lot to England’s Puritan tradition. It was always distancing itself from the institutions of the State. It was people power, separate from State power, especially from any religious control which would try to overrule your conscience. It is a spirit of liberty. Some have argued that this sort of peaceful ‘anti-State’ attitude in the ordinary people is just the sort of thing that Germany was lacking in falling under the spell of dictatorship in the 1930s. In the war that followed, English radio was still speaking to the English about traditional things like “Anglican moderation, Puritanism, the English Bible” (Grimley) – and these are all things that reflect the traditional Christian English resistance to control by the State.

This wariness of the State had strengthened after the horrors of the First World War. These had led many to doubt that God worked through the State at all. God’s providence used to be understood simplistically as the hand that gives the State victory. But English Christians grew in the belief that God’s providence could hold the State back from abusing its power. (So it was even argued by some that God’s will for the British Empire was really to help the peoples of the Empire to learn how to run their own countries and empower them to independence.) All the same, come the Second World War, Churchill’s belief in God’s providence helped him and the British people to go through the war in hope of victory. And St Paul’s cathedral, standing intact in the blitz, was a symbol of that hope in God. There were National Days of Prayer: the last one was in 1947.

Then came times of new doubts. Handing over the Empire to its peoples confused many of the English. What did that mean for God’s providence over England? Also, after the war, there was large scale immigration into Britain of Commonwealth peoples of other religions, which brought the ‘What about other religions?’ question to the surface. It seemed too simplistic to make a generalisation about England being a Christian country now, or about what the national character of England is. Nowadays, talk of ‘British values’ seems confusing and meaningless to many, but this is a new problem. Before the 1950s, it really was not such a problem. This was culturally a Christian country and the national character of the English was Christian in many ways. (Other groups – Catholics especially – were on the periphery, but that’s another story.) What now? Well traditional English ideas of religious tolerance have found a place in discussions about multi-culturalism. But multi-culturalism is itself a rejection of the idea of one national character. So we are in new territory for the English.

In this era – our era – in which the idea of one embracing national character is dead, English religious observance has declined too. The shared national sense of being a Protestant country held up better for longer than religious observance. But only for a time.

That concludes my summary of Grimley’s article. Now for my confessions. Part of me says, “That old world was Christendom, in which people were taught they were Christians but weren’t taught the gospel. Good riddance to it! Bring on the true gospel!” A friend of mine hated the Church of England because, having never heard the gospel in all his years of growing up there, he only later heard it in an evangelical church. He was anguished - why hadn’t he heard it in the Church of England? He was so bitter over it that I found it difficult to listen to, but I knew what he meant. I never heard the gospel until I went to an evangelical Christian Union at University. And when friends shared the gospel with English people, they encountered people who had no understanding of the need to respond to the gospel because they had undergone infant baptism, and they thought that was all they needed. It was frustrating. It seems simple to condemn this absence of the gospel. But there’s another side to this. The seed needs fertile ground to grow in. Perhaps our Christian surroundings had helped me and my friend to respond to the gospel when we finally heard it.

Let me put this another way. In the 1950s, Billy Graham preached the gospel in Harringay. Well over a million people heard the gospel during his mission. People who responded to the gospel numbered tens of thousands. It was an overwhelming positive response. Was that something to do with it being in some ways a Christian country still? Would he find the soil so fertile now in secular England?

The knowledge of the past helps us as we face the challenges of today and the future. New hope for Christianity in Britain has come from a number of directions, not least from church communities from Africa who are mission-orientated. But the threat from secularism is growing. Secularists say secularism is neutral when in fact it is not: it wants to ensure there is no fertile ground for the gospel such as we used to know. We must not hand ground over to secular ideologies. We must not throw away Christian England’s virtues that were ours after hundreds of years of endeavour.

It is not all against us. The English are still suspicious of elitist professional experts. Perhaps that is why many in England highly resent the ivory tower academic ideologies of political correctness. PC dogma has the whiff of everything the ordinary English distrust. Secularism has not fully won the day, and anxious secularists know it. Secularism was a failed 20th century experiment but secular elites are still shaping our culture, according to Dave Landrum (director of advocacy at the Evangelical Alliance). In government and media, a secular worldview is the default, whereas it would have been a Christian worldview that was the default in the past. For this reason, the only way to get a Christian worldview heard in the public space is to do it ourselves and not leave it to someone else, to provide Christian leadership in public life – a voice that is not ashamed of the gospel. When there is talk of ‘English values’ or ‘British values’ it is down to us to tell the truth about how the heart of these values is the church. Without the church, British values might be running on empty. They are already being overtaken by ivory tower values that are as un-British as you can get. The State is ordering the ordinary Christian to leave his or her conscience at home and follow the dictats of secular Political Correctness – or else. Non-conformists of the world, unite!



The Truth Of Things
Dedicated to getting to the truth of things. A Christian since 1984. (Just a Christian, without pigeon-holing into a denomination.) I like people to be free to ask their questions about Christianity and the church. I like to approach faith questions with my brain switched on. A qualified classicist and historian. Tweet: @colin_bluenose And I don't look like James Garner. Enough about me already.
Tuesday, 26 May 2015

_________________
--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com
http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 15413
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 3:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

One woman’s quest to expose the pedophile Alfred Kinsey and his demented sex ed curriculum

Abortion , Alfred Kinsey , Contraception , Croatia , Propaganda , Sex Education , Transgenderism

December 22, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – Alfred Kinsey. That name ought to evoke outrage. If it doesn't, then you don't know the man, his work, or his legacy.

I am one of those persons who had never heard of Alfred Kinsey, the so-called father of sexual education. I, like many of my generation, went through sex ed at school and never really thought of the reason I was learning what I was learning. My experience was with the Fully Alive program in a Catholic school in Ontario, where I learned about the detailed parts of the male and female genitalia in grade 6 and about masturbation in grade 7. I was a grossed out young girl, but that was the way it was supposed to be, I thought.

Then I discovered Karolina Vidovic-Kristo, and Alfred Kinsey.

This discovery happened in 2013 as I was researching an article I was writing on Croatia and the newly introduced sexual education. As my father is a Croatian immigrant to Canada, I try to keep abreast of current events in the motherland. In 2012, the Croatian government introduced a revised sex ed curriculum which sparked outrage. Sounding the alarm bells with this curriculum was Vidovic Kristo, a respected Croatian television journalist employed with the state public broadcaster.

Vidovic Kristo was recently in Canada at the invitation of the Croatian diaspora. Her message was pertinent for all Canadians: expose Alfred Kinsey, his research, and its aftermath. I had the opportunity to hear her story, and understand her message, when I heard her speak at an event in Toronto and later when I interviewed her.

Dr. Alfred Kinsey was an American zoologist and later sexologist who founded The Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction. His research on human sexuality sparked controversy in the '40s and '50s, with the publication of his reports "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male" (1948) and "Sexual Behavior in the Human Female" (1953). He is considered the father of the sexual revolution, as his reports changed social mores forever. Kinsey's questionable research was also catalytic in changing several U.S. state laws, including legalizing prostitution, legalizing homosexuality, and reducing and eliminating most sex crime penalties.

Vidovic Kristo, 40, was the producer, editor, and investigative journalist of an international Croatian program on HRT (Slika Hrvatske/Picture of Croatia), promoting Croatia abroad and keeping the diaspora connected to their homeland. "I had three kids in primary school," she said, "and when I attended parents council meetings, 90% were against sex ed, and 10% were for it. However, all of these parents could neither explain nor defend their positions. I was compelled to research sex ed myself."

As the debate over sex education was heating up in Croatia, a country where 86% of the population identifies as Catholic, Vidovic Kristo found herself watching The Kinsey Syndrome and Kinsey's Pedophiles, documentaries exposing the horrors of Kinsey's research. These horrors include Kinsey paying pedophiles to rape children and time it with a stopwatch. "As I watched the production, I felt sick and disgusted. I felt awful. I thought: people don't know what has happened. They need to know!"

At that moment, she decided to do a show on sexual education and expose Kinsey's research. In December 2012, Vidovic Kristo aired her program, which included excerpts from Kinsey's Pedophiles. The public reaction was immediate. "My phone was ringing off the hook. Parents who were once divided on the sex ed issue were now uniting against sex ed, simply because they were informed of Kinsey's crimes."

The following morning, the TV network board publicly apologized for the show, refuted its contents, and then indicated that Vidovic Kristo would be reprimanded for misusing her position and being unprofessional. The state, the network, everyone official was against her.

"However, people were supporting me. For the first time, the Croatian people came together. Croats – no matter what nationality, religion, ideology – everyone was on the same side of protecting children. This is because they got to know the truth and stood out to protect those who cannot protect themselves – the children."

Soon, Vidovic Kristo found friends and allies around the globe and across faiths: American Kinsey expert Dr. Judith Reisman, who has published several books, papers, and movies on Kinsey's pedophilic and fraudulent research, and Timothy Tate, an British agnostic and left-leaning liberal, who produced and directed Kinsey's Pedophiles. Both came to Croatia shortly after Vidovic Kristo's program was aired to give her support to discuss Kinsey and sex education and to comment on Kinsey's research.

According to Kinsey's books, his published research, and the statements of his assistants in various interviews, not only was Kinsey's research flawed, but it was also criminal. Child sexuality research data was collected from the personal logs of several pedophiles – one in particular kept detailed diaries of over 800 sexual encounters with children, and even with babies as young as two months old. Kinsey also collected data and financially compensated fathers who were sexually abusing their own children. He even collaborated with infamous Nazi pedophile Dr. Fritz von Balluseck, who diarized his sexual abuse of hundreds of pre-adolescent girls and boys. At the trial of von Balluseck, the judge criticized Kinsey for not having reported these crimes to police.

Kinsey also presented his research as representing the average American man and woman. Yet to obtain his data during the war, many of the men he selected to represent the average male were prison inmates, many of whom were jailed for sexual crimes. Kinsey also included several hundred male prostitutes in his sampling. To collect data from married women, he broadened the definition of "married" to include any man who lived with a woman for a year, including prostitutes who lived with pimps.

As a result of his questionable "research," Kinsey made unbelievable statistical claims, including the following: 10-36% of men are homosexual; homosexuality, incest, rape, pedophilia, and even bestiality are normal, and 95% of men engage in these behaviors; 40% of married women are having affairs; 25% of married women are having abortions. This abortion statistic is said to have been the catalyst in convincing lawmakers to legalize abortion.

In the film Kinsey's Pedophiles, Dr. Paul Gebhard, Kinsey co-author, states on camera that the Kinsey team solicited child abusers and obtained child "sexuality" data from pedophiles as well as a pedophile organization. Off camera, as part of the court reporter's transcription, Paul Gebhard states that this organization was the predecessor to NAMBLA (the North American Man-Boy Love Association).

So was any of Kinsey's research valid? According to the New York Times (December 11, 1949), W. Allen Wallis, then chairman of the University of Chicago's committee on statistics, commented: "There are six major aspects of any statistical research, and Kinsey fails on four."

According to the film The Kinsey Syndrome, Kinsey convinced U.S. lawmakers to lower the age of consent and reduce sentencing for sex crimes, going state by state to achieve this objective.

In her book Kinsey: Crimes and Consequence, Dr. Reisman explains how since the '60s The Kinsey Institute was determined to incorporate Kinsey's philosophy into sex education material for children. They partnered with Planned Parenthood to achieve this objective. Dr. Reisman exposes how it was Kinsey's research that claimed that children are sexual and potentially orgasmic from birth and are unharmed by incest and adult-child sex and often benefit from such activity. His influence also inspired Hugh Hefner to launch Playboy Magazine.

So all of this sexual psychopathology is what started sexual education? Apparently, yes. Kinsey's research (which was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation) led him to draw the conclusion that children are "sexual beings" from birth. This flawed premise (flawed because the research is flawed) is what sexual educators in the world use to justify their mission. However, as Karolina Vidovic Kristo learned, and then shared with society, sex ed will never be acceptable as long as it is based on Kinsey and his pedophiles.

As a result of her exposé on national television, Vidovic Kristo was nominated for "Homophobe of the Year 2013" by Zagreb Pride, the organizers of the annual pride parade in Croatia's capital. In their open nomination, Zagreb Pride emphasized that they nominated her because she uncovered that sex ed is based on pedophilia. In response, Vidovic Kristo wrote an open letter demanding to know who is actually accusing her and why. She demanded to know why an organization, which promotes itself as a gay-organization, felt attacked if somebody researches pedophilia as a crime. After that letter, they stopped attacking her, and this past September, she won a court settlement for her defamation suit against Zagreb Pride.

Vidovic Kristo has received death threats – against herself and her children – yet she continues her mission to expose Kinsey's crimes.

"How could people know about Kinsey? The only country where this truth was aired on public television was Croatia. There is no mass media who talks about Kinsey in this spotlight. No one talks about Kinsey. So how would people know?

"If we say Kinsey is what he is (as his own personal research notes clearly demonstrate), then how can his work be called science? How can his thesis that children are sexual beings from birth be relevant in any way when we know that his thesis is based on pedophilia?

"Modern sex ed began in the sixties. It was based on Alfred Kinsey's model of human sexuality. Everyone's sexual education in the past 50 years came right from the Kinsey Institute. How can we teach sexual education? His research was based on crimes and lies. Raping babies, infants, and children is a crime everywhere. His so-called science, including sex ed at schools, which is based on Kinsey, should therefore be dismissed immediately. Everything else, any discussion about the unacceptable, is like hurting all those innocent children, all those victims, again and again."

In April 2014, the United Nations granted The Kinsey Institute ECOSOC accreditation. In response, Dr. Reisman, Timothy Tate, and Karolina Vidovic Kristo, among others, launched a campaign from Croatia called "Don't Touch the Children," with one of their first items on the agenda asking the U.N. to re-examine the Kinsey accreditation. A letter was sent to each head of U.N. member states explaining the nature of the Kinsey research, including the pedophilic data and evidence. Not one member state acknowledged the letter. Yet in the face global apathy, her precarious employment situation, and death threats, Vidovic Kristo soldiers on.

"I don't consider it so difficult. Yes, every time I think about those things [Kinsey] did, it makes me sick. If I know this information, do I have the right to keep my mouth shut about it? It is easier for me to continue this work than to fight myself, my conscience, and do nothing."

_________________
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.l911t.com
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 15413
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 10:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

WHILE THE CHURCH SLEEPS...
Dr Lisa Nolland says we need to take seriously the pan-sexual revolution which is overwhelming our society
https://www.e-n.org.uk/2016/11/features/while-the-church-sleeps/

The only suitable open space for trying out flail tanks was a local cricket pitch. Complaints were silenced with: ‘But there’s a war on’.
After reading John Benton’s editorial ‘I hope I’m wrong…’ (en September), the scenario of a war came to mind. The editor points to the evident suppression of religious freedom around human rights issues on sex and marriage across the West and ponders an underground church future.
Those of us who track the present ‘wars’ (the pan-sexual revolution which is becoming increasingly totalitarian) have long been alarmed. Most evangelical Christian leaders seem unable to comprehend the magnitude of what is going on and the woeful inadequacy of our engagement.
Before it’s too late

However, it is not too late. In the main we are in this situation because our church leaders have refused to challenge the claims of the sexual revolution or admit the epic consequences of failing to do so. My goals here are: first, to learn from the past; and then, second- ly, to explore positive, strategic responses.
Readers may or may not agree with my analysis. However, I ask that the full significance of current events be allowed to sink in. These wars are not ‘just one more thing’, but world-changing as well as insidious. They have enveloped Western institutions while an apparently vocal, thriving and upbeat church was busy elsewhere. If leaders are not fussed, why should others worry?
A recent example involves a Christian primary school teacher a year or so on from heavy involvement in her university CU. Now, forced to teach her 5–6 year olds about gay marriage in a ‘nice’ CofE school, she has concerns. She even had a child announcing he was ‘gay’. Though well taught by her CU, she ponders the lack of attention to this area.
Déjà vu

It is not overblown to say that events of the 1930s are relevant to present struggles. Here are three observations:
First, we look back on the 1930s with angry incredulity at the blindness of German Christian leaders. How could they have ignored events at the heart of public life, occurring before their very eyes?
Well, are we any different? The press of preaching duties, conferences, programmes, financial and pastoral crises, etc., mean that politically-incorrect, controversial issues just get buried. The herd/tribe mentality is as strong as that of ‘Let’s just be positive. God is good, all the time!’
The culture in church circles is a million miles away from that of many secular workplaces. Moreover there are potent but subconscious assumptions made by leaders. Given (almost daily) LGBT conditioning, many in their flock now ‘see the light’, but because of the subconscious but tacit ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’, aren’t saying.
Habits of the heart

Another way of speaking about this relates to de Tocqueville’s ‘habits of the heart’, unspoken but powerful operating assumptions which pre-determine what we are willing to give plausibility to and engage with.
Why was Churchill unwilling to ignore what was happening in Germany in the 1930s? What did he have which far more respectable opponents like Halifax lacked? The latter chose to turn a blind eye and thus tacitly collude and, after September 1939, actively appease. Churchill was willing to know, which made all the difference. People may not be losing their lives but they are losing their jobs for being non-pc.
What counts as evidence?

Secondly, and this time from the Jewish angle, what factors led some Jews to flee, while others, facing the same horrific developments, chose to stay? Was it a matter of where they chose to focus their attention?
I am hearing evangelical Christians dismiss concerns like mine. For instance, Stonewall isn’t in their school now so why the fuss? And I am told that people like me just give Christianity a bad name.
So what happens when staff (and Stonewall supporters) demand their school become ‘safe’ for all? With set-ups like: ‘So, you want gays to kill themselves then, do you?’ it is game over. Of course we don’t want gays to kill themselves, but the set-up’s point is simply to shut down any argument.
The implications of the fact that Stonewall (just one LGBT programme) is presently in several hundred schools appear not to have registered with Christian leaders, nor have milestones like Prince William’s and the Red Arrows’ recent promotion of gay rights. Though Christian leaders can and do ignore them, others are not so lucky.
Undoubtedly some educators, Royals and RAF members are deeply disturbed, but where is the resistance?
I’m all right, Jack

Thirdly, I think of Niemöller’s haunting saying: ‘First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists and I did not speak out…’ ending with Niemöller’s own arrest with no one left to speak for him.
In the same way, countless Western Christians are sacked, fined, etc., for opposing LGBT rights in public but find themselves deserted and even blamed for the mess. Just because we may not agree (necessarily) with every aspect of every case does not mean that we don’t need to stand for freedom of conscience and speech and association for all. And church leaders need to show the way in this.
Positive strategic responses

We are involved in two different but related theatres of war. The first revolves around the increasingly ‘alternative’ pan-sexual revolution which is particularly targeting our children. The second is an alarming growth of political totalitarianism under the guise of being PC and non-discriminatory. Note: I agree some PC concerns are good; I focus on the bad.
Justin Welby now heavily promotes LGBT concerns. Though I believe his solutions are wrong, he is right to highlight their plight.
The New Atlantis has recently exposed ‘born gay’ mythology while affirming sexual fluidity; lesbian psychologist Lisa Diamond has also re-emphasised sexual fluidity and the reality of change for both minors and adults of both sexes.1 Given Lambeth’s ethos, will Archbishop Welby even get the memos?
In terms of the wider church, because there is such profound ignorance and mistrust of psychology, those who find themselves with unwanted same sex attraction (SSA) are not being offered proper help.
Joseph Nicolosi explores the imprisoning role of unresolved shame and trauma; www.josephnicolosi.com/ has more. Mike Davidson and CORE Issues Trust in this country help increasing numbers out of homosexuality as well: www.core-issues.org/
The ‘New Normal’ Conference

Christian Concern is putting on The ‘New Normal’ Conference on 12 November, meeting at Emmanuel Centre, London, to equip delegates to engage with the increasing confusion about sexuality and gender at home, in schools and in society. What would you do if your daughter says she is a boy or your son decides he’s gay? What about Stonewall’s claims to make schools ‘safe’? Safe for whom? These and other concerns will be addressed.2
The church is understandably wary of direct political engagement. However, because almost everything now is ‘political’ it must up its game. ‘Just because you do not take an interest in politics does not mean politics won’t take an interest in you’ (Pericles).
In Maryland, for instance, biological males who claim they are females now can play on girls’ sports teams, and that includes showers, overnight sleeping arrangements, etc. Parents must not be informed. Trans’ rights trumps all, even those of youngsters who could be seriously traumatised. Where is the outrage?3 Massachusetts is also forcing LGBT accommodation onto the church, yet who sounds the alarm?4
We live in a democracy and have a duty to get involved, based on proper information. The American elections are coming soon. Do Christians know where both candidates stand on vital issues such as LGBT rights and religious freedoms? They are very different, yet I am constantly hearing the opposite. LifeSiteNews and Franklin Graham offer helpful analysis.5
Finally, because we live in a global village, please pray! My Kenyan colleagues are worried sick by the thought of a Clinton victory, largely because of how they have suffered under Obama’s LGBT Crusade, and she promises to up the ante.6 So for them November is almost a matter of life and death.
1. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20160819_TNA50SexualityandGender. pdf; http://www.aoiusa.org/american-psychological-association-course-correc tion-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-not-fixed-after-all/
2. https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/the-new-normal-tickets-26945911948
3. https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/transgender-madness-is-sweeping-our -schools.-parents-protect-your-children
4. https://pjmedia.com/faith/2016/09/09/massachusetts-forces-lgbt-accommo dation-rules-on-churches/
5. For instance, https://www.lifesitenews.com/ajax/email-article/news/hillary-clinton-r eligious-objections-to-homosexuality-like-supporting-honor; https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/trump-reaches-out-to-catholics-names -advisory-board-that-includes-santorum; https://decisionamericatour.com/about/
6. http://www.advocate.com/current-issue/2016/7/25/advocate-interview-hil lary-clinton

_________________
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.l911t.com
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Life
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 11 Nov 2008
Posts: 510
Location: Lancashire

PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This bunch of academic hooligans needs to be included in the promotion of all things debauchery :

In Profile : György Lukács and the Frankfurt School

http://thebridgelifeinthemix.info/history/profile-frankfurt-school/#st hash.5pwyUxKS.dpuf

_________________
KEEP IT REAL
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 15413
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2017 12:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

More British people identify as nonreligious than Christian, finds report
Deconversion the 'major factor' in rise of population without religion

Jon Sharman 4 hours ago5 comments
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-people-christia n-more-non-religious-faith-agnostic-atheism-report-a7737856.html

Nonreligious people like atheists now outnumber Christians in the UK REUTERS
More Britons say they have no religion than profess to be Christian, according to a new report.

According to the British Social Attitudes Survey and the European Social Survey, the "major factor" in the development is that people who are brought up to be religious are losing their faith. More than two-thirds of non-religious people were raised as Christians or in another faith.

Nearly half - 48.6 per cent - of UK adults say they are not religious, compared to just 43 per cent who are Christian. The proportion of Christians in the UK has dropped from two-thirds of adults in 1983.


READ MORE
US faith leaders unite to decry Trump’s ‘weaponisation of religion'
Professor Stephen Bullivant, of St Mary's University in Twickenham, analysed the data and said the "rise of the nonreligous" was "arguably the story of British religious history of the past half-century".

Scotland, Wales and the south-east of England were the least religious parts of the UK, where more than half of people said they had no personal faith.

Inner London, where more than a quarter said they followed a non-Christian religion, was the most pious part of the country, where only 31 per cent of adults were atheists or otherwise nonreligious.

The Anglican Church has suffered a "heavy" decline since 1983, Prof Bullivant said. And "the age profile of Anglicans, especially, is very heavily skewed towards the older generations".

Prof Bullivant wrote: "No religion has been Britain’s largest religious grouping for over two decades: 1993 was the first year to record more Nones than Anglicans, and this has remained the case ever since.

"Looking at the long-term pattern, the nonreligious share of the population has shown strong growth over our whole period, with a mean increase of 0.5 percentage points per year from 1983 to 2015.

"The year 2009 was the first in which Nones outnumbered all Christians put together. With the single exception of 2011, this pattern has held ever after. In two years, 2009 and 2013, Nones formed a majority of the adult British population."

At Easter it was revealed about a quarter of people who did say they were Christian did not believe in a central article of the faith - that Christ was resurrected from the dead.

A ComRes survey even found that 5 per cent of people who described themselves as "active" Christians did not believe in Jesus' resurrection.

_________________
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.l911t.com
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Whitehall_Bin_Men
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 1749
Location: Westminster, LONDON, SW1A 2HB.

PostPosted: Sat Aug 12, 2017 9:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sexuality: publicly normalising under age sex, pornography, infidelity, fornication and all forms of sexual deviance is nothing less than a war being waged on society. While the plight of the poor & homeless is virtually ignored.
_________________
--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com
http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> The War On Children, Marriage and the Family All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group