Ten Steps Toward Lifelong Behavior Modification

See also Trading U.S. Rights for UN Rules |
Clinton's War on Hate Bans Christian Values

Home

Should Twana
Dawson, a Pensacola, Florida high school sophomore, be expelled
for bringing a nail clipper to school? Her principal, Norm Ross,
seems to think so, even though Twana intended no wrong. Nor did
she realize that the small knife attached to the clipper - which
she used to clean her nails - would violate the school's Zero
Tolerance policy. (WND, 6-7-99)

But the lack of "intent" doesn't stop today's self-proclaimed social engineers from pursuing their goals. Remember, the nationwide Zero Tolerance policy began long before Mr. Ross used the violence
in Littleton as his excuse for the harsh penalty. Our government
has been using each new eruption of violence to win public consent
for its unjust policies, just as it uses compassion for the mentally
ill as a rationale for its massive system for monitoring and
managing the "mental health of the population."
HREF="#anchor1087075">1

Both programs, mental health and zero tolerance, are vital parts of a far more insidious program of intimidation, control, and cultural transformation. While the process began decades
ago, the pieces are finally fitting into place. And, as Raymond
Houghton, Professor of Secondary Education at Rhode Island College,
predicted almost three decades ago, few Americans know what is
happening.

"...absolute behavior control is imminent.... The critical point of behavior control, in effect, is sneaking up on mankind without his self-conscious realization that a crisis is at hand.
Man will... never self-consciously know that it has happened."
HREF="#anchor1087198">2

PREPOSTEROUS PENALTIES FOR GOOD KIDS

John Turner couldn't understand what had happened to him. The twelve-year-old honor student was arrested during a school recess, handcuffed, taken to juvenile hall, fingerprinted, and
forbidden to call his mother. He had to sign a $250 bond and
may face steeper punishment along with a lifelong police blot
on his personal computerized data file "if found guilty".

What could a good sixth grader do to deserve such bad treatment?

"He hit back," says his mother, Alyne Turner.

In 1997, during a January cold spell in Louisiana, the students at his elementary school were kept inside during recess. "Another student began picking on John, calling him names," says
Mrs. Turner. John responded to the intimidation by telling his
adversary that he must be stupid if he thought those insulting
words were true.

The other boy hit him in the face. It hurt-especially since John was wearing braces. John reacted and hit back. The other students agreed that John had been provoked.

But that didn't matter. There was "a fight" and John had participated. He had failed to follow the prescribed steps toward "conflict resolution". By suggesting that
the other boy was "stupid", he failed to "respect"
his tormentor. He had broken the ground rules for the politically
correct peace-making process which demands a standard of self-restraint
that would disqualify most adults.

John's school had adopted a policy called "zero tolerance", a strategy touted by President Clinton and leading educators across the country. In Ohio, the "Zero Tolerance for violence"
policy brings swift punishment on innocent victims as well as
aggressors-both are summarily suspended. So when a young girl
in Ohio was beaten by two other girls on her way to the school bus,
all three girls were sentenced to equal punishment: a ten day
suspension.

Intent to do wrong, a key element in criminal justice, is irrelevant. "If you are hit, you are suspended, no matter what," explained a concerned mother who asked to remain
anonymous. "If somebody wants to get another person, they
just hit them. Some kids don't mind getting suspended, but the
students who want to succeed do. Middle school kids are getting
hit by high-school kids and they are punished as if they hit
back. The daughter of a school board member was hit in the hallway.
She was suspended, even though other students said she didn't
provoke it."

It's happening from coast to coast. Like Twana, a straight-A student in San Jose, California was expelled for bringing a finger-nail clipper to school. Amber Nash, a high school honor student in
Gobles, Michigan, brought a knife to school to cut a friend's
brithday brownies. She was suspended for ten days.

In Alexandria, Louisiana, eight-year old honor student Kameryan Lueng brought a family heirloom to her second-grade class. She didn't realize that the little knife attached to the chain of
her grandfather's gold-plated old pocket watch would violate
the "zero tolerance" policy. Her punishment was suspension
from school and remediation at Redirection Academy.

"They were studying Colonial times, and Kameryan thought her teacher would be interested in seeing something old," said her mother, Cheryl Lueng. "Kameryan cried when I told
her she couldn't go back to her school on Monday. She feels like
a criminal."3

How can schools justify their harsh punishment when their victims intend no wrong? And why do most of the victims seem to be honor students and high achievers?

Some educators "say the benefits of zero tolerance policies in raising a school's overall standard of conduct outweighs the harm done to any child who inadvertently breaks a rule,"
HREF="#anchor1087492">4 wrote Tamar Lewin in a New York Times
article titled "School Codes Without Mercy Snare Pupils
Without Malice."

"We don't want to be making exceptions, having a principal say this is a good child from a prominent family so we'll overlook it, or this is a problem child from a poor family so we'll enforce
it," added Sylvia Pearson, president of the Rapides Parish
School Board, referring to little Kameryan. "We adopted
zero tolerance to make a safe environment for children."
HREF="#anchor1087676">5

What about their emotional safety? Was the emphasis on self-esteem and self-expression merely a passing fad, a bridge between the old and the new paradigms? Did our permissive humanist stage
prepare America to welcome a new suppressive global stage?

CLINTON'S TEN-POINT PLAN

For most of this century, humanist educators have sought ways to use education to transform both the world and its people. "All of us, including the owners, must be subjected to a
large degree of social control," wrote NEA leader Willard
Givens in 1934. "The major function of the school is the
social orientation of the individual. It must seek to give him
an understanding of the transition to a new social order."

Today, self-proclaimed "change agents" see the fruit of their work. Around the world, nations are conforming their education systems to international standards, just as our states
are conforming to national standards. President Clinton outlined
the U.S. version of this global system in his 1997 State of the
Union address to Congress:

1. "Adopt high national standards."

2. "Establish nationally accepted credentials for excellence in teaching."

3. "Help all our children read."

4. "Start teaching children before they start school."

5. "Give parents the power to choose the right public school for their children."

6. "Teach our children to be good citizens."

7. "Help communities finance $20 billion in school construction."

8. "Open the doors of college to all."

9. "Expand the frontiers of learning across a lifetime."

10. "Bring the power of the information age into all our schools."

These goals sound good, don't they? They should. Their purpose is to win public support, not to communicate facts. As New York Times editor Alison Mitchell wrote on February 12, "Clinton...
is still using his campaign polling firm of Penn & Schoen
to gauge public opinion and help him test and craft language
for his speeches."6

Clinton's marketing strategy matches the tactics of educational change agents who say one thing but mean another. North Carolina school superintendent Dr. Jim Causby summarized it well at a
1994 international model school conference in Atlanta:

"We have actually been given a course in how not to tell the truth. How many of you are administrators? You've had that course in public relations where you learn to put the best spin
on things."

Today's reformers shun clear definitions. Ambiguous promises do far more to persuade the public, subdue the opposition, and create consensus. So truth-telling must wait until polls indicate
public readiness. Clinton has learned his lessons well!

He challenges us to learn as well-to be ready always to test what we hear in the light of truth and facts. Unless we decode his noble visions in the light of new regulations and the stated
goals of education leaders, we will be deceived.

By changing the sequence of Clinton's ten goals we see a different picture -- one that shows how the nice-sounding pieces fit into a monstrous system that would manipulate, manage and monitor
"human resources" for the envisioned global village.
But keep in mind, the outline below is merely a summary. For
factual details explore Internet's education sites, check your
state's "workforce development" program, and read Brave
New Schools.

"TEACH OUR CHILDREN TO BE GOOD CITIZENS," said Clinton. "Promote order and discipline.... Impose curfews, enforce truancy laws, remove disruptive students from the classroom
and have zero tolerance for guns and drugs."

Like "zero tolerance" for guns, the policies for drugs and truancy have been stretched far beyond the realm of danger and reason. Brooke Olson, a 13-year-old from Texas, was
suspended for carrying a bottle of Advil in her backpack. A thirteen-year-old
Ohio honor student was suspended and faced possible expulsion
for receiving the mild pain-reliever Midol from her friend for
cramps. And the new truancy laws often seem more effective in
intimidating home schoolers on the way to libraries than in stopping
genuine truancy. What is happening?

A good citizen is a global citizen in the minds of leading educators. These global citizens must be trained to put planetary needs above their own. As governor in 1987, Clinton, together
with professor John Goodlad, Carnegie president Ernest Boyer,
and other visionary members of the Study Commission on Global
Education, wrote a report titled "The United States Prepares
for Its Future: Global Perspectives in Education." Its foreword
states,

"A dozen years ago... teaching and learning "in global perspective" was still exotic doctrine, threatening... those who still thought of American citizenship as an amalgam
of American history, American geography, American lifestyles
and American ideas... It now seems almost conventional to speak
of American citizenship in the same breath with international
interdependence and the planetary environment."7

It isn't easy to persuade Americans to trade national pride for planetary loyalties. But our new education system is designed to instill a utopian vision of global interdependence in people
everywhere. Contrasted to the exaggerated evils of Western culture,
this vision looks enticing enough to motivate many to accept
unthinkable environmental and social restraints.

Using "zero tolerance" policies to shock, embarrass, and intimidate dutiful students into compliance with irrational rules fits the plan. Most students caught in the confusing web
of federal regulations must endure long sessions in "conflict
resolution" and "anger management"-two related
psycho-social strategies used to instill a submissive, collectivist
mentality. They have already become standard procedure in our
nation's classrooms. Thomas Sowell, Senior Fellow at the Hoover
Institution, summarized the process:

"The techniques of brainwashing developed in totalitarian countries are routinely used in psychological conditioning programs imposed on American school children. These include emotional
shock and desensitization, psychological isolation from sources
of support, stripping away defenses, manipulative cross-examination
of... moral values, and inducing acceptance of alternative values
by psychological rather than rational means."8

These unAmerican strategies may shock most parents, but they fit the plan for transformation. While the Carnegie Foundation was importing Soviet psychosocial strategies long before the
US-Soviet General Education Agreement9
was signed by Ronald Reagan and Michail Gorbachev, the 1985 treaty
made it official. Social studies, science, arts... all facets
of education were included in the exchange.

"Cooperation would cover all computer-based instruction, instructional hardware and curriculum design for all grades of primary and secondary education, as well as college and university
studies," wrote Malachi Martin in The Keys of this Blood.
"The obvious goal was a total homogenization not only of
the methods of teaching and learning, but what was to be taught
and learned. "10 He continued,

"Cooperation.... in the 'social sciences' turned a blind eye to the official prostitution of psychiatry and psychology by the Soviet Union as clinical tools for inflicting mental and
physical torture as political punishment and for disposing of
dissidents. The USSR had been banned from the World Psychiatric
Association in 1983 for such practices....

"Or take cooperation in the humanities. As taught in the Soviet Union, all humanities are marinated in Leninist Marxism as a matter of course. And history is distorted by... the systematic
suppression of facts, and by downright lies. One might wonder
what common curricula might be drawn up between the USSR and
the US...."

The aim of the General Agreement was "to transform the shape of the world" and to restructure "institutions so that they are not confined merely to the nations-states."
HREF="#anchor1088789">11 It would take a new kind of teacher
to instill this message in the hearts of students across our
nation.

"ESTABLISH NATIONALLY ACCEPTED CREDENTIALS FOR EXCELLENCE IN TEACHING," said Clinton. "...reward our best teachers.... Remove those few who don't measure up...."

This "excellence in teaching" has little to do with traditional academics. It refers to expert training in psycho-social strategies. Like other political promises, the nice-sounding
phrase was not designed to tell the truth but to win the support
of an uninformed public.

"Enlightened social engineering is required to face situations that demand global action now,"12 said Professor John Goodlad, who served on the governing board
of UNESCO's Institute for Education before he joined Bill Clinton
on the 1987 Study Commission on Global Education. He knew that
teachers could only be social engineers in their classrooms when
they themselves have been trained in the new values and thinking
processes. His dream is nearing reality.

"We must require tougher licensing and certifcation standards,"13 says Education Secretary Richard Riley. Even before 2000 AD, the target year, his new "performance-based"
teacher certification process is purging traditional teachers
who cling to the old academic ways.

With the global paradigm came an emphasis on earth-centered spirituality and pantheistic oneness. Facts and memorization ("drill and kill") were traded for imagination, touchy-feely
experiences, and "systems thinking" which puts little
weight on pieces of information unless they can be fitted into
the new global context.

This thinking compels students to see their future from a socialist point of view. Individualism must yield to the interest of the greater whole. Personal rights must yield to community
responsibilities. And the nation-state must be absorbed into
the global village where the person merges into "the people"
- a mystical, impersonal union to be defined and managed by ruling
elites.

Individual achievement would clash with collective equality, and traditional learning would raise logical questions globalists prefer to dodge. In his article "Experts Say Too Much is
Read Into Illiteracy Crisis," Thomas Sticht, a member of
(the Labor) Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills
(SCANS) explained that

"Many companies have moved operations to places with cheap, relatively poorly educated labor. What may be crucial, they say, is the dependability of a labor force and how well
it can be managed and trained -- not its general educational
level, although a small cadre of highly educated creative people
are essential to innovation and growth. Ending discrimination
and changing values are probably more important than reading
in moving low income families into the middle class."
HREF="#anchor1089358">14 (Emphasis added)

Professor Benjamin Bloom, called "father of outcome-based education" introduced the battle plan for changing values and managing people around the world:

"The purpose of education and the schools is to change the thoughts, feelings and actions of students.15

"...a large part of what we call "good teaching" is the teacher's ability to attain affective objectives through challenging the students' fixed beliefs and getting them to discuss
issues."16

"Discussing issues" is key to the paradigm shift in schools, workplaces, homes, and community meetings. The "ground rules" for this Hegelian dialectic or consensus process
forbids debate and arguments. All must participate, compromise,
and seek "common ground." In "democratic"
classrooms from coast to coast where teachers facilitate rather
than teach, students follow manipulative suggestions, "discover
their own" truth, and embrace a globalist ideology that
censors every reason to be grateful for the land God gave us.
The chart below describes the two kinds of schools from an educator's
perspective."17