UN Goals Unveiled: Building Inclusive Communities Through Education
The United Nations will be holding a conference in Utah at the end of this month, with a variety of what they call "Thematic Sessions" to be held. These are meetings designed to promote the UN's goals, each one focused around a specific theme, but also intertwined with other UN goals, as you will see. There is also a strong focus on youth for this conference, and the reason for that will also become apparent. The first we will be addressing is entitled, "Building Inclusive Communities Through Education." Here is the official description, taken from their website: “"The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) call for ensuring equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university. Rapid technological changes present opportunities and challenges, but the learning environment, the capacities of teachers and the quality of education have in many parts of the world not kept pace, and in others still need to catch up. New models in higher education are emerging as lawmakers and higher education professionals look for ways to address declining enrollment numbers, lack of diversity and skyrocketing tuition, as well as knowledge gaps in today’s rapidly evolving global workforce. Access for all to a quality education and learning opportunities – starting with children - will play a central role in increasing the number of youth and adults who have relevant skills, including technical and vocational skills, for employment, decent jobs and entrepreneurship to meet today’s global and local challenges."” The UN's language is always loaded with meaning and hidden context that is intended to go over the head of the casual listener or reader. One of the most basic underlying principles we see in language from the United Nations is the promotion of Socialism, which is present here in the very first sentence. Notice the keywords "equal access" and "all men and women." These are fun buzzwords right now that appeal to the desire to be "fair" and promote "equality." But how would this be possible without forcing those who "have" to pay for those who "have not"? Who gets to define those terms? How would it be enforced? As the UN has focused its goals on the entire world, only a world government could provide the necessary enforcement. How do we know that world collectivism is the goal of the UN? For starters, most of the countries in the UN have some form of Socialist government, which shows that this is the mindset they hold. They would not want for the world anything different than what they already provide for their own people. The UN also already has in place several schemes to redistribute the wealth of the world from so-called "wealthy" nations to those with less. The redistribution of wealth is a hallmark of Socialism, the goal being that all people are equal in poverty, with the government in control of the wealth and resources. Think Venezuela, China, North Korea, the Soviet Union, Cuba. Sound fun? In contrast, the equality of all mankind declared under the Constitution is that each one is born with a clean slate, able to make of his life what he will. Not an equality of things, but an equality of promise to be shaped by a person's choices. Are some nations more prosperous than others? Absolutely, and the current modus operandi is to try to make other nations feel guilty for their own successes, as if it were their fault somehow. Yet, those circumstances, in most cases, came about as a natural result of the choices of the people. No one holds responsibility for their choices but themselves. Of course, we can voluntarily provide assistance, as many do. There are doctors and dentists who provide free services. There are people inventing new ways to drill wells, grow crops more effectively, etc. Missionaries teaching English, and helping in myriad other ways. All of these people working of their own accord, providing helpful service by choice, with no threat of government violence required. A few of the UN's other overarching themes are also present here. We see the assertion that "declining enrollment numbers" at "higher education" institutions (ie, colleges) is somehow a threat that must be addressed. What are these people doing instead? Staying home and watching TV? Perhaps a few, but the rest are learning trades, writing books, getting degrees in Computer Science or programming, teaching dance, making neon signs, and a whole host of other things that can be done elsewhere. College is not the only option. We must also ask ourselves why people would be opting to avoid college. Could it be that there are so many other options that don't require one to start adult life tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt? Could it be that colleges have turned into horrendous indoctrination centers where students can get degrees in things like porn? Where Conservatism and religion are no longer welcome? Where free speech is proclaimed, and simultaneously denied? Could it be that the best students no longer are able to even get into many colleges due to ridiculous "diversity" policies that favor non-academic qualities, such as skin color or sexuality? On that note, you will notice that "lack of diversity" is thrown in there with all these other "atrocities," as though it is something of importance. This is done for several reasons. One is that the UN is anti-Christian. The deliberate promotion of diversity of sexuality, and the promotion of non-Christian religions, while at the same time declaring war on monogamy and Christianity, sends a clear signal. We must remember, however, that when all things are "true," nothing is true. And that is the point. Championing diversity also creates victims out of those in smaller groups, who clamor to government for "protection," and the government is all too happy to take away everyone's rights and freedoms in order to do so. This is at the core of the UN's "inclusive communities." Remember when you were free to choose who you associated with? Now, you'd better bake the cake, rent your house, and install a ramp of a certain length, size, color, and slope, or the government will step on your neck, steal your property, or imprison you, all in the name of diversity. There are UN goals to usurp your freedoms in the name of every so-called "marginalized" group that exists. The drive-by phrase "knowledge gaps in today’s rapidly evolving global workforce" suggests that there is a group of overseers looking to take your children and plug them into a prefabricated system, like so many cogs. Some places here in the United States, like California, have already embraced this system, and have implemented government-business partnerships that craft a child's education to meet the specific projected needs of their workforce. Is this what people send their children to school for? If they called each graduating class by its intended purpose, would they feel any different? "We'd like to congratulate the Boeing assembly line class of 2019!" This is the UN's goal for your children. The importance of public education in Socialist systems cannot be denied. It is even a plank of the Communist Manifesto. When the government chooses which kids learn, what they learn, and how they learn, what else is left? Can it be said that a free thought ever crossed a child's mind in such a system? This system not only tells kids how to think, it tells them what to think. "We've always been at war with Eastasia." Haven't we? Hardcore Socialists have always sought to remove all threats to the state, any who might challenge their authority, and this has historically pinpointed religion and the family as the foremost threats. The UN call for "a quality education and learning opportunities – starting with children" nicely frames their desire to remove children from their homes and put them into government schools where they can be indoctrinated. The push is to get kids out of the home as early as possible. This is already happening here in America, with preschools and even pre-preschools opening all over. The UN also has an ongoing agenda to set children up as adversaries against their parents and other adults, by telling them that it is unfair for adults to run things, for adults to get all the jobs, for only adults to vote. Why is this a priority for the UN? Remember when, during the 60's, the mantra of the Communists was "Don't trust anyone over 30"? Youth are ignorant and impressionable. Not ignorant as in stupid, but as in miseducated and inexperienced. They can be emotionally manipulated easily. They are, in actual Communist terminology, "useful idiots" who will work hard to bring about their own downfall, all the while thinking they are doing the world a service. A young man I know, just out of high school, actually posted on Facebook not long ago that "[he] would die for Agenda 21!" Mission accomplished. As you read the subject matter tags the UN was so good to include with this description, see if you can pair the phrases with their descriptions above: “"Join this session if you are interested in: the role of universities, communities and vocational institutes; continuing education; children in urban settings; access for marginalized students and communities; opportunities for youth; education in vulnerable settings; gender; technology for education."” We don't have the time or space to touch on everything in this short blurb, but we hope this was enough to get you thinking. Everything about the UN, from its agendas to its existence, is anti-American and unConstitutional! Instead of turning our children over to unaccountable globalists, why don't we teach them what is in the Constitution… and then go back to following it!
UN Goals Unveiled: Building Inclusive Communities Through Education
The United Nations will be holding a conference in Utah at the end of this month, with a variety of what they call "Thematic Sessions" to be held. These are meetings designed to promote the UN's goals, each one focused around a specific theme, but also intertwined with other UN goals, as you will see. There is also a strong focus on youth for this conference, and the reason for that will also become apparent. The first we will be addressing is entitled, "Building Inclusive Communities Through Education." Here is the official description, taken from their website: “"The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) call for ensuring equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university. Rapid technological changes present opportunities and challenges, but the learning environment, the capacities of teachers and the quality of education have in many parts of the world not kept pace, and in others still need to catch up. New models in higher education are emerging as lawmakers and higher education professionals look for ways to address declining enrollment numbers, lack of diversity and skyrocketing tuition, as well as knowledge gaps in today’s rapidly evolving global workforce. Access for all to a quality education and learning opportunities – starting with children - will play a central role in increasing the number of youth and adults who have relevant skills, including technical and vocational skills, for employment, decent jobs and entrepreneurship to meet today’s global and local challenges."” The UN's language is always loaded with meaning and hidden context that is intended to go over the head of the casual listener or reader. One of the most basic underlying principles we see in language from the United Nations is the promotion of Socialism, which is present here in the very first sentence. Notice the keywords "equal access" and "all men and women." These are fun buzzwords right now that appeal to the desire to be "fair" and promote "equality." But how would this be possible without forcing those who "have" to pay for those who "have not"? Who gets to define those terms? How would it be enforced? As the UN has focused its goals on the entire world, only a world government could provide the necessary enforcement. How do we know that world collectivism is the goal of the UN? For starters, most of the countries in the UN have some form of Socialist government, which shows that this is the mindset they hold. They would not want for the world anything different than what they already provide for their own people. The UN also already has in place several schemes to redistribute the wealth of the world from so-called "wealthy" nations to those with less. The redistribution of wealth is a hallmark of Socialism, the goal being that all people are equal in poverty, with the government in control of the wealth and resources. Think Venezuela, China, North Korea, the Soviet Union, Cuba. Sound fun? In contrast, the equality of all mankind declared under the Constitution is that each one is born with a clean slate, able to make of his life what he will. Not an equality of things, but an equality of promise to be shaped by a person's choices. Are some nations more prosperous than others? Absolutely, and the current modus operandi is to try to make other nations feel guilty for their own successes, as if it were their fault somehow. Yet, those circumstances, in most cases, came about as a natural result of the choices of the people. No one holds responsibility for their choices but themselves. Of course, we can voluntarily provide assistance, as many do. There are doctors and dentists who provide free services. There are people inventing new ways to drill wells, grow crops more effectively, etc. Missionaries teaching English, and helping in myriad other ways. All of these people working of their own accord, providing helpful service by choice, with no threat of government violence required. A few of the UN's other overarching themes are also present here. We see the assertion that "declining enrollment numbers" at "higher education" institutions (ie, colleges) is somehow a threat that must be addressed. What are these people doing instead? Staying home and watching TV? Perhaps a few, but the rest are learning trades, writing books, getting degrees in Computer Science or programming, teaching dance, making neon signs, and a whole host of other things that can be done elsewhere. College is not the only option. We must also ask ourselves why people would be opting to avoid college. Could it be that there are so many other options that don't require one to start adult life tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt? Could it be that colleges have turned into horrendous indoctrination centers where students can get degrees in things like porn? Where Conservatism and religion are no longer welcome? Where free speech is proclaimed, and simultaneously denied? Could it be that the best students no longer are able to even get into many colleges due to ridiculous "diversity" policies that favor non-academic qualities, such as skin color or sexuality? On that note, you will notice that "lack of diversity" is thrown in there with all these other "atrocities," as though it is something of importance. This is done for several reasons. One is that the UN is anti-Christian. The deliberate promotion of diversity of sexuality, and the promotion of non-Christian religions, while at the same time declaring war on monogamy and Christianity, sends a clear signal. We must remember, however, that when all things are "true," nothing is true. And that is the point. Championing diversity also creates victims out of those in smaller groups, who clamor to government for "protection," and the government is all too happy to take away everyone's rights and freedoms in order to do so. This is at the core of the UN's "inclusive communities." Remember when you were free to choose who you associated with? Now, you'd better bake the cake, rent your house, and install a ramp of a certain length, size, color, and slope, or the government will step on your neck, steal your property, or imprison you, all in the name of diversity. There are UN goals to usurp your freedoms in the name of every so-called "marginalized" group that exists. The drive-by phrase "knowledge gaps in today’s rapidly evolving global workforce" suggests that there is a group of overseers looking to take your children and plug them into a prefabricated system, like so many cogs. Some places here in the United States, like California, have already embraced this system, and have implemented government-business partnerships that craft a child's education to meet the specific projected needs of their workforce. Is this what people send their children to school for? If they called each graduating class by its intended purpose, would they feel any different? "We'd like to congratulate the Boeing assembly line class of 2019!" This is the UN's goal for your children. The importance of public education in Socialist systems cannot be denied. It is even a plank of the Communist Manifesto. When the government chooses which kids learn, what they learn, and how they learn, what else is left? Can it be said that a free thought ever crossed a child's mind in such a system? This system not only tells kids how to think, it tells them what to think. "We've always been at war with Eastasia." Haven't we? Hardcore Socialists have always sought to remove all threats to the state, any who might challenge their authority, and this has historically pinpointed religion and the family as the foremost threats. The UN call for "a quality education and learning opportunities – starting with children" nicely frames their desire to remove children from their homes and put them into government schools where they can be indoctrinated. The push is to get kids out of the home as early as possible. This is already happening here in America, with preschools and even pre-preschools opening all over. The UN also has an ongoing agenda to set children up as adversaries against their parents and other adults, by telling them that it is unfair for adults to run things, for adults to get all the jobs, for only adults to vote. Why is this a priority for the UN? Remember when, during the 60's, the mantra of the Communists was "Don't trust anyone over 30"? Youth are ignorant and impressionable. Not ignorant as in stupid, but as in miseducated and inexperienced. They can be emotionally manipulated easily. They are, in actual Communist terminology, "useful idiots" who will work hard to bring about their own downfall, all the while thinking they are doing the world a service. A young man I know, just out of high school, actually posted on Facebook not long ago that "[he] would die for Agenda 21!" Mission accomplished. As you read the subject matter tags the UN was so good to include with this description, see if you can pair the phrases with their descriptions above: “"Join this session if you are interested in: the role of universities, communities and vocational institutes; continuing education; children in urban settings; access for marginalized students and communities; opportunities for youth; education in vulnerable settings; gender; technology for education."” We don't have the time or space to touch on everything in this short blurb, but we hope this was enough to get you thinking. Everything about the UN, from its agendas to its existence, is anti-American and unConstitutional! Instead of turning our children over to unaccountable globalists, why don't we teach them what is in the Constitution… and then go back to following it!
How The Conspiracy Works: The Letter Of The Law
Some recent articles by the Idaho Freedom Foundation have really provoked the ire of some in Boise by questioning socialist policies and practices at BSU. We urge you to visit their site, as there are several articles touching this subject. We agree with the IFF on these issues, and welcome the opportunity to point out one of the ways the conspiracy works, as made clear in the Idaho Press response, "More on 'Dreamers' and scholarships…", which includes a handy outline of the process. In short, if they can technically justify something, that makes it okay. I recommend reading the Idaho Press article to see the legal wrangling for yourself. This is where the intersection of lawyers and judges begins to bring us the corruption described in Alma 10, in the Book of Mormon. One of the primary issues in this discussion is that "illegal alien students (DACA students)" are receiving "Idaho resident tuition rates and Opportunity Scholarship dollars." As pointed out in the Idaho Press article, “Under federal law, DACA students are considered ‘lawfully present’ in Idaho." That is the letter of the law. The spirit of the law, however, is that publicly funded education belongs to those who have paid for it. It just makes sense. Don't get me wrong. I am not a supporter of public education in any way. We homeschool our children, and thank God every day for inspiring us to do so, back before "condom races" were a thing. But, that's middle school. This is college, which gets much worse. But I digress. Principles are what matter. Period. These scholarships were put in place under the principle that they would be made available to qualified residents who helped fund it, or whose families helped fund it, with their tax dollars. Now, we get school administrators shoveling our dollars out the door in the name of "social justice," trying to right phantasmic wrongs that our country's leftists imagine up. Do yourself a favor, Idaho. Take a stand. Demand that BSU–and every other educational institution in your state–cut the crap. Read the articles at IFF, and you will have a much better idea of what is going on, and what needs to be ended. "Social justice" is not education.
What's Wrong With Hate Crime Laws?
An Irish website recently posted a fantastic article, outlining why they oppose "hate crime" laws. We think they make excellent points, so we are re-publishing the article here, in its entirety: 10 reasons hate crime laws are terrifying nonsense Posted by John McGuirk | Nov 16, 2020 | Comment Ireland, Irish News On Friday, we reported on the contents of Fianna Fáil’s new Hate Crime Bill, which will be debated in the Seanad this week. Ahead of that debate, it is worth setting out for our readers why we at Gript believe hate crime laws are one of the worst ideas ever introduced by Irish politicians. Here are ten reasons why they should be opposed, at all cost: 1. They criminalise thought – unlike any other law Say what you want about hate speech laws, but they don’t criminalise thought. To fall foul of a hate speech law you have to actually say something and be heard say it. There must be actual evidence that you said the criminal thing. The same goes for pretty much every other crime. Not so with hate crime laws. The crime in a hate crime is not what you did, it is what you thought. To successfully prosecute a hate crime, you must prove that the person who committed the crime was motivated by hate. But only a particular kind of hate, because…. 2. Only some kinds of hate are illegal Imagine a situation where a husband finds out that his wife has been sleeping with another man. Imagine that the husband then seeks out that other man, and physically assaults him. What is the motive there? Is it jealousy? Or is it hate? It is perfectly possible that a spurned husband might be acting with malice, and out of hate. But under the law, that would not be a hate crime. It is only a hate crime if the victim is in a protected group. Paradoxically, if the husband beat up a racial minority and declared that he did so because he hated him for sleeping with his wife, that’s not a hate crime, even though the crime has been committed with hate in the attacker’s heart. It’s only a hate crime if your hate is directed at a specific group, not an individual. But on the other hand, if in the course of beating him up, he called him a racial slur, it would be a hate crime. Makes sense, right? 3. Hate is a feeling. What other feelings are criminal? Love. Hate. Jealousy. Anger. Lust. What do these have in common? They’re all feelings. Nearly every crime is motivated by feelings of some sort or other. Why are we only legislating to make one negative feeling criminal? If a corrupt politician is guilty of lining his pockets, why is that just “corruption” instead of, say, a “greed crime”? If a man is arrested for visiting prostitutes, why is that simply solicitation, instead of “lust crime?” Those concepts are absurd, of course. Nobody would ever introduce a “greed crime” law because the idea of criminalising feelings is nonsensical, even when they are negative feelings. So why are we trying to do it with hate? 4. No other crime is judged purely by motive Even in America, where they have first, second, and third degree murder, crimes are not ranked by motive. If you kill and dismember somebody because, like Hannibal Lecter, you’re a cannibal, then your cannibalism isn’t taken into account. You don’t get more time or less time than somebody who kills and dismembers a person because, say, they wanted to inherit the victim’s money. Greed or cannibalism – the motive doesn’t matter. Only what you did. The only time motive matters is if it is exculpatory – for example, the classic example of someone speeding to the hospital because there’s a woman in labour in the car. But there is no other crime where the motive itself is the crime. It is not a crime to want your parents to leave you all their money in their will. It’s only a crime if you forge their will before or after they die. In every other area of criminal law, the action, not the motive, is the crime. This has served us well for two thousand years. 5. They create protected classes of citizens Imagine two people, who have both had their legs broken with a sledgehammer. One is a little old lady who has been attacked by thugs who tortured her to get her to reveal the money she had under her mattress. The other is a gay man who’s been attacked by people who hate gay people. Both crimes are horrendous, but hate crime laws make it so that one of them has actually suffered a worse crime than the other. Is that true? Hate crime laws by definition elevate one group of victims above another, and make it so that one of those crimes carries an additional sentence. The little old lady, in this scenario, actually gets less justice because she’s not gay, or black, or a traveller, or whatever. Is that right? Of course, it’s not. 6. They require juries to breach the “reasonable doubt” standard Human beings are not mind readers. There is, simply, no scenario known to man where one person can be completely sure what another person was thinking at the time they committed a particular act. Hate crimes must be prosecuted purely on the basis of what somebody was thinking when they committed a particular crime. But a criminal conviction, in front of a jury, must meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of proof. In what situation can there be no reasonable doubt about what somebody was thinking when they committed a crime? The reason that court cases proceed on the basis of physical, forensic, and expert evidence is that those things can be established beyond reasonable doubt. We can say for certain that person X was in a particular location at a particular time. We can say that their DNA is certainly at the crime scene. We can say that the crime was committed at a certain time. We can prove that somebody said something. All of those things are provable. It is impossible to prove what somebody was thinking at a particular time. A jury that says that they have no reasonable doubt about someone’s thoughts or motives is a jury that is lying. 7. They pre-judge the accused, and there is basically no possible defence Dear reader: Tell me, now, what the evidence is that you, reading this, do not hate Chinese people. Imagine you are in court, accused of a hate crime. You stand accused of holding hateful views about Chinese people. The evidence presented is that you had posted on facebook three times in 2011 about animal welfare abuse in China, and once, five years ago, you had referred to Chinese athletes as “Chinks” in a whatsapp conversation about the Olympics. The prosecution says this is evidence that you have prejudice against Chinese people. How do you disprove that? You basically end up like Father Ted, in front of the jury, desperately trying to prove that you are not a racist. But how do you do it? Have a think about that one, while you consider point 8: 8. They do nothing to actually prevent hate crimes Here’s the thing about most crimes: The people who commit them do not particularly expect to get caught. Be honest with yourself, dear reader: How many times have you personally broken the speed limit? Did the limit deter you, or did you think “it’s 1.30am, nobody’s on the road, doing 130kph instead of 120kph is worth the risk”. And that’s only a minor crime. Very few people who commit serious crime expect to get caught. And as such, the criminal penalties aren’t actually a deterrent. Making drug use illegal has not resulted in drug use becoming extinct. Similarly, you can’t legislate and criminalise racism and bigotry out of existence. Besides, hate crimes are already illegal. If you attack and injure somebody, then that is already a crime. If those crimes are still happening, then that suggests that the law has little deterrent effect as it is. Adding another sticker on to it is not going to have any impact. 9. They turn minority groups into victim classes, regardless of actual status Hate crime laws actually reinforce societal divisions by formalising in law the idea that some groups of people are in a victim class, while others are in an oppressor class. This is not true in practice, and the concept of such a demarcation risks undermining social cohesion. Try explaining to a poor homeless white person why the state is creating special crimes to protect the wealthy gay couple who live in the apartment block in the door of which the homeless person seeks shelter. The idea that somebody is more of a victim in society purely because of their gender identity, sexual orientation, skin colour, or religion completely ignores the competing socio-economic circumstances of people living in a country. In time, this will breed more resentment than it does tolerance. 10. They create a horrible precedent If “hate” itself is a crime, then what’s the argument for limiting “hate crimes” to simply acts of violence? Already we see moves to criminalise speech, and journalism, and words because they are hateful, even though they are inherently non-violent. But why stop at words? In fact, why stop at actions at all? What if inaction is perceived to be motivated by hate? For example, what about a teacher or a college lecturer who refuses to wear a rainbow pin on their collar during LGBTI awareness week? Surely a reasonable person can infer from that some level of opposition to the LGBTI cause, no? Does it rise to hate? Who knows, but surely it’s worthy of investigation? What about somebody who laughs at a racist joke? Obviously the person who tells the racist joke is guilty, in this new regime, of hate speech. But what about the person who finds it funny, and laughs? Are they not likely to come under suspicion, too? It all comes back, in the end, to point one: Hate crime laws are thought crime laws. They make thinking certain things, in some circumstances, criminally prosecutable. Once we open that door, and say that yes, some thoughts are criminal, we will find it very hard to close again. Original: https://gript.ie/10-reasons-hate-crime-laws-are-terrifying-nonsense/ The prophet Isaiah warned us that Satan seeks to "make a man an offender for a word." (Isa. 29:21) This has always been so, and it is even so now.
The New "Normal"
The astute have long been warning that we are heading into a future marred by a "social credit" system. The details are unknown to most Americans, but they are there, nonetheless, and the COVID "pandemic" has intentionally thrust us headlong into this system. How, you ask? Read on. In his August 2021 article, entitled "American Federation of Teachers Sells Out to Rockefellers, Trilateralists, and Big Tech," investigative journalist John Klyczek lays out in great detail how the government-run public education system works hand-in-hand with Big Tech, psychologists, and corporations, to manipulate, track, and data-mine American children. He asks, “Why would the American Federation of Teachers go against “following the science” by lobbying the CDC to backpedal its relaxation of school health and safety protocols? Why would the AFT defy CDC experts by opposing school re-openings in favor of extending COVID restrictions that prop open the floodgates for the ed-tech industry to advance its privatization of public education through “remote” e-learning contracts? Why do this when mainstream medical journals, such as the Lancet, have published data which finds that “[c]hildren and young people remain at low risk of COVID-19 mortality”? What is the point when there is mounting evidence that in-person schoolhouse learning does not result in rising community transmission rates of COVID-19? [1]” From the outside, these questions are puzzling. Shouldn't one of the nation's largest teacher's unions be advocating for a return to schools? As is often the case, those positioning themselves as "advocates" are… not. Klyzcek continues: “To be sure, the AFT states that health and safety priorities are their motivating factors for doubling down on COVID mitigation policies, which effectively necessitate remote online schooling. Nevertheless, a close look at the history of the AFT reveals that it has a long track record of selling out its dues-paying teachers to the global ed-tech industrial complex by cutting side deals with Big Tech companies, such as IBM and Microsoft; corporate philanthropies, including the Rockefeller Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; and world governance institutions, like the Trilateral Commission and the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). In light of these past dealings with corporatists, globalists, and technocrats, it appears that the AFT may have ulterior motives to stall the full return to in-person learning in order to wedge schools into contracting with the union’s ed-tech cronies, such as IBM and Microsoft, which are driving “Reimagine Education” campaigns along with UNESCO to spur the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” for the “Fourth Industrial Revolution.” By pressing the CDC to drag out COVID constraints that relegate education systems to “distance” and “hybrid,” or “blended,” combinations of virtual-online instruction, the AFT has essentially been lobbying to hitch schools to multinational ed-tech cartels which aim to data-mine students’ psychometrics for workforce “competence” in the global “Social Credit” economy of the “surveillance capitalist” Fourth Industrial Revolution.” In other words, this large and powerful organization – in concert with the other major teacher's union, the National Education Association (NEA) [2] – has for decades been setting the stage for globalists to control education through technological means, with the actual end-goal being a sort of "social credit" system. With 2020 behind us, and the fake coronavirus pandemic, we have already seen the power of social manipulation. The forthcoming "vaccine passports" are, in fact, the emerging head of this "social credit" system, a means to control the actions of mankind by mandating compliance – or be removed from society. No vax, no job! [3] No vax, no movies! [4] No vax, no food! [5] No government benefits without the vax! [6] Be a good citizen! [7] Follow your leaders! [8] Follow your rock stars! [9] Follow your movie stars! [10] We'll give you extra privileges! [11] If you don't, we'll make life hard [12], take away your freedoms [13], limit your internet access [14], and/or incarcerate you [15]. This is what a "social credit" system looks like. If you want to do anything, you'd better get in compliance! But is this really a "social credit" system"? They're not keeping score, like the Chinese, right? Let's take a look. At the 2019 Brazilian Symposium of Games, professors Livia Topper Press and Alessandro Vieira Dos Reis presented "Sesame Credit and the Social Compliance Gamification in China," in which they state the following: “Sesame Credit is the most important gamified Chinese social credit model. It aims at monitoring and regulating the behavior of more than a billion citizens… Basing itself on the distribution of rewards and punishments to individuals, upon scoring based on the compliance of the aforementioned citizens towards laws and government interests. [20]” Drew Donnelly, PhD, had the following to say in his own article on Sesame Credit: “The consequences of a poor social credit score could be serious. It may affect travel prospects, employment, access to finance, and the ability to enter into contracts. On the other hand, a positive credit score could make a range of business transactions for individuals and corporations much easier. [21]” Dr. Donnelly also points out that there is also an "implementation of the system for corporations, known as the ‘corporate social credit rating’," to make the control grid complete. Website The Artifice, in their article, also point out that: “…Alibaba [the government-run Chinese equivalent of Amazon] used the data that they and their partners had collected in order to establish a credit score for these people and small businesses. Alibaba collected information on the spending habits of over 300 million people and over 37 million small businesses to accurately assess the credit scores that people should have. In this vein, Sesame Credit is very similar to any other credit services around the world, however there was one major difference. Sesame Credit doesn’t only take in credit information and spending habits, but also online behavioural patterns, personal characteristics (how long they have lived in a specific residence or their mobile phone information) and their personal relationships. It monitored who small companies were associated with and who people were friends with online through places like Tencent related social websites. With this information the scores of peoples’ Sesame Credit were affected by who they chose to interact with. [22]” The first comment by a reader on that 2016 article started out by saying, "You know, in a way, this Sesame Credit scoring system reminds me of the American educational system I grew up with." And that is our point. This has actually been going in America for many, many decades. Former educator Beverly Eakman used to speak and write about this, providing a lot of factual information to prove that it was/is happening. In July, 2008, she gave a presentation to the 9th Annual Freedom 21 Conference, in Dallas, Texas. [17] She discussed the increasing use of "psychographics" and other data-gathering employed by educational institutions, and pointed to a research paper that used "a list of liberal versus conservative books purchased through Amazon." “The question is troubling because The National Longitudinal Study from the National Center for Education Statistics, which is part of the Department of Education lasted from 1988-2000. The parental information from Amazon, matched against children’s current opinions on school surveys, can be powerful determinants of future political behavior, and technology is now to the point where I [sic] such information can follow kids from pre-school through college, on into the workplace…” She highlights how "testing" in public schools is actually psychological "profiling." But we ask again, to what end? “Today, hundreds of seemingly unrelated pieces of data that reveal political leanings and parental views are fed into a “predictive” computer algorithm… Once computerization became truly practical, marketing agencies started hiring statisticians with concurrent degrees in psychology. Marketing moguls have long known that the best predictor of what consumers might buy tomorrow was whatever they bought yesterday—your “purchase history.” In the late 1970s, political experts realized that the same could be said for what a person believes… All this brings up covert, pre-assigned ID coding, which government agencies swear doesn’t exist. So brace yourselves; this is where it starts getting really ugly, beginning with this website: • STUDENT UNIQUE INDENTIFIER (NDE Uniq ID) Steps to assigning Student Unique ID’s www.nde.ne.us.nssrs, updated January 2, 2008 Now, I picked a state at random, Nebraska, but it could have been just about any state—which means, this is a national initiative, with the state serving as the “fall guy.” The state education agency (that’s the state arm of the U.S. Dept. of Education) establishes the procedures and pretends to write its “own” training manuals for how to assign a unique identifying number to every student. All such “procedures” are written with a word or phrase changed here and there, or in a different order, and legislators and the press fall for it. In fact, all state procedures are virtually identical. Once the kid’s state- supplied ID number is in the bag, so to speak (in this case the Nebraska Department of Education’s “Uniqu-ID”), the state can transmit to the feds, or anywhere else, for that matter. The interesting thing about this is the Unique Student Number, assigned by the state, and the Social Security number, assigned by the feds, are going to be cross-matched—in ways that will make your jaw drop. ” She was able to access files that were later restricted, on the website she provided, and saved and printed many of them. What she discovered is that they track things like a student's religion (which is supposed to be off-limits), and that student are "micro-targeted" using different versions of assessment forms. “If you get a chance go to the Handbook of the National Center for Education Statistics at www.nces.ed.gov/programs/handbook.com. You will find proof of the predictive algorithms I discussed earlier, the formulas that will forecast your kids’ probable political behaviors based on the responses he or she provides on assessments and surveys… It doesn’t stop there. There is an incredibly detailed level of invasiveness, all automated, or required: every aspect of a child’s teeth and dental work, pre-natal observations of the mother, such as weight gain during pregnancy, gestational age of child at birth, and birth weight. In other words, Ladies, while you were at the hospital in labor, your government was laboring to circumvent the privacy laws. This tells you how much that HIPAA privacy “agreement” you have to sign every time you walk into a new doctor’s office or pick up a prescription at the pharmacy is worth. Can we say zero? I also found a copyright-protected, restricted-use longitudinal data file. This was evidence of surreptitious data-gathering via an “electronic codebook,” going back to birth and pre-school. The focus was social skills, rated by psychologists using a Social Rating Scale.” A what? Yes, a "Social Rating Scale." A "social credit" system, but a secret one that has been used against us, covertly, all our lives. [16] “The marriage of computerized data-collection and educational indoctrination continues to evolve, fulfilling the objectives of early leftists like Paul Popenoe, editor of old American Eugenics Society journal—and yes, that means just what you think it means—who wrote that “the educational system should be a sieve, through which all children are passed. It is very desirable,” he said, “that no child escape inspection.” The dots go back to education, folks. Young people have no idea how we got re-routed from the Founders’ original ideals. Most parents themselves couldn’t tell their kids how we got here—via movers and shakers like [list of names]. Hardly any school—public or private—covers these influential moguls. Yet, every one rejected traditional notions about right and wrong. Every one indicated that religious convictions are a sign of mental illness. Every one urged inspection of children and parents for signs of dogmatism, inflexibility and paranoia.” So, today we find ourselves falling into a trap of social coercion, where we must comply with ridiculous "vaccine" mandates or lose access to civilization. The fact is, however, they already knew which of us would resist because they have been tracking our beliefs, philosophies, and actions, all our lives, and storing it in the NSA's data centers, along with all of our communications. [18] It makes sense now why the US Post Office was recently deputized as watchers of our social media (publicly, at least; they've actually been monitoring us for decades). [23] “Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, New York City, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. In each of these cities, The Intercept has identified an AT&T facility containing networking equipment that transports large quantities of internet traffic across the United States and the world. A body of evidence – including classified NSA documents, public records, and interviews with several former AT&T employees – indicates that the buildings are central to an NSA spying initiative that has for years monitored billions of emails, phone calls, and online chats passing across U.S. territory.” Of course, that's without mentioning the roles of Google and Facebook, et al. [19] So, welcome to the "new normal." It's been a long time coming. UPDATE [2021-10-27]: “Once you support mandate for two doses, then you have to support for the booster, and then support 60 boosters, 199 boosters. It will be endless. And you’ll be tied into this [social] credit system you built. ~ Li-Meng Yan Vaccine Passports Will Usher in a Social Credit System Of course, the COVID shots and the vaccine passports also fit into the CCP agenda by making the whole world accept and adopt the CCP’s social control system. The vaccine passports are clearly designed to usher in a social credit system like they have in China. And with that, you get 24/7 digital surveillance and an unbelievable amount of control over every single person.” Read the full exposé here: Mercola: Chinese Defector Reveals COVID Origin [UPDATE 2021-11-01] “New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, when asked if New Zealand’s Covid policies will create a two-tiered society, with non-vaccinated citizens being denied rights, readily agreed with a smile and said, “that is what it is.” [24]” “Both the Senate and House versions of the Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services Appropriations bill remove the prohibition on the development of a “unique patient identifier.” The prohibition on funding for the unique patient identifier, which I [Ron Paul] sponsored, has been in place since 1998. The push to allow the government to force every American to obtain a unique patient identifier is being justified as a means to efficiently monitor Americans’ “contact and immunization” status. [25]” [UPDATE 2021-11-24] “…countries such as Israel and Austria are canceling “expired” vaccination cards and requiring citizens and visitors to receive booster shots to refresh their vaccination status so they can continue to live as part of society. [26]” “Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has warned that the Covid restrictions being imposed worldwide are an attempt by the New World Order to destroy democracy as we know it. [27]” [UPDATE 2021-12-01] “A new Digital Drivers License is currently in the works in Utah and other states. The program lists items that can be tracked or added later, and includes vaccine records, financial reports credit scores, travel records, taxes, spending, voting, sex offeder [sic] status, dietary preferences, licenses and permits, background checks, rewards programs and social credit scoring. This is the Chinese model for totalitarianism. [28]” “Melissa Ciummei, a financial investor from Northern Ireland, explained that vaccine passports, also called health passes, serve no purpose in promoting health, but are instead a tool for control. She warned that children are targeted for the purpose of indoctrination for the future. A digital ID is necessary to bring in central bank digital currency (CBDC) for totalitarian control, and vaccine passports are necessary to bring in digital ID. [29]” References/Further Reading: [1] "American Federation of Teachers Sells Out to Rockefellers, Trilateralists, and Big Tech." John Klyczek, Aug. 18, 2021. https://unlimitedhangout.com/2021/08/investigative-reports/american-federation-of-teachers-sells-out-to-rockefellers-trilateralists-and-big-tech [2] "NEA World Order" John Klyzcek, Sept. 27, 2021. https://unlimitedhangout.com/2021/09/investigative-reports/nea-world-order/ [3] "No Jabs, No Jobs: Employers Unrolling Vax Requirements, Antivax Surcharges." BIS Now, August 31, 2021. https://www.bisnow.com/national/news/top-talent/no-jabs-no-jobs-employers-unrolling-vax-requirements-antivax-surcharges-110034 [4] "Chicago-area theater companies to require proof of vax, negative COVID tests, masks." Chicago Sun-Times, Aug. 17, 2021. https://chicago.suntimes.com/2021/8/17/22628755/chicago-theaters-proof-of-vax-negative-covid-tests-masks [5] "German state allows ALL businesses to ban unvaxxed customers, even for groceries & other essentials." RT, Oct 16. 2021. https://www.rt.com/news/537644-hesse-bans-unvaxxed-supermarkets/ [6] "Vaccine should be mandatory for those receiving government healthcare, ABC News's Margaret Hoover says." Yahoo News, July 26, 2021. https://news.yahoo.com/vaccine-mandatory-those-receiving-government-184100345.html [7] "Eight Ways to Be a Good Citizen in the Time of Coronavirus." Rolling Stone, Mar. 19, 2020. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/civic-coronavirus-census-citizen-vote-968150/ [8] "The First Presidency and Apostles Over Age 70 Receive the COVID-19 Vaccine." Newsroom.churchofjesuschristoflatterdaysaints.org, Jan. 19, 2021. https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-leaders-covid-19-vaccine [9] "The Offspring Promote Vaccinations By Changing Lyrics To One Of Their Hits." iHeartRadio, Mar. 22, 2021. https://www.iheart.com/content/2021-03-22-the-offspring-promote-vaccinations-by-changing-lyrics-to-one-of-their-hits/ [10] "Celebrities Are Endorsing Covid Vaccines. Does It Help?" New York Times, May 1, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/01/health/vaccinated-celebrities.html [11] "Australia Covid news live: Victoria reveals extra freedom for fully vaccinated." News.com, Oct. 20, 2021. https://www.news.com.au/world/coronavirus/australia/australia-covid-news-live-cases-new-freedoms-and-vaccinations/news-story/993a8e60ce373f3acc616338ae976f8c [12] "CNN medical analyst suggests life 'needs to be hard' for unvaccinated Americans." Fox News, July 10, 2021. https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-medical-analyst-life-hard-unvaccinated [13] "Mandatory shots: Unvaccinated Australians likely to face reduction in freedoms." The New Daily, July 28, 2021. https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2021/07/28/covid-vaccine-mandatory/ [14] "US university announces it will fine, cut internet access to unvaccinated students." The Hill, Aug. 18, 2021. https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/568427-us-university-announces-it-will-fine-and-cut [15] "Canada’s Internment Camps: PM Trudeau Orders COVID Positive Canadians To Quarantine In Government Facilities." Freedom Wire, Apr. 2, 2021. https://freedomwire.com/canada-covid-internment-camps/ [16] Do you know what an I-9 form is? It's where the government "verifies" that you can get a job. Now, that doesn't play right into the oncoming control grid, does it? https://www.uscis.gov/i-9 [17] This article is currently behind a paywall at https://prorhetoric.com/. Contact us if you would like the full text of this speech. [18] "THE WIRETAP ROOMS: The NSA’s Hidden Spy Hubs in Eight U.S. Cities." The Intercept, June 25, 2018. https://theintercept.com/2018/06/25/att-internet-nsa-spy-hubs/ [19] "Social Engineering." Defending Idaho. https://defendingidaho.org/social_engineering [20] "Sesame Credit and the Social Compliance Gamification in China." Alessandro Vieira dos Reis and Livia Topper Press, 2019. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338140761_Sesame_Credit_and_the_Social_Compliance_Gamification_in_China [21] "An Introduction to the China Social Credit System." Drew Donnelly, Sep. 15, 2021. https://nhglobalpartners.com/china-social-credit-system-explained/ [22] "Sesame Credit: The Dark Side of Gamification." The Artifice, Jan. 22, 2016. https://the-artifice.com/sesame-credit-gamification/ [23] "Is the post office spying on you? USPS “covert operations” may monitor social media posts." Salon, April 21, 2021. https://www.salon.com/2021/04/21/is-the-post-office-spying-on-you-usps-covert-operations-may-monitor-social-media-posts/ [24] "New Zealand Prime Minister Agrees her COVID-19 Plan Will Create a 2-Tiered Society that Oppresses the Unvaccinated." Summit.news, Aug. 14, 2020. https://needtoknow.news/2021/10/new-zealand-prime-minister-agrees-her-covid-19-plan-will-create-a-2-tiered-society-that-oppresses-the-unvaccinated/ [25] "Resist the Unique Patient Identifier!" Ron Paul Institute, Nov. 1, 2021. http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2021/november/01/resist-the-unique-patient-identifier/ [26] "Countries Begin to Cancel Vaccine Passports for People Without Booster Shots" Need To Know News, Nov. 16, 2021. https://needtoknow.news/2021/11/countries-begin-to-cancel-vaccine-passports-for-people-without-booster-shots/ [27] "RFK Jr Warns The ‘New World Order’ COVID Censorship Is An ‘Attempt To Destroy Democracy As We Know It’" En-volve, Nov. 16, 2021. https://en-volve.com/2021/11/16/rfk-jr-warns-the-new-world-order-covid-censorship-is-an-attempt-to-destroy-democracy-as-we-know-it/ [28] "New Digital Driver’s License Set to Include Your Vaccine Status, Travel Records and Social Credit Score" Need To Know News, Nov. 4, 2021. https://needtoknow.news/2021/11/new-digital-drivers-license-set-to-include-your-vaccine-status-travel-records-and-social-credit-score/ [29] "Financial Expert Excoriates Vaccine Passports and Explains Why Controllers Are Targeting Children" Need To Know News, Nov. 30, 2021. https://needtoknow.news/2021/11/financial-expert-excoriates-vaccine-data-passports-and-explains-why-controllers-are-targeting-children
"Vaccine" Deaths Were Predicted A Year Ago!
Professor Dolores Cahill, professor at University College and former vice chair of the Scientific Committee of the Innovative Medicines Initiative, looked at the information available at this time last year, and was able to see what most were not: “…and what we do not want is that if there is significant deaths, let's say in February, March, April, next year, that that is called COVID-19 or COVID-21, that we will have to monitor if the people who are dying – and there is predictions, that's why they are having the tender for large amounts of adverse events from the vaccines – is that if there is increased deaths, it is well-known, and we don't want those deaths to be called COVID-19 or COVID-21. They are this issue about vaccines making people more sick and have a higher chance of death, not because of the circulating virus, but because of the vaccinations, weeks or months ahead [previous].” Watch the short video, above, and see for yourself! We also encourage you to visit her website for more videos and updates: https://dolorescahill.com/ References PROFESSOR DOLORES CAHILL: WHY PEOPLE WILL START DYING A FEW MONTHS AFTER THE FIRST MRNA VACCINATION https://www.brighteon.com/5599aab9-5c4e-4682-9a24-ebc40c66b70e Professor Dolores Cahill: People Will Start Dying After COVID Vaccine https://principia-scientific.com/professor-dolores-cahill-people-will-start-dying-after-covid-vaccine/
Jordan Peterson told to undergo social media ‘retraining’ to keep clinical psychology license
All Communist regimes have done this same thing. Why do others think it is a good idea now?