This blog is a tribute and memorial to the life of my dear friend, O. Jerome (Jed) Brown. The writings posted here are the articles that he published in his newsletter, The Traditional Educator. His theme was the art of teaching versus psychological conditioning, the nobility of the former and the wanton destructiveness of the latter.

Jed campaigned for the office of the Superintendent for Public Instruction in the State of Washington in 1992 and 1996. His platform was to return public education back to the traditional knowledge-based disciplines of learning; to save our school system, teachers, children, families and scociety from the disaster of the "education reform" mandated by HB 1209, our state's version of outcome based education.

In 1993 Jed led a group of concerned parents and teachers in an effort to repeal HB 1209. Had Referendum 47 succeeded, the disastrous WASL test requirement would never have seen the light of day.

In 1995 Jed researched, wrote and co-produced a 4-part video series, "The People vs The Educational Confederacy: Educational Restructuring on Trial" with Katie Levans of Tacoma, WA. If you want to know who is responsible for "education reform," this 2-hour video production lays it all out.

On September 6, 2009 Jed Brown passed away.

Please join me in "Remembering Jed."

1994 Maltby Meeting

Cursor down to the bottom of the page for six video clips of Jed's remarks addressing Education Reform legislation, Outcome-based Education, Behavioral Conditioning and Curriculum.

Saturday, December 26, 2009


by O. Jerome (Jed) Brown
August, 1995

The New International Political / Governmental Order finds its justification the principle of Social Darwinism. The principle is that that those who have amassed great material wealth have done so by virtue of the dubious assertion that they are higher on the evolutionary scale than we who are mere mortal men.
Combining Social Darwinism with the declaration of the German philosopher, Feuerbach, that “Man shall be god of Man.” the wealthiest among us, due to their good fortune, have declared themselves to be the gods over all. Enjoying their power, the downside to their self-determined deification is that they believe themselves obliged to order the world for those of us who are beneath their station. The French of old called it “Noblesse Oblige”, the obligation of the nobles.

It is this small group of elite that is bent on having a New World Order. It shall be the elites' New World Order and all people shall be their subjects. It is their government that shall control their New World Order. The United Nations, G-7 Leaders, Non-governmental Organizations and powerful CEOs who form the functional apparatus for the gods, shall carry out the noble obligation by establishing and maintaining the New International Economic, Social, Cultural, Moral and Educational Orders. They shall be installed as the Global Government that will be the controller of all people.

Therefore, people must be trained, from an early age, in what is expected of the “good” Global Citizen. The schools must condition the people of the future to willingly accept life under global domination. Therefore, the school program must be restructured to indoctrinate children with the ideals of Global Citizenship. As shown on the graphic on page 1, the segment of the school program model, consistent with the New International Political / Governmental Order, is organized around the Complex Life Role of Citizen, as developed by William Spady. The program determinants for the Organizer of Citizen are Globalism, Democratic Centralism and Personal Responsibility. As these determinants are analyzed in regard to the specific frameworks included under each, two things will become apparent. First, it becomes evident that both democrats and republicans are pushing the globalist agenda. Second, it will show the reason William Spady stated in a 1993 interview (“What Did You Do In School Today?” broadcast by Oklahoma City News Channel 4 ) that he has no idea what the term “patriotism” means.

As it has been determined by the elite that there shall be a New World Order, and as it has been further determined that, within this New World Order, national sovereignty would be a detriment to world peace, the focal point of the school program for the New International Political / Governmental Order is the determinant of Globalism.

Globalism is the concept of uniting all countries of the globe into a single entity; it assures that the New World Order shall be a One World Order. Thus, the Frameworks for the school program that are established under Globalism give way to activities and processes designed to stimulate a global mindset in children. The Frameworks are Global Family, Interdependence, World Problems and World Peace.

Perhaps the most obvious home for these Frameworks is in the area of Social Studies. History is a prime place to look. In the UNESCO publication. Foundations of Lifelong Education (Page 124)(  Foundations of Lifelong Learning,) speaking to the use of History for the inculcation of the global mindset, it is written that:

“Lifelong education will not be limited to the present formal division of knowledge into a number of disciplines. It will rely more and more on the solutions of real problems, the understanding of complex and changing situations and the creation of new ideas and relationships relevant to the needs and preoccupations of the life-span.”

Thus, by concentrating on a particular set of world problems, such as pollution, overpopulation, starvation, governmental systems or war, it is possible to incorporate the idea of interdependence as a member of the global family in the name of world peace.

Often, the Frameworks of Globalism are obscured within the integrated activities and processes that expand history to complement the conditioning of behaviors that are congruent to the Social, Cultural and Moral Orders. Again, according to Foundations of Lifelong Education, (UNESCO, 1976, Page 119):

AS R. F. Wall has written, in taking a world view, “history becomes not a study of facts, but a study of interrelationships: cultural, social and commercial, as well as diplomatic and religious.” Indeed, the problem of world history can only be solved by breaking into a new dimension and adopting a global instead of a national or local approach. This is best achieved by a comparative study of the institutions, habits, ideas, beliefs and assumptions of men in all times and places. The stuff of world history is the perennial problems that confront all societies and civilizations. But we have to go a long way to give world history the unity, coherence and meaning undoubtedly required by an emerging global order.”

The reader should note that R.F. Wall's sentiment as quoted by UNESCO, speaks not only to the integration, within the subject of work history, of all of the Sources shown in the Program Model, but also the shift to teaching cultural rather than factual history. This shift may be seen in the textbooks being used today in classrooms across the country.

Often the global mindset results from the negative treatment of nationalism as much as it does from the presentation of world problem solving or cultural history. Geography has been specifically mentioned by UNESCO in the book, Towards World Understanding, for the purpose of rooting out the “poison of nationalism.” An example of the negative treatment of traditional national pride is found in the recently rejected national standards for Social Studies. If such standards are eventually put in place, it will be virtually impossible for a child to complete the school years with a sense of national honor. Further, this anti-nationalistic view is seen from the perspective of UNESCO's Life-long Education in the recent attempt to portray the United States as evil for the dropping of the atomic bombs that ended the carnage of World War II in the Pacific Theater. The anti-national bias, coupled with the lessons on world-mindedness, conditions the individual to accept his role as a Global Citizen.

The second determinant of the school program for the global citizen is Democratic Centralism. To explain this concept it is perhaps best to quote directly from Webster's Third New International Dictionary:

DEMOCRATIC CENTRALISM is “a communist system or principle of hierarchic organization that seeks to combine democratic participation of the rank and file in the discussion of policy and the election of officers and of delegates to the next higher unit with strict obedience by the members and lower bodies to the decisions of the higher units and with absolute authority resident in fact a the apex of the hierarchic structure and strict discipline being enforced.”

The Frameworks for the school program that fall under Democratic Centralism are Participatory Democracy, Ad Hoc Decisions, Humanist Justification and Submission to Authority.

As is evident by the foregoing definition, the cornerstone of Democratic Centralism is participation. Therefore, Participatory Democracy is fundamental to this determinant. Although the word, “Democracy” tugs at the heartstrings of every true-blue American, this framework is quite different and engenders the ideals of the Communist Party. It my be helpful to once again consult Webster's Third New International Dictionary:

PARTICIPATION is defined as an “association with others in a relationship (as a partnership) or an enterprise, usually on a formal basis, with specified rights and responsibilities.

Within Democratic Centralism, participation is mandatory!!! There are FORMAL rights and RESPONSIBILITIES. Our democracy, on the other hand, is a representative form of government, not participatory. Although participation in government may be desirable and the Constitution of the United States of America does guarantee each citizen's right to participate, nowhere does that Constitution enumerate a citizen's RESPONSIBILITY to do so; nowhere is participation mandated. In fact, one of the liberties we have is the liberty to participate.

Nevertheless, the framework of Participatory Democracy includes activities and processes that shift children away from the ideas of representative democracy and majority rule, upon which this country was founded, to the subtle emphasis at an early age on full individual participation in civic and cultural life. Children, with the guidance of a facilitator, must now participate in designing their own school program. Mandatory participation in social or community service is a part of the program in a growing number of schools. Children are “encouraged” to participate in recycling programs as a matter of “civic duty.” Perhaps the most striking example is that of illegally having children participate in electioneering during campaign season.

The lifelong aspect of this Framework may be seen in parental involvement programs, as parents are being required to participate in the education of their children. These programs formalize parental involvement and grade parents on participation with a “parent report card.” Parents are not the only partners in the education of their children. In the spirit of Democratic Centralism, the “whole village” must participate in Life-long, Life-wide fashion - - School/Business Partnerships, Community/School Partnerships - -Partnerships imply a contract - - A contract places restrictions on liberty - - PARTICIPATE OR ELSE!

Adjunct to participation is the Framework of Ad Hoc Decisions. In conjunction with the HOTS (higher order thinking skills) of the Educational Order and the Vocational Pathways of the Economic Order, the tenets of Democratic Centralism call for decisions to be made, issue by issue, without consideration of their wider application. Beginning in school and continuing life long, participation is carefully choreographed, restricted to emotional, or hot-button issues that are open to facilitation by group leaders. Aligned with Moral Reasoning within the Moral Order, the results of participatory decision-making are only valid if they can be justified by humanist standards. Thus, a decision made by any child in the school setting is considered to be invalid if it is made on the basis of any religious-based value structure.

Finally, there is the framework of Submission the Authority. Through Character Education, conservatives are now promoting the value of “Respect for Authority.” Although “respect” is, for the most part, a prerequisite for “Submission,” no doubt conservatives would claim that the two are mutually exclusive. Nevertheless, it is the term “Authority” that should raise concern. Authority by what standards, by whose definition? If the standard is to be Scientific Humanism, Feuerbach's standard that “man shall be god of man,” perhaps respect of authority is not a value to be taught.

Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and Chairman Mao all had authority, but did they deserve the blind respect of children? Is respect to be given so cheaply? Does not authority have to DESERVE respect? If this is not the case, then is there not a very real danger that submission will be the sad and end result? Our founding fathers had no respect for the authority of King George. They threw his tea overboard, declaring his authority to be corrupt and forming a new nation based on the concept of limited authority. Is the “respect for authority” of Character Education teaching the necessary discernment and balance? If it teaches the authority of the Constitution, it leads to be preservation of liberty. If it teaches an authority of humanist justification, it leads to the tyranny of submission required by the totalitarianism of Democratic Centralism.

The third Determinant of the school program for the New International Political/Governmental Order is Personal Responsibility. Although the development of personal responsibility sounds like a reasonable thing to include in a school program, once again, it is a matter of definition. Personal Responsibility within the restructured school program is quite different from that which traditional schools have engendered. Notice that the phrase “Personal Responsibility” has no object. The question must be raised, “For what will a child be personally responsible?” When combined with the other determinants for the Citizen Organizer, the child is conditioned to believe that he is personally responsible for the Global Family and a Global Agenda.

The first Framework under Personal Responsibility is Rights and Duties. The rights that comprise the first half of this Framework are not the unalienable rights so eloquently spoken of in the Declaration of Independence. Rather, they are the rights bestowed upon men, by men, through the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These rights of the global citizen, not being unalienable, can be altered or revoked at any time, depending upon the changes in the United Nations' Declaration or the addendum of treaties – not unlike the treaties of the past, signed by this country with the great Indian Nations.

Further, there is but one Duty of Citizenship spoken of in our Declaration of Independence. “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” Unfortunately, this is not the duty to be fostered by this Framework. Quite the opposite, the duties of the global citizen are those formalized behaviors that form the parameters of participation required by Democratic Centralism. Thus, the activities and processes of the Rights and Duties Framework condition the child to trade duty to God, Family and Country for duty to Self, Community and the Global Village.

The second Framework under Personal Responsibility is Moral Commitment. Here again, it is a matter of missing the object in the phrase. To what shall children be morally committed? Further, on what moral authority is commitment to be based? When taken in conjunction with the other Frameworks, the answer to the first question becomes obvious. Children are to be conditioned to be morally committed to the global agenda. Given that moral reasoning within the New World Order is to be based upon a Humanist justification, the answer to the second questions is also self-evident. The moral authority is Scientific Humanism. Thus, the activities and processes that flow from this framework develop children who turn from the traditional commitments to those that under-gird citizenship within the emerging global society.

In contrast to this Framework of the new school program, traditional schools have not taught “Personal Responsibility.” They have attempted to teach each child to be “responsible for his personal behavior.” Again notice that in this phrase the object is clear. The child is to be responsible for his behavior, not the Global Agenda. Given a traditional knowledge-based educational system, this concept of “responsibility for personal behavior” is not specifically included in the curriculum, in that it is a behavior pattern rather than a subject area within the disciplines of knowledge. Responsible patterns of personal behavior are rightfully developed, not through specific curricula, but through the ordinary course of maintaining discipline in the classroom. The assignment of homework, the requirement that assignments be turned in on time, the adherence to civil rules of conduct, and other classroom management criteria give students an understanding of responsible behavior and, thus, form in the child the real ideals of good citizenship.

The activities and processes of the school program for the New International Political/Governmental Order are designed to condition children to reject a national view and, based on Scientific Humanism, accept a new moral commitment to a Global Village ruled by Democratic Centralism. They shall be the Quintessential Global Citizens.

How do you suppose Patrick Henry would have responded if his child had been subjected to such a program?

No comments:

Post a Comment