Parents Take Warning: A Generation Of Child Web Addicts

The natural  human inclination toward addiction is bad enough, but YouTube’s algorithms purposely lead youth to inappropriate and disturbing material that should not be impressed on young minds. If you have children or grandchildren, this is a must-read article. ⁃ TN Editor

Children have become such screen addicts they are abandoning their friends and hobbies, a major report warns today.

Researchers found under-fives spend an hour and 16 minutes a day online. Their screen time rises to four hours and 16 minutes when gaming and television are included.

Youngsters aged 12 to 15 average nearly three hours a day on the web – plus two more hours watching TV. The study said YouTube was ‘a near permanent feature’ of many young lives, and seven in ten of those aged 12 to 15 took smartphones to bed.

It concluded: ‘Children were watching people on YouTube pursuing hobbies that they did not do themselves or had recently given up offline.’

A growing number of parents admitted to researchers that they had lost control of their children’s online habits.

Campaigners described the report from media watchdog Ofcom as frightening.

‘In the early years, children need interaction with other people, and play – it is key to their social skills,’ said Sue Palmer of the group Toxic Childhood.

‘If that doesn’t happen when they are small, I don’t know where it leads. There is the screen time itself, and then there is what the screen time is displacing.’

The annual report, which was based on 2,000 interviews, also revealed that:

  • Children aged five to 15 spend 20 minutes more online a day than watching TV;
  • One in five pre-schoolers and two fifths of five- to eight-year-olds have an iPad or tablet device;
  • A fifth of children aged eight to 12 are on social media – despite a supposed ban on under-13s;
  • Nearly one in five children aged 12 to 16 have accidentally spent money online.

Children aged three and four still watch more television than online videos, but their TV consumption is shrinking whilst their time online is rocketing.

Many flock to YouTube and spend hours watching child-friendly videos such as how to make slime or draw animals. Others seek out ‘unboxing’ videos in which YouTube stars unwrap new products.

Some youngsters are becoming so obsessed with YouTube celebrities that they idolise them as role models, the Ofcom report said.

Some upload videos of their own, hoping to make a career for themselves. Disturbingly, many watch the lifestyle ‘vloggers’ pursuing hobbies and interacting with friends instead of doing so themselves.

Read full story here…




Made In USA: Chinese Schools Scanning Kid’s Brains For Attention

Technocrat engineers are attempting to disrupt education by measuring student attention/focus and giving ‘teachers’ a window into the mind.  Not surprisingly, China jumped at the opportunity for mass testing on 1.2 million students. ⁃ TN Editor
 

US-made devices could be used to collect data on 1.2m pupils in China.

Headbands that monitor concentration by reading brain signals have been trialled on thousands of Chinese schoolchildren.

The devices could soon be used on millions of students across China, according to the US tech company which designed them.

Massachusetts-based start-up BrainCo says its Focus 1 headbands can help teachers identify pupils who need extra assistance.

However, neuroscientists have questioned the devices’ effectiveness and the technology has also raised privacy concerns.

The headbands use electroencephalography (EEG) sensors to detect brain activity when the wearer is engaged in a task.

The devices were worn by 10,000 schoolchildren aged between 10 and 17 during a recent trial in China, according to New Scientist.

Teachers monitored pupils’ attention using an app which received information from the headbands. Lights on the front of the devices also show different colours for varying concentration levels, flagging to staff if students are not paying attention.

Students also played a smartphone game aimed at improving their concentration for 25 minutes at home each day.

Read full story here…




Weaponizing Child Protective Services To Enforce Adherence to Public Education

Public schools teach government propaganda, conditioning students to be good global citizens without questioning the rhetoric. When home schooling fails to teach the same propaganda, the state moves to force them back into public schools. Such persecution of home school parents is seen in virtually every nation on earth. ⁃ TN Editor

Schooling is adept at rooting out individuality and enforcing compliance. In his book, Understanding Power, Noam Chomsky writes: “In fact, the whole educational and professional training system is a very elaborate filter, which just weeds out people who are too independent, and who think for themselves, and who don’t know how to be submissive, and so on—because they’re dysfunctional to the institutions.”

This filtering process begins very early in a child’s schooling as conformity is rewarded and divergence is punished.

Public Schooling Breeds Obedience

Parents are increasingly required to obey, to conform to a school’s demands even if they believe such orders may not be appropriate for their child.

Most of us played this game as schoolchildren. We know the rules. The kids who raise their hands, color in the lines, and obey succeed; the kids who challenge the rules struggle. The problem now is that the rules are extending beyond the classroom. Parents are increasingly required to obey, to conform to a school’s demands even if they believe such orders may not be appropriate for their child.

In my advocacy work with homeschooling families across the country, I frequently hear stories from parents who decided to homeschool their kids because schools were pressuring them to comply with various special education plans, push medications onto their children, or submit to other restrictive procedures they felt were not in their child’s best interest. Even more heartbreaking is the growing trend of school officials to unleash child protective services (CPS) on parents, homeschooling or not, who refuse to give in to a district’s demands.

Weaponizing Child Protective Services

An investigative report by The Hechinger Report and HuffPost released last month revealed that schools are increasingly using child protective services as a “weapon” against parents. It said:

Fed up with what they see as obstinate parents who don’t agree to special education services for their child, or disruptive kids who make learning difficult, schools sometimes use the threat of a child-protection investigation to strong-arm parents into complying with the school’s wishes or transferring their children to a new school. That approach is not only improper, but it can be devastating for families, even if the allegations are ultimately determined to be unfounded.

More troubling, these threats disproportionately target low-income and minority parents. According to the report:

Such families also have fewer resources to fight back. When a family in a wealthy Brooklyn neighborhood learned roughly two years ago that their child’s school had initiated an ACS [New York’s Administration for Children’s Services] investigation against them, they sued the city education department. Parents from lower-income, majority-black and Latino neighborhoods, few of whom can afford that option, say such investigations can be a regular, even expected, part of parenting.

Bullying Proactive Parents

For parents who are unhappy with their child’s school and decide to withdraw their child for homeschooling, threats of child welfare investigations can sometimes turn to actions. In Massachusetts, a mother is reportedly suing the Worcester Public Schools after school officials called the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (DCF) on her for alleged “educational neglect,” even though the mother contends that she dutifully filed her homeschooling paperwork for her eight-year-old son mid-year.

Read full story here…




Rise Of The Machines: Automation Reshapes Job Markets

When the UN SDGs promise “lifelong learning experiences”, it means you will have to reinvent yourself multiple times in your lifetime in order to stay working. Your alternative will be to fall into a new class cynically called the “unemployables”.  ⁃ TN Editor

Looking at a map of California on a projector screen, Johannes Moenius, an economics professor at the University of Redlands, hovered his mouse over the Inland Empire, which glowed with a splotch of red pixels.

The colored dots signified how susceptible an area would be to job losses caused by automation. And the alarm-bell red that covered Riverside, San Bernardino and Ontario signaled high risk — roughly 63 percent of tasks performed by workers in the area could be automated in the future.

To Moenius, the rise of robots in warehouses, factories and fast-food restaurants presents danger for places like the Inland Empire, where most residents work in logistics and the service industry and just 21 percent of adults have four-year degrees. As technology transforms the nature of work in California, how do people most at risk find their way to new jobs?

“We’re facing a major challenge,” Moenius said. “If we don’t do anything, then it will turn into an apocalypse.”

Whether confronting an increasingly automated labor market or grappling with how the gig economy is reshaping the relationship between companies and their workers, California’s next governor will have to address the changing nature of work.

That could mean rethinking how to educate Californians, remaking labor laws or considering major social safety net proposals such as a universal basic income. State government might not be able to control change in the workplace, but it will have to deal with the fallout.

The coming years “will make or break California,” said Eloy Ortiz Oakley, chancellor of the state’s community college system.

“If we don’t find a way to provide the skills and education and training necessary for the majority of Californians,” he said, “there’s going to be a lot more have-nots than we have today.”

California’s economy is booming. Its 4.2 percent unemployment rate is a record low. But experts warn the state’s labor market is particularly vulnerable to disruption from widespread automation.

“We are seeing a pretty high percentage of our workforce in relatively low-paying, low-skilled jobs,” said Somjita Mitra, director of the Institute of Applied Economics at the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp.

Since the 2007-09 recession, the prospect of getting a well-paying job with just a high school diploma is dim.

“The challenge in the economy right now is that the kind of jobs that are being created are either at the lowest wages or the very highest wages,” Oakley said.

The rise of automation has sparked considerable angst among American workers. A 2017 Pew poll found that 72 percent of adults said they were worried about a future where robots and computers can perform human jobs.

But there’s no consensus on what the future will look like. One 2013 study, which Moenius used to build his analysis, estimated that 47 percent of American jobs were at risk of being automated. A 2016 paper put that figure at only 9 percent.

A study in 2017 posited that 23 percent to 44 percent of work hours in the United States will be automated by 2030 — particularly in jobs with a high degree of repetition such as machinists, office support and retail sales. But that study also said jobs would be added, especially among care providers such as surgeons, nurses, and construction workers.

Artificial intelligence — computers performing tasks typically done by humans — takes many forms. Computer vision, which allows machines to glean information visually, can be used in agriculture to give crops water and pesticides based on a plant’s needs.

Virtual assistants such as Siri or Alexa are being used in hotels, standing in for concierges or front desk assistants. Self-driving vehicles could upend the country’s transportation and logistics sectors, but it’s not clear how quickly those cars and trucks will be widely deployed.

“Depending on who you talk to, that’s a couple of years away or 30 years away,” said Stephen Baiter, executive director of the Oakland Workforce Development Board.

It’s one thing for a technological breakthrough to be invented, and it’s another to see businesses adopt that technology on a large scale. Experts predict that the impact on jobs will not be sudden, but more like a rolling wave.

The level of upheaval could vary by region. Moenius’ research found the Bay Area — home to Silicon Valley and highly educated workers — faces relatively low risk of job loss. The threat is higher in Fresno and Orange County.

But the area most susceptible to automation in California spans Riverside, San Bernardino and Ontario. According to Moenius, it is the fourth-most vulnerable metropolitan area in the nation, just behind other service-industry-heavy cities such as Las Vegas.

During World War II, the Inland Empire city of Fontana was home to Kaiser Steel, the Pacific Coast’s first steel mill, and was a crucial cog in the state’s vast shipbuilding industry.

But the steel jobs had withered by the 1980s — Fontana, like the rest of the region, became a bedroom community outside Los Angeles. It clawed its way back from the recession due in large part to warehouse and logistics jobs, and the service industry.

Now, on the campus of California Steel Industries Inc., the successor to Kaiser Steel, the Inland Empire is trying to reinvent itself again.

The Chaffey College Industrial Technical Learning Center, or InTech, is touted as the first public-private partnership in the state community college system. Originally envisioned as a place where companies could train workers for more advanced jobs, the program’s participants are now primarily unemployed or underemployed workers.

Training programs range from basic construction to more advanced skills like computer numerical control, which enables automated operation of machines. The center is run by local community colleges, but participants don’t earn college credits. Instead, they receive certifications based on input from local industry partners.

“Everything we do is designed by industry, for industry,” said Sandra Sisco, the center’s director.

Read full story here…




Technocratic Corporatocracy Hijacks Public Schools For Profit

In 1934, Technocracy, Inc. stated that: “A continental system of human conditioning will have to be installed to replace the existing insufficient educational methods and institutions.“ Today’s education usurpers are still bent on ‘human conditioning.” ⁃ TN Editor

Imagine if everything about you was on a giant billboard and you could see who was buying information about you and making lists. That is exactly what is happening without your knowledge or consent each time you use the Internet. Everything a user does online is tracked and monetized — Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, apps — they all collect your data. A provider of computer-run education programs has admitted that they share the data they gather with 18 “partners.” Invisible analytics, profiling, sharing or selling of data collected without consent or knowledge makes every Internet user vulnerable to manipulation and control, ending personal privacy and sovereignty.

The process works like this: new data are collected covertly through apps; the collected data is transferred to data brokers who access the new data and combine it with existing data about an individual using nontransparent algorithms. The algorithms create a very detailed profile of individual users; vendors are sold access to the profiles and target individuals based on profile analyses. Google is by far the most used third party analytics tracker and makes 90% of itsrevenue tracking user searches. In attached bibliography includes multiple examples of how the tech industry not only sells data, but sells data collection programs and devices to measure behaviors and infer emotions and thoughts.

The documentary, The Creepy Line, explains how tech giants use algorithms to shape behavior and shape thoughts. Google used algorithms to influence voter behavior in the 2016 presidential election In a recently leaked video of a Google company meeting conducted shortly after that election, one employee asked if Google is willing to “invest in grassroots, hyper-local efforts to bring tools and services and understanding of Google products and knowledge so that people can “make informed decisions that are best for themselves.” Google CEO Sundar Pichai responded that Google will ensure its “educational products” reach “segments of the population [they] are not [currently] fully reaching.” Apparently, Google will ensure that Google Chromebooks and the Google manipulated search engine will be standard “education” materials in American schools so that students can make Google informed decisions.

Tracking and “Educating” Children

Schools funded with tax dollars allow the tech industry to collect billions of student data points about every aspect of every student using school issued personal devices by mandating students complete assignments using online tools and apps for classwork and homework on these devices. The data are used to build comprehensive profiles on each student. Every state has a database and students’ personal data can be shared with researchers and companies. Google launched a public relations campaign, Be Internet Awesome, that includes a curriculum and online game for Chromebooks, to promote itself as a “good” company; but a critical analysis of Be Internet Awesome concluded,

. . ., the program’s conceptualization of Internet safety omits key considerations. Specifically, it does not acknowledge the role of companies in keeping data and personal information secure. Instead, its focus on user-centered strategies obscures the degree to which users are often powerless when it comes to controlling how their personal data is used. [It] generally presents Google as impartial and trustworthy, which is especially problematic given that the target audience is impressionable youth. 

Transporting human beings without their consent for exploitation is human trafficking. Transporting human beings’ private data without their knowledge or consent is human data trafficking. Transporting children’s private data by collecting it in compulsory schools without parent knowledge or consent to exploit them in the data market is nothing less than institutional child data trafficking.

Failure of Government

Existing federal laws are inadequate for protecting student data privacy. FERPA generally does not apply to online data collection and FERPA was changed by executive rule in 2011, removing parental consent for data collection. FERPA now allows companies (such as Google) to be declared a “school official,” giving them access to student data on par with professionals who have a “need to know” to provide appropriate services to students. HIPPA does not apply to student records. COPPA does not generally apply to schools, and COPPA is rarely enforced even when complaints have been filed, and we know thousands of Android apps are improperly tracking children. There is no federal law regulating companies’ use of online student data.

The FBI recently issued a warning about privacy and security risks of educational technology and the U.S. Department of Education issued guidance that schools should not force parents to consent to third party terms of service. Yet, parents are told they cannot attend the school if they don’t allow their child to have a fill in the blank edtech app or program (e.g., Naviance, or NWEA, or Google Gsuite account). EdTech people say education is the most datamineable industry by farand we know now that students’ social-emotional data is the new goldmine despite the pseudo-science propping up social-emotional learning. The West Virginia teachers strike in Spring 2018 was in part sparked because, among other reasons, teachers were being forced to download Go365, a wellness and rewards app which would track their steps and other health data. Teachers were required to upload a variety of personal health information into the app and saw the program as an invasion of personal privacy

Google’s money wields an enormous amount of influence on U.S. education policy. Under the Obama Administration Google’s lobbyists had essentially unrestricted visits to the White House . A shocking number of White House officials now work for Google or vice versa. The U.S. Department of Education was heavily populated with former employees of organizations associated with Bill Gates, also advocating for computer-administered education. We know tech firms including Google have recently been lobbying the White House for a new federal privacy lawon their own terms; Google even provided their own framework for a favorable privacy bill that does not include opt-in consent. It is time for Congress and states to kick the fox out of the henhouse — reject corporatocracy and restore our Constitutional democracy.

Responsibility of Government

U.S. citizens are protected from the government’s invasion of privacy and from property theft. They must also be protected from corporations’ invasion of privacy and theft of their electronically created property. Sovereign citizens cannot be coerced into giving their data or penalized/denied public education services for not consenting to sharing their data. Given that the infrastructure has already been built, Congress must adopt strong privacy laws at least as stringent as the European Union’s global data standards established in its General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The FTC should be given rule-making authority and resources to investigate and directly prosecute violations; but by no means should Congress abdicate its responsibility to protect the general welfare of the Americans and allow Silicon Valley to dictate to Congress or the FTC.

Read full story here…




Political Correctness Serves The Arsenal Of Sustainable Development

The influence of historic Technocracy in American education is profound. Basically, they reasoned that education is nothing more than human conditioning used to mold young minds to the needs of the collective. ⁃ TN Editor

“At its worst, political correctness is nothing different from Orwell’s Newspeak – an attempt to change the way people think by forcibly changing the way they speak.” – Urban Dictionary

“Every child in America entering school at the age of five is mentally ill because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our founding fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It’s up to you as teachers to make all these sick children well by creating the international child of the future.”  –  Chester M. Pierce, Harvard psychiatrist, speaking as an expert in public education at the 1973 International Education Seminar.

The “Dear Hillary” letter, written on Nov. 11, 1992 by Marc Tucker, president of the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE), lays out a plan “to remold the entire American system” into “a seamless web that literally extends from cradle to grave and is the same system for everyone,” coordinated by “a system of labor market boards at the local, state and federal levels” where curriculum and “job matching” will be handled by counselors “accessing the integrated computer-based program.”

Tucker’s plan would change the mission of the schools from teaching children academic basics and knowledge to training them to serve the global economy in jobs selected by workforce boards. Nothing in this comprehensive plan has anything to do with teaching schoolchildren how to read, write, or calculate.

Twenty-seven or eight years ago, I was interviewed by a reporter at the Sacramento Bee about my articles challenging the thinking of animal rights. The reporter said to me, “But they are politically correct and you are not.” I agreed, saying that if anyone ever called me politically correct, it would be time to slit my throat.

Why do I bring this up now? Back then I didn’t realize where p.c. was going; now it is full-force tyranny. Am I exaggerating? Few people who do not back socialist-leaning thought are allowed to speak on our campuses of ‘higher learning’, many sporting bumper stickers pro Trump or Christianity or pro life have their cars keyed or spray painted. You don’t hear about that happening when one has a coexist bumper sticker.

Political Correctness has become a tool, one of many in the arsenal of global tyranny. It is a tool that could not have been used 40 or 50 years ago; most people still had rational, thinking brains. Since my interview with the Sacramento Bee, the road to hell – or global government – or the death of Western Culture — has gotten so steep we may not be able to stop it or even slow it down.

Do I exaggerate? You tell me. Besides that loss of free speech on college campuses, we have social justice dictating what can, can’t, and must be done. Many campuses require you to intuit someone’s arbitrary choice of gender so that you may properly address them (it would take a perfect clairvoyant to achieve this). Let’s move on to the important stuff – academic learning, or the lack thereof.

College students used to take a liberal arts degree in their undergraduate work to give them a well-rounded base. Now that and most other true academic learning has been ditched for social justice studies, sustainable studies, gaming studies – anything that is anti Western Culture, anything that makes one unemployable, anything that dumbs down the next generations.

Textbooks are full of misinformation, propaganda and lies. Classic literature is banned for using outdated words. Books are ignored or shunned for promoting morality, literacy, reason, common sense, and civility. And while our institutes of higher learning preach, “question authority”, they don’t actually teach questioning anything but Western Culture and its values. They certainly don’t teach students to question the professors’ authority. No longer do students debate tough issues; no one wants to take the side of the non-politically correct.

How did we get from the Declaration of Independence to the State of Political Correctness? One major contributor was the book, The Ideal Communist City, (a design for No Child Left Behind, Common Core and all the other aliases of behavior modification of children) said here in public education, “The best opportunity for contact among children of preschool age occurs in the nursery, which is the best setting for developing the child’s imitative powers and individual activities. He expresses his inclinations most freely here, and his egocentricity is least harmfully repressed. The positive value of group activity, of course, is fully realized only when it is organized and directed by educators who have benefited from advanced social training.”

Or look at this from the BSTEP program our government (Department of Health, Education, and Welfare) hired Michigan State University to design. “A small elite will carry society’s burdens. The resulting impersonal manipulation of most people’s life styles will be softened by provisions for pleasure seeking and guaranteed physical necessities. Participatory democracy in the American-ideal mold will mainly disappear. The worth and dignity of individuals will be endangered on every hand. Only exceptional individuals will be able to maintain a sense of worth and dignity.”

Let’s not overlook UNESCO, here, “As long as a child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism, education in world-mindedness (one-world order) can produce only precarious results. As we have pointed out, it is frequently the family that infects the child with extreme nationalism. The school should therefore use the means described earlier to combat family attitudes that favor jingoism (nationalism). We shall presently recognize in nationalism the major obstacle to development of world-mindedness.” UNESCO publication #356, “In the Classroom: Toward World Understanding”

It took only about half the lifetime of our country to get us here.

In 1918, Mary Parker Follett wrote, in The New State, group organization – the solution of popular government, “The training for the new democracy must be from the cradle – through nursery, school and play, and on and on through every activity of our life. Citizenship is not to be learned in good government classes or current events courses or lessons in civics. It is to be acquired through those modes of living and acting which shall teach us how to grow the social consciousness. This should be the object of all day school education, of all night school education, of all our supervised recreation, of all our family life, of our club life, of our civic life.

“When we change ideas of the relation of the individual to society, our whole system of education changes. What we want to teach is interdependence, that efficiency waits on discipline, that discipline is obedience to the whole of which I am a part.. . . when we know how to teach social discipline, then we shall know how to ‘teach school.’ The object of education is to fit children into the life of the community.” P.363

So, according to Follett, our lives must focus completely on losing our individual rights and work to subordinate any freedoms we might consider to the cosmic one-ness, the group. The thought of that (if there are thinking minds left) would drive most of us to suicide.

John Dewey, the reformer of the education system, said, “I believe that the school is primarily a social institution. Education being a social process, the school is simply that form of community life in which all those agencies are concentrated that will be most effective in bringing the child to share in the inherited resources of the race, and to use his own powers for social ends. I believe that education, therefore, is a process of living and not a preparation for future living.”

“Humanist Manifesto” (1933) co-author Dewey calls for a synthesizing of all religions and “a socialized and cooperative economic order.” (Deanna Spingola, The New World Order, Programming the Masses)

America cannot last under this. Our country is based on Western Culture, Judeo/Christian Values, the Rule of Law, and other rational, reasoning social institutions. As we eradicate morality, common sense, values, attitudes, and beliefs, we become no different than the animals. Look at Venezuela. Do we want that at a magnitude of the nth degree? If not, now is the time to wake up, stand up, and speak out. We don’t have much time left. Look at the streets of San Francisco, Chicago, Nashville, New York, Los Angeles. Is this what we want to call our civilization?

Read full story here…




Education Secretary DeVos Signs On To Globalist UN Education Agenda For U.S.

Technocracy’s reach into the Trump Administration is deep and wide. The promise of dumping Common Core Education Standards and returning control to the states, has been abandoned in favor of piping directly into the United Nations globalist agenda, which is Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy. ⁃ TN Editor

U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos signed on to a radical global “declaration” that calls for, among other absurdities, brainwashing children to believe in the United Nations-backed ideology of total government known as “‘sustainable development.” In fact, the pseudo-treaty inked by Trump’s education chief suggests that the purpose of schooling is to indoctrinate children with the right “values” and teach them to be obedient worker drones.

Under the un-American vision agreed to last week in Argentina, the governments purported to commit their nations to globalized brainwashing under the guise of “education.” To be clear, this is a dangerous policy document that, if implemented, will contribute to finalizing the destruction of traditional education in America and replacing it with a total indoctrination program aligned with the systems of some of the world’s most murderous autocracies. Americans should be outraged.

The declaration, produced at the first ever “Education Working Group” of the Group of 20 (G20) network of governments and dictatorships, was titled “‘Building consensus for fair and sustainable development.” How free nations can build “consensus” on “education” with murderous Islamist and Communist regimes that indoctrinate all children under their rule with evil ideologies of oppression was not made clear.

The whole education vision signed by the 20 governments and tyrants revolves around the United Nations Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. This extremist document, which demands national and international wealth redistribution as well as brainwashing of all children, is basically a road-map to global totalitarianism. It was literally developed by mass-murdering dictatorships. But it has never ratified by the U.S. Senate, as required by the Constitution of treaties.

The G20 education document is wild in terms of what it openly promotes. “Education is the foundation of personal development as it provides children, youth and adults with the knowledge, skills, values and attitudes necessary to reach their full potential,” declared the education ministers (emphasis added), including some whose regimes torture and slaughter opponents of communism or sharia law.

They also demanded more data-gathering and -mining. “We recognize the value of policies based on evidence and the importance of having robust and comprehensive learning assessment systems and data in order to measure progress and learning outcomes, to help ensure quality education for all at all stages of life,” the document says, one of many references to government-provided “education” from cradle to grave informed by perpetual, Orwellian vacuuming up of student data.

The agreement also demands further globalization of education, a process that has been underway for many years. For instance, it calls for “international investment in education,” a theme consistent with the ongoing globalization of education under the UN’s extremist “education” agency known as UNESCO. “We acknowledge the role of existing and potential international mechanisms for financing education,” the document continues.

They also vowed to push it further. “We commit to strengthening international cooperation… and developing joint initiatives at bilateral, regional and multilateral levels,” the mostly unelected education czars said. In fact, the document goes on to say it explicitly: “We commit to facilitating the internationalization of education.” That means education policy for American children, decided by foreign governments and tyrants, as well as dictator clubs such as the UN.

The signers, including DeVos, agreed to “promote the development of curricula … which have a strong focus on … values and attitudes.” They also committed to “foster the inclusion of non-cognitive skills such as socio-emotional skills across the curriculum,” which is basically educrat psycho-babble to conceal a program of psychological conditioning aiming to bring about the values and attitudes demanded by the establishment in all children.

Finally, the education chiefs vowed to “provide education that supports better integration of common values like … sustainable development.” As far as the nebulous, totalitarian concept relates to education, the UN has already made clear that it considers real education and educated people a threat to its grotesque notions of “sustainability.”

“Generally, more highly educated people, who have higher incomes, consume more resources than poorly educated people, who tend to have lower incomes,” explains a UN “toolkit” for global “sustainable” education, ‘which is still posted online at UNESCO’s website. “In this case, more education increases the threat to sustainability.”

The declaration also undermines true human rights — free speech, freedom of the press, gun rights, and other God-given rights — and promotes the communist-inspired notion of government-granted privileges as rights. “We stress that access to quality education is a human right,” the education ministers declared, as if mass-murdering communist tyrants had the same vision of “quality education” as liberty-minded Christian parents in America.

Common Core Diva Lynne Taylor, a respected education researcher, was among the voices sounding the alarm. “DeVos’s global roots are showing, as they have been since she was sworn into office. The question is exactly what will she do with all the ideas, policies, and, the damning Declaration for not only education, but our very freedoms,” Taylor warned. “I can tell you we all need to brace for impact.”

Trump should fire DeVos — and not just for participating in this dangerous effort to further globalize education and standardize the indoctrination of children worldwide. But rather than replacing her, Trump should work with Congress to shut down the entire unconstitutional department and get the feds completely out of education. The alternative is the continued subversion of education in America — and ultimately, the death of freedom.

Read full story here…




Technocracy In Education: “A Continental System Of Human Conditioning”

Dr. Tim Ball doesn’t mention it by name, but what he describes is pure Technocracy at heart. In 1934, the Technocracy Study Course defined education as “A continental system of human conditioning will have to be installed to replace the existing insufficient educational methods and institutions. This continental system of general education will have to be organized as to provide the fullest possible conditioning and physical training… It must educate and train the student public so as to obtain the highest possible percentage of proficient functional capacity.“  ⁃ TN Editor

I write this article from 40-years of direct involvement in education at all levels from kindergarten to postsecondary, in several countries. Overall, it is an unmitigated disaster for the majority of citizens. It only favors a few elites who created it and work to keep it isolated. It is not surprising that Trump, who finally recognized this group politically, also speaks to their educational needs. These are people who barely exist in the minds of professional politicians or those controlling the academic world. The education system that the academics and politicians created doesn’t fit the nature of human intelligence or how that evolves during the growth of the child. It imposes education decreed and dictated by a small group who are escapees from the real world and have no idea what is relevant. This is proved by the comment people make when they say something is ‘purely academic.’ What they mean is that it is irrelevant to the real world.  It does not fit or serve individual needs and therefore society loses.

Here are a few of the problems with the educational system they devised.

  • It doesn’t prepare young people for the real world.
  • It doesn’t fit the way the mind develops.
  • It doesn’t allow in even basic ways for the vast range of talents, abilities, interests, or skills found in the human population.
  • It doesn’t have mechanisms or ways of improving itself.
  • It operates outside the control of society and only serves to perpetuate itself.
  • It is designed to make students fail.
  • It measures success only by those who reach the end, a university degree, but never cares about or investigates those who ‘drop out.’

The truth is only about 10% of the population should go to university or college. The other 90% don’t need to go because what they learn will not prepare them for the real world. In addition, they don’t have the type of thinking required to be an academic. For them, whether it is a university or a three or four-year college degree, it is simply grades 13, 14, and 15. Despite this, Americans spend billions sending their children to university or college. They do this because they are led to believe that this type of education is necessary to ‘get ahead’ in the society.

This came about because America allowed so-called ‘intellectuals’ to take over the educational system. It was effective because, as an immigrant nation of people from lower and middle classes in their home countries, they never had an opportunity to go to university. It was the preserve of the power elite; look at the arrogance and elitism of Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard and Yale. As a result, the politicians created a system that is useless for most of the people of middle America. Once established, this system perpetuates itself for the same reason professional politicians reject Trump. If you are a corporate executive or management, you usually get the job because you have degrees. This means if you hire someone without degrees and they can also do the job it devalues your degrees. It is the same reason professional politicians must attack Trump. If he can do the job, it underscores how bad they are beyond the corruption.

There are only two positive things I can say about any system in any country. First, they are so misdirected, misleading, and self-serving that students are successful in the purely Darwinian sense of survival of the fittest. They would succeed, regardless. Second, universities and colleges are a socially acceptable form of unemployment for at least 80% of the students.

Universities and colleges evolved at a time when only a few could afford to attend, and society realized that only a few needed the type of education they provide. The problem is, it is still only a few that need that type of education. In the meantime, societies realized, correctly, that they benefitted from an educated citizenry. Unfortunately, especially in the second half of the 20th century, the socialist thinking took over, and it was assumed that all students had equal abilities, and all should have equal access to the entire system from kindergarten through to college or university.

These are commendable goals, but they don’t fit the reality. People have a wide range of abilities and society has a wide range of needs. The education systems ignore the range of abilities and assumes that all students entering kindergarten will end up in university. This automatically makes failures of those who don’t go to university.

In the US, they tried to downplay this by creating pseudo-universities called three and four-year colleges. In the UK, they produced what they called the ‘new’ universities that are equally a waste of time and money. In most systems, you see a gradual ‘dropping out’ of students along the way. In studies we did in Canada we discovered that barely 50% of students survive first-year university and another 15% don’t make it to graduation. The charade continues because there are far more universities and colleges and the number of academics grown exponentially. This generates thousands of people doing little or nothing. They don’t know how to teach because they are hired on the basis of research degrees and they only publish enough for promotion and tenure. They are not required to have any teacher training at all. They produce volumes of useless research published in journals that only a small specialized group read and adds nothing to human understanding or scholarship. The situation generates many accurate observations.

“A professor is a person whose job it is to tell students how to solve the problems of life which they avoided by becoming a professor.”

“A professor is one who talks in someone else’s sleep.”

“Intellectuals are people who believe that ideas are of more importance than values; that is to say, their own ideas and other people’s values.”

“You can always tell a Harvard man – but you can’t tell him much.”

“Education: the inculcation of the incomprehensible into the indifferent by the incompetent.”

“Arrogance, pedantry, and dogmatism are the occupational diseases of those who spend their lives directing the intellects of the young.”

“Today’s public education system is a failed monopoly: bureaucratic, rigid and in unsteady control off dissatisfied captive markets.”

Aristotle identified a major issue central to any educational process. There is information you have innately as you develop the skills necessary as a human. Then there is information you learn from experience. Aristotle pointed out that you can have a mathematics genius of 6 years old but will never have a philosophical genius of that age. He recommended students go to school until approximately puberty (12 years) then they get out of school and work, travel, to learn about life to return to school when they are about 30. The UK and North American systems not only ignore this natural divide it exacerbates it by dividing it into three segments, Elementary, Middle, and High schools. This isolates students as they go through puberty. Research shows the brain develops very little during this time as all energy is directed to the chemical and physical changes of puberty. No wonder Middle schools are renowned for disciplinary problems.  An education system that is a continuum would better reflect the continuum of life.

The Aristotelian system would not work today because the education system is designed around the industrial society and must produce human work units. In too many homes children must be cared for while the parents work. So, it is expedient to keep them in school and teach them subjects that have little meaning. What is the point of teaching history to young people for who a week is forever? More important, as President Trump noted, why force them to take subjects when their talent is automotive repair or some other trade skill.

Some jurisdictions recognize that students have different abilities. The UK system used to distinguish those who were talented with their hands from those who lacked those skills. The problem is a class distinction was involved so that the latter went to Grammar Schools, the former to Secondary Modern. Just the use of the word “Secondary” had enormous implications. Presumably because of claims of inequality or discrimination the UK created Comprehensive schools that moved away from the reality of people and society and ignored the diversity that is society.

In North America, they didn’t consider even this basic separation. All students are put in the same stream and only separated by a system designed to fail those not suitable for the academic’s definition of intellect. I say academics, not universities because the faculty controls the universities by dominating the Senate and ensuring that all executive positions, including Presidents and Deans, are academics. What you have is a prison system run by the prisoners, and the guards are promoted prisoners.

The story about the Mother Rabbit who sent her child to nature school explains the process of designed failure. After the first day, the Mother asked how the day went. The young rabbit replied, it was great we learned to run. After the second day, the answer was the day went great because we learned to jump. The answer on the third day was, it was not good, we learned tree climbing. The Mother encouraged the young rabbit saying you have to experience a variety in life, everything is not as you like. On the fourth day, the answer was more negative as it involved learning to fly. The young rabbit was ready to quit, but the Mother persuaded the child to give it one more try. On the fifth day, the young rabbit went to school and was told she did well in running and jumping so they would not do anymore. However, since she failed in tree climbing and flying, they were going to work on those until she got it right. The young rabbit quit school.

The academics use Intelligent Quotient tests as if they are an indicator of ability. They are not. Worse, they are no measure of wider abilities necessary for most jobs in life. The current system assumes that education will increase your IQ. It doesn’t.

Scores from intelligence tests are estimates of intelligence. Unlike, for example, distance and mass, a concrete measure of intelligence cannot be achieved given the abstract nature of the concept of” intelligence”. ” IQ scores have been shown to be associated with such factors as morbidity and mortality, parental social status, and, to a substantial degree, biological parental IQ. While the heritability of IQ has been investigated for nearly a century, there is still debate about the significance of heritability estimates and the mechanisms of inheritance.

The academic obsession with IQ led to another major mistake that permeates modern education, the failure to realize the difference between knowledge and intelligence. People assume that because people in the past didn’t know something they were not intelligent. The school system assumes because young people don’t know much they are not intelligent. The result is they designed a system that insults the student’s intelligence, and as a result, most of them are bored silly most of the time.

Trump’s ventures with education from turning it back to the States and then on down to the family are an enormous step in the right direction. His creation of vocational schools, apprenticeship programs, and the realization that most people don’t need the type of education created by a small elite whose only goal is to perpetuate their control are a huge first step. Prince Philip summarized it when he said, universities are the only truly incestuous system in our society. Everybody that is in them is a product of them.

If you don’t think schools are just babysitting agencies consider that most parents have no idea what their children are learning in school. Most of them never investigate or even want to know. However, consider what happens when the school sends the children home early the phone rings off the wall.

I am not in favor of government involvement or control of education. What we need is to follow the trend Trump has initiated. Teach all students the basics then create education in conjunction with the business world, both small and large, to prepare programs that have a real-world market value. Let the individual decide what is relevant to them, not what some academic escapee from the real-world decrees. People who want to study art, read classic literature or learn about Shakespeare can and will choose to do so in their own time.  With a job to survive in the real world they can afford to do it.




Exposed: Harvard’s Kennedy School Charged With Producing Technocrats

Harvard Kennedy School for Public Policy is legendary in the world of academics. The problem is that it pumps out Technocrats, according to one student.  He states that the curriculum is “designed to produce elite technocrats. If you are interested in effecting meaningful change in pursuit of a better society, the Kennedy School is not for you.”  ⁃ TN Editor

As this year’s accepted students weigh the decision to commit to a Kennedy School education, they may recall the essay question that they answered in their application:

“The Harvard Kennedy School motto, echoing the President for whom the School is named, is ‘Ask what you can do.’ Please share with the Admissions Committee your plans to create positive change through your public leadership and service.”

We enter the Kennedy School asking what we can do to create positive change. We expect our education here to help. A piece of advice from a soon-to-be graduate: It won’t.

The Kennedy School curriculum is designed to produce elite technocrats. If you are interested in effecting meaningful change in pursuit of a better society, the Kennedy School is not for you.

The Kennedy School curriculum is based on a model of politics that occurs within the bounds of existing power relations. Policymaking, we learn, is the art of accepting the status quo and finding “solutions” within it. There is no critical examination of the systems that produce the problems in the first place and certainly no attempt to change them. Our job is to design top-down, incremental solutions that may provide some benefit at the margins.

Like the fish that doesn’t know what water is, the underlying model of politics at the Kennedy School is so ubiquitous that it is difficult to spot. We embody the technocratic mindset whenever we precondition policies on what is acceptable to those who already hold power. We do this when we plan to heal our cities through artificial intelligence and Google partnerships, or when we speak of race and gender only in terms of diversity hiring and representation at the top, or when we find all of our development answers in randomized controlled trials and social entrepreneurship, or when we exalt “big data” as the ultimate solution for local governments, or when we try to nudge our way to healthier living.

Innovation, data, and efficiency aren’t necessarily bad. The problem at the Kennedy School, and wherever technocracy predominates, is that it becomes perceived as the only legitimate solution, crowding out critical assessments of the deeper causes of problems and the potential for meaningful shifts in power. Why fight for redistribution when we can solve poverty with an app?

While marketing itself as apolitical, technocracy becomes guardian of the status quo. Unsurprisingly, a wealthy, powerful school trains alumni to serve the interests of the wealthy and powerful.

In a master of public policy student’s first year, more than a quarter of all required credits are reserved for statistics. The same for economics. Two requirements, on top of this, are dedicated to professional and managerial skills. And the MPP is considered less technical. Of the master of public administration in international development’s requirement-heavy curriculum, almost every class is economics or statistics.

In the spring policy analysis course, the MPP’s foundational training for the flagship skill of “policy analysis,” students are explicitly taught to design solutions that appeal to the existing arrangement of stakeholder power. Of the case studies carefully selected as aspirational models when I took the course, one sought solutions to climate change through disclosure of financial risks to investors. Another, an admittedly valuable set of voluntary guidelines on businesses and human rights, was accompanied by a lecture that displayed deep scorn not for rights-abusing businesses, but for the human rights activists who dared push for binding regulations. A third advocated determining rainforest land use through quantification of economic potential. When asked whether quantification would favor more powerful economic interests over the social and cultural needs of indigenous groups, the lecturer dismissed the question: Why would it?

Across all Kennedy School master’s programs, there is not a single required course, and very few on offer at all, that focus on contemporary, critical social perspectives: anthropology, sociology, cultural studies, media studies, gender studies, feminist theory, postcolonial theory, post-development theory, critical race theory, or queer theory. Rarer still are courses designed to prepare students to act on these critiques in pursuit of meaningful shifts in power. The few exceptions—electives taught by Kennedy School Professor Khalil G. Muhammad, senior lecturer Marshall L. Ganz ’64, lecturer Douglas A. Johnson, and HKS Professor Katheryn Sikkink, come to mind—prove that it is possible to incorporate critical perspectives into our coursework. The Kennedy School simply chooses not to.

Read full story here…




China Providing ‘Strings Attached’ Academic Financing To Force Censorship In America

The Chinese are very clever to weaponize capital in order to achieve devious ends. In this case, the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) funds selected academic institutions or projects in order to coerce them into self-censorship according to Chinese policies. Congress should block such funding. ⁃ TN Editor

The CIA has issued a classified report detailing China’s far-reaching foreign influence operations campaign in the United States, which imparts financial incentives as leverage to permeate American institutions.

In an unclassified page of the report obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, the CIA cautions against efforts by the Chinese Communist Party to stipulate funding to universities and policy institutes in exchange for academic censorship.

“The CCP provides ‘strings-attached’ funding to academic institutions and think tanks to deter research that casts it in a negative light,” the report says. “It has used this tactic to reward pro-China viewpoints and coerce Western academic publications and conferences to self-censor. The CCP often denies visas to academics who criticize the regime, encouraging many China scholars to preemptively self-censor so they can maintain access to the country on which their research depends.”

The CIA warning joins a growing call by U.S. lawmakers and intelligence officials to investigate China’s involvement on American college campuses. The agency declined to comment on the report.

FBI Director Christopher Wray told the Senate Intelligence Committee last month the bureau is investigating dozens of Confucius Institutes, the Chinese-backed language and cultural centers hosted by more than 100 universities across the country. Despite their broad entrenchment in American academics over the past decade, little is known about the nature of the contracts between Beijing and the host universities—funding amounts and contractual terms are largely kept secret.

The U.S. intelligence community has warned of the institutes’ potential to be used as a spying tool. The concern is particularly pressing at the 13 universities that host both Confucius Institutes and top-secret Pentagon research, including Arizona State, Auburn, Purdue, Stanford, and the University of Washington.

Wray said “naiveté” in the academic sector has aggravated the risks, accusing the Chinese government of “exploiting the very open research and development environment that we have” on college campuses.

Last month, Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.), who co-chairs the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, called on the five Florida educational institutions that host Confucius Institutes to end those partnerships amid reports that the Chinese government uses the programs to limit discussion on topics the government finds sensitive, such as the Tiananmen Square Massacre or the political status of Tibet.

“Beijing is becoming increasingly aggressive in its aim to exploit America’s academic freedom to instill in the minds of future leaders a pro-China viewpoint,” Rubio said in a statement to the Washington Free Beacon. “Confucius Institutes across the country and my home state of Florida have given China’s communist regime an avenue to covertly influence public opinion and teach half-truths designed to present Chinese history, government or official policy in the most favorable light.”

Rubio lauded the recent decision by the University of West Florida to cancel its contract with the Chinese-backed organization and encouraged other universities to reconsider their arrangements.

Managed by a division of the Chinese Ministry of Education known as Hanban, Confucius Institutes are a key piece of Beijing’s broader foreign propaganda campaign, which costs the Chinese government an estimated $10 billion annually.

As of 2016, China’s Propaganda Department was spending $6.8 billion per year to “build an international media apparatus that boosts China’s influence,” the CIA says. Chinese state-run media outlets operating in the United States employ individuals who spread communist propaganda, seldom register as foreign agents, and sometimes work on behalf of Beijing’s intelligence services, according to the report.

“The CCP bankrolls several English-media outlets in the U.S. that try to influence perceptions of China and world events,” the report says, citing media accounts. “The CCP also pays some American media firms to publish propaganda without obvious CCP attribution … and harasses or denies visas to journalists who publish stories critical of the regime.”

Read full story here…

The veritable institution Mississippi State University trains students in epidemiology, or ‘herd health’. It is funded by the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences. ⁃ TN Editor

International training: MSU veterinary faculty teach epidemiology in China

Two Mississippi State professors in the university’s College of Veterinary Medicine are reaching out to students around the world who want to learn about their specialized field of epidemiology.

Drs. David R. Smith and Robert W. Wills recently traveled to China to teach a two-week, two-credit-hour course funded by the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences.

“There is a need for training Chinese veterinarians in epidemiology,” Smith said. Epidemiology is the branch of medicine dealing with the incidence and prevalence of disease in large populations and with detection of the sources and cause of epidemics of infectious disease. It’s also commonly referred to as studying “herd health.”

Both faculty members also travelled to the country last year under a cooperative arrangement from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Foreign Agriculture Service and the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture.

“There are some diseases of animals that are important to the economy of farming in the U.S. or to public health. Influenza is a really important one,” said Smith, the Mikell and Mary Cheek Hall Davis Endowed Professor at MSU, who also explained that managing disease is an important issue around the world.

“There are some diseases that we’ve managed to control in the U.S. that are still problems in China and in other Asian countries, and the USDA believes that identifying and controlling particular diseases in these countries helps protect animal and public health in the U.S.,” Smith said. Interestingly, epidemiology is not taught as part of regular veterinary training in China, he added.

“There is wide recognition of the value for veterinary epidemiology training in China to improve the safety of food, improve the well-being of animals by preventing diseases, and protecting public health by reducing human exposure to zoonotic diseases,” Smith said.

Smith and Wills hope to see the new relationships formed with the Chinese continue to grow. Their students were graduates of veterinary schools in China who are now doing additional graduate work through the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences.

“The students were very excited to visit with us and to speak English. They were full of questions and very positive about interacting with Americans. They also were very attentive to the course,” Smith said.

In addition to the nearly 40 students officially enrolled in the class, more students not earning credit also sat in to learn from the MSU visiting faculty members.

Smith and Wills have a few long-term goals for the Chinese teaching project.

“We hope to go back again, and it sounds like the Chinese are interested in having us do that. We also would like to have some of the good students come here and spend some time doing graduate research at Mississippi State,” Smith said.

“Maybe they would return to China and become teachers. The idea is that we are training the trainers of epidemiology in the future,” he said.