Unfortunately, some misuse science. Some of their intentions, are far from benevolent. They see science as a mechanism for political power and control. There is great danger from those who would use science for political control over us.

How do they do this? They instill, and then continuously magnify, fear. Fear is the most effective instrument of totalitarian control.

Chet Richards, physicist,


Sunday, 3 November 2013

Indoctrination in Suppressed Development in New Zealand Schools

“The indoctrination of high school students as a directive of the UN’s Agenda 21 and common core global education standards has shown up in New Zealand exam papers.”
 Thus writes Ian Wishart* in an article published last week on the NZ website Investigate Daily.  He continues:
“Two exam papers from different students in the 2008 year are clearly wrong on the facts, but nonetheless gained “Excellence” in New Zealand’s National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) exams and are paraded on the Ministry of Education website as “exemplars” to measure up to.
The two exams show children were brainwashed with inaccurate information on New Zealand history, and caricatures of modern worldviews reflecting curriculum bias.
You can read the offending exam papers here exemplar-3-2008-exam
One of the questions required the pupil to compare and contrast ‘capitalist’ with ‘indigenous’ world views.  A caricature of each seems to have been taught to the pupils, and these caricatures are admired in the examples. 
Now, given that capitalism has led to the most dramatic improvements ever in the quality of life of people (e.g. with respect to air, water, food, and shelter quality), of domesticated animals (modern husbandry practices), and indeed to great strides forward in helping conserve wild animals and wild lands, and that primitive lifestyles have made no such progress, you would be astonished to learn that remarks such as the following seem to have received high marks in these New Zealand exams:
‘[The capitalist world view] is that the economy, society and the environment are in no way connected and therefore not affecting one another.”
‘[The indigenous world view is that] the environment, society and economy are linked and each individually important and highly significant to the other.’.
‘Culturally the capitalists behaviour is to live in the present, with little reverence of interest in their ancestory [sic] and their traditions are selectively upheld.’
‘The indigenous people place a lot of emphasise [sic] on tradition and pass it on orally through generations so their history is ‘alive’.  This benefits these later generations significantly as they can learn skills such as hunting, fishing and harvesting.’
 ‘The capitalists practise exploitation against [sic] the environment.  They are production and resource based.  They use the natural resources of the land to turn a profit..  When the resources in that particular area are used up they simply move on, destroying that land for future generations.’
 ‘The indigenous people work in harmony with the land.  They act as stewards of the land, without enforcing their power over it as they are spiritually connected to it.  They practise subsistence production, taking enough and no more from the land.’
Now this simplistic romanticisation of ‘indigenous’ societies and equally simplistic demonisation of ‘capitalist’ societies is so widespread, that the poor teachers and pupils can scarcely be blamed for replicating it.  Yet where is the success?  Where are people healthier, better fed, better sheltered, and so on?  Where do people live longer?  Where are slash and burn agricultural practices most discouraged?  Where is air quality, indoors and out, higher? Where is environmental improvement and conservation more strongly supported?  
The gross simplifications are of course part and parcel of the promotion of 'sustainable development' - a notion that would be more informatively described as 'suppressed development'.
It would be better if both pupils and teachers were less dogmatic here.  Capitalism is at heart, the simple matter of free trading amongst individuals and communities, and the accumulation of surpluses with which to try for more and better things.  As Adam Smith pointed out long ago, the pursuit of individual self-interest that this seems to imply is highly conducive to societal improvement.  Others have noted that this also thrives best under conditions of intellectual and political freedom.  To merely disparage one caricature, and look at the other through rose-tinted spectacles is not good for education.  Good for indoctrination though.  Perhaps essential for that.

*Ian WIshart has just published a book called ‘Totalitaria’:
An explosive new book says the United Nations has rolled out a global education policy designed to indoctrinate children to accept a planned world government regime.
Revelations are made in the new book “Totalitaria: What If The Enemy Is The State?” by award-winning investigative journalist and bestselling author Ian Wishart.
The book reveals the policy is part of Agenda 21 and also the UN’s world education curriculum, and it has been implemented in New Zealand as part of NCEA national standards and will underpin the controversial “Common Core” education standards in the USA.
Journalist Ian Wishart says the agenda actually stretches back almost to the inception of the United Nations:
“Back in the 1950s the top officials in the United Nations came up with a very long term plan to change the world to accept a global ruler. They felt the only way to bring world peace was to bring in some form of global government based on new spiritual values of peace and love. In the book I quote the UN officials and their documents on this.
“They figured out the most strategic way to force this change was to build up public fear about different world problems, so that eventually people would practically beg for global government – which, of course, the UN was perfectly placed to provide.”
Among the crisis opportunities they seized on was climate change.’
Looks very promising... 

Kindle edition available herehttp://www.amazon.co.uk/Totalitaria-What-Enemy-State-ebook/dp/B00GAN74WS
[Note added later: I've skimmed through the Kindle edition, and I must warn readers that it is a rather frantic, lively account of Lucifer-worshipping people of influence in the UN and elsewhere.  That makes it a bit hard to take seriously, but it does contain a lot of information as well as provocative comments.]


  1. Thanks for the mention. What I was trying to do with this particular book is flag the highly religious nature of the Agenda 21/Sustainability/Climate/Education reform planners. We are not battling this issue on the science any more but on the belief system behind it...As you will have gathered, the belief system is pretty firmly entrenched.

    The exam subjects you highlighted above are designed to make students subconsciously identify and empathise with nature religions as being 'sustainable' and in harmony...it's not just an attack on capitalism but also an attempt to replace educate the masses into going green in their spiritual beliefs.

    Given that virtually every single child in the West is going to end up with this curriculum I think it's vital we take more than a passing interest in what kids are being taught, and more importantly 'why'.


    1. Ron Smith also wrote on this topic on NZ blog "Breaking Views"


      I have to agree with his sentiments about National Radio.

  2. Having retired from teaching last year, I’m allergic to reading this kind of stuff, but I made the effort. It’s worse than I thought.
    It’s going to be difficult to counter this kind of thing without sounding racist, especially in a New Zealand /Australian context.

    I noted that the Ehrlichs get quoted. One of the things I keep meaning to investigate is a battery of questions used a lot by environmentalist-minded social scientists called the New Ecological Paradigm. It’s based on a book by Ehrlich called “Ark II”, and contains assertions like: “We live on a fragile planet” which respondents in surveys are invited to respond to.
    A lot of the green indoctrination works like this, it seems to me. Instead of argumentation, there’s the enunciation of a woolly, feelgood slogan. Since 97% of people are in woolly feelgood mode 97% of the time, it’s easy for social scientists and those (like teachers) who share their ethos to construct a cast iron argument in favour of a woolly feelgood worldview.

    It’s going to be an uphill struggle to counter this tendency. Congratulations to you and to Ian Wishart for making the effort.

  3. John, I've always been leery of anything that even hints of a "conspiracy" theory of how we got to where we are today.

    From my readings (most of which admittedly go back only as far as 2007) until fairly recently even the mention of the title "Agenda 21" was sufficient to get one labelled as a "conspiracy" theorist.

    This 350+ page document (to which "all the governments of the world" supposedly agreed at the first "Earth Summit" - aka the first Rio (circus) Convention in 1992) seems to have been designed to put people to sleep (particularly those who evidently agreed to it!)

    But starting with the run-up to the 2012 Rio+20 plethora of papers and pontifications, we see (well, at least I have seen) increasing mention of Agenda 21 as though it is the modern day equivalent of the ten commandments - from which all other "values" must flow.

    [hmmm ... this is Hilary speaking, although preview tells me I'm "anonymous" notwithstanding the fact that I've elected to comment with my WordPress profile]

  4. Ian, Andy, Geoff,, Hilary - thank you very much for these informative and stimulating comments. I wish I could have been quicker off the mark to respond, but I have been distracted by other things of late that have nothing to do with climate matters.
    I had never heard to 'Ark II' - to my shame - it sounds like another means by which Ehrlich has poisoned educational wells. What an awful legacy that man will leave behind him.

  5. Along the same lines, may I recommend "invisibleserfscollar.com" which has been documenting this issue for the last two years. The blogger has also written a book on the subject.

    "Credentialed to Destroy: How and Why Education Became a Weapon" by Robin S Eubanks

    Both deserve much wider exposure.


    1. Thank you for this lead. I have ordered a copy of that book,