This is a follow up article to a post from March 2024 on UNESCO’s Education 2030 agenda guidelines:

Here we shall explore how the stage is being set for students to be indoctrinated by indoctrinated teachers following UNESCO educational guidelines. Teachers who embrace these guidelines and use them to ‘educate’ their child pupils will be inducing and perpetuating menticide.

Within the introductory summary, there is notable repetition and reinforcement of key buzzwords that illustrate the brainwashing aims for these ‘guidelines’ being adopted by teachers - education is entirely absent. My emphasis added in bold:

Internet access has increased the flow of diverse information and expanded spaces for different expressions of knowing and being – and opportunities for effecting positive societal change. But it has also exacerbated and accelerated the spread of misinformation, disinformation, hate speech, and online violence. Between January and March 2021, 85, 247 videos violated YouTube hate speech policy; and more than 31.5 million pieces of content violated Facebook’s hate speech policy in the same quarter and were subsequently removed from the platforms.

In this unfolding digital age, the role of education in general, and global citizenship education in particular, is crucial. It enables to equip all learners, especially the youngest ones, with the skills and competencies to effectively access, critically engage with, create, use and share information and knowledge on and through diverse digital technologies, especially social media platforms.

As global governance has more overtly come into our purview since 2020, we have become accustomed to governments, legacy media, and institutions changing or inverting the meaning of words, along with the conveyance of the meaning itself. A reader of this Substack succinctly made this point in a recent comment:

At this point we have to regard all 'elite-speak' as being sourced from Orwell's dictionary of doublespeak. In terms of the climate, "saving the planet" means ruining the prospects and lives of hundreds of millions of people.

Killing someone with euthanasia is a "caring" act. Making the Internet "inclusive, open, safe and secure", as the UN proposes, means excluding people who voice unfashionable opinions, closing it to alternative voices, rendering it unsafe and insecure as government agencies snoop on private conversations.

It all reminds me of "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

It covers literally everything at this point. Equality acts are designed to create privilege for certain groups, laws on free speech are meant to limit it, diversity means marching in lockstep to a particular ideology.

I believe we can gain further insight into the aforementioned dictionary dilemma from a book published 86 years ago. Let us turn to Stuart Chase, author of The Tyranny of Words - published in 1938, and still as relevant today. Chase wrote:

We are continually confusing the label with the non-verbal object, and so giving a spurious validity to the word, as something alive and barking in its own right. When this tendency to identify expands from dogs to higher abstractions such as “liberty,” “justice,” “the eternal,” and imputes living, breathing entity to them, almost nobody knows what anybody else means. If we are conscious of abstracting, well and good, we can handle these high terms as an expert tamer handles a lion. If we are not conscious of doing so, we are extremely likely to get into difficulties. Identification of word with thing is well illustrated in the child’s remark “Pigs are rightly named, since they are such dirty animals.”

[…] Let me ask you a question: Does communism threaten the world? Unless you are conscious of the dangers lying in the use of abstract terms, you may take this question seriously. You may personify “communism” as a real thing, advancing physically over the several continents, as a kind of beast or angel, depending on your politics. You give a careful, weighted answer, to my question. But you have identified the word with the thing, and furthermore you would be very hard put to find lower-order referents for the term. I have been searching for them for years. The question as it stands is without meaning.

Let us keep these insights at the forefront of our minds as we interpret how those who have crafted UNESCO’s guidelines might intend their content to be interpreted. We may consistently note the attempts made by the UNESCO authors to personify abstract terms such as “hate speech”; identifying the word with the thing. Although in our technocratic dystopia, the abstract terms and words used often depict wrongthink. I.e. The negative connotations with the abstract terms and words, which are described by the censorship industrial complex as being inherently negative - because what they really represent are ideas that threaten the prevailing narratives and the status quo.

Whereas the ‘thing’ represents the othering of the designated target group that those using the abstract terms wish to attack. For example:

Some of these (triggering?) buzzwords appear in the foreword of the UNESCO document:

Digital technologies have brought immense changes to how we learn, access information, shape our understanding of ourselves and engage with others and the planet. These changes have presented us with both unprecedented opportunities and formidable challenges, highlighting the pivotal role education plays in shaping learners to become agents of change, propelling societies towards sustainability and peace.

[…] The very technologies that have revolutionized our world have also amplified certain obstacles, such as the spread of misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy theories and hate speech.

The phrase “agents of change” appears often in UNESCO educational literature. The phrase is made out to sound like idealistic and altruistic meaning language, in the vein of shaping young learners to “fight climate change” - to be for or against whatever is required of them by the UNESCO apparatchiks. It is not at all hidden by the authors that the objective in recruiting their change agents is to help achieve the sustainable development goals (SDGs) for Agenda 2030.

In the previous article, I wrote:

We can surmise that “build self-skepticism and intellectual resilience” really means instilling in the child an ability to believe the science™ dogma no matter what, and condition them to resist any opposing viewpoints…“be an agent for change” becomes self-evident as the activism and social justice rooted goal to indoctrinate the child as both true believers and contributors to Agenda 2030.

The intended outcome for the child’s prioritised attention is consistently purported to be about the “other” (the collective), and not about the individual human being’s self-worth, their personal goals, or their actual emotional, cognitive, and social development - in the sense of being an inquisitive child, who is curious about the world and how they might learn and thrive (as opposed to being groomed to be an “agent of change” for Agenda 2030).

What is global citizenship education really?

Could it be a global educational framework for total capture of the youth demographic in schooling? Might teachers use this framework to teach program children with what to love and fight for, what to hate and disregard, whom to trust, whom to treat with disdain, and in time, whom to report to the authorities for dissidence?

We can again note the personification of the thing - referring to ideologies as violent and hateful.

The whole concept of a global citizen also hints at the push made by the UN to dissolve the sovereignty of nations along with their heritages, traditions, cultures, borders, and everything that makes a country unique.

The educational guidelines in this section insinuate that biological sex is interchangeable with gender, depending on self identification. We can pay attention to the table graphic used for this module:

The child is led to believe that biological sex is not immutable. If pre-conceived notions of societal norms are questioned by their authority figure teacher, would this in turn lead to the child questioning what they previously held to be true and self-evident?

The guidelines state:

Gender norms change over time and in cultures. Can men wear skirts or look after babies? Can women lead a country or be firefighters? Why do you think society tends to divide people into groups, such as male and female? Do all people fit into either group? Where does the idea of type-casting people in society come from, what purpose does it serve, does it have virtues, and can it be problematic? How so? Do gender norms vary from country to country, and where and how do we learn them? Does gender discrimination have historical roots?

The teacher is encouraged to induce further confusion within the mind of the child by guiding them to question the findings from the very tool which they are likely to be proficient in - computer literacy and searching the internet. Thus seeding in the child’s consciousness that multiple search engine results could all be tainted with biases that do not represent historical accuracy, pertaining to traditional gender roles. This is further complicated by complicit search engines within the censorship industrial complex that are memory holing and re-writing history in real-time. Here is the misleading passage:

Gender stereotyping.

Get learners to type the words ‘women + pastimes + images’ into a search engine, then compare the results when you type ‘men + pastimes + images’. Are many of the pastimes proposed different for men and women? Why do learners think this is? Is it because women most often look up these types of interests, or because there is stereotyping in magazines and news articles and search engines emphasise these because of the limited datasets they use?

I encourage all to read the full UNESCO document linked again here.

Ask yourself if the UNESCO educational guidelines are suitable, beneficial, and appropriate for ‘shaping young learners’ - as the authors like to repeat so often.

Who benefits from this global citizenship education rollout?

Will it bring families closer together or drive them further apart? Would a child feel more loyalty to the cause of Agenda 2030 or to the wisdom of their parents?

How will the indoctrinated youth fit into the futurescape of managed and engineered social justice causes and the citizen-led panopticon surveillance grid?

What are the young learners being groomed for?

I recommend reading Patrick Wood’s latest article from Technocracy News: ‘ONE HEALTH’ IS A CULT BASED ON GAIA WORSHIP, WICCA, NEO-PAGANISM.

Nicholas Creed is a Bangkok based writer. All content is free for all readers, with nothing locked in archive that requires a paid subscription. Any support is greatly appreciated.

Buy me a coffee