Categorized | ICLEI, News


I had not yet written about the International Baccalaureate program because while I had strong suspicions, there was smoke but no fire.  Well, it’s almost time to call the fire department!  The IB website is filled with suspicious items.  I found several disturbing things that will cause liberty and sovereignty activists to watch the school systems that have IB carefully and respectfully.

I went to the lion’s den and examined the web site of IB and found some interesting nuggets of globalist/sustainability (read Agenda 21)/climate change/UN goals used as a benchmark in their own materials for schools and teachers:

From Opinions – A Planet for Tomorrow (written by faculty around the world):

Sustainability projects have such a broad scope in terms of development of knowledge, from local community work to a discussion of how action is taken in the global community – such as the role of the United Nations. There is also a wealth of websites discussing issues in interactive ways, a particular favourite being, an inquiry-based site.

The role of the United Nations for sustainability is Agenda 21!

Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.

Here’s a university administrator and faculty member in Singapore who compares belief in global warming to a religious belief in heaven and hell!

The 17th-century mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal and the economist Nicholas Stern reach an interesting coincidence of rationales which can help the non-believer. Both put forward arguments that the consequences of being a non-believer in the event of a belief being true – that God exists or that anthropogenic climate change is real – are more ‘costly’ than being a believer in the event that the belief is untrue (there is no heaven, or hell!) Getting it right would be best, but being covered against a hot and miserable outcome is a good second place.

The next paragraph says this:

At UWC SEA, we like to challenge our students with intractable issues. Climate change is perfect for this, so we include it in our annual Theory of Knowledge (ToK) focus week for IB Diploma Programme students. To my mind, this
is the essential culmination of our students’ environmental education. They have studied alternative energies, population growth and resource issues in earlier grades and may have been involved in clearing litter from beaches or planting trees, or chosen to join a student-led global concerns action group. ToK provides a significant extra opportunity to analyse whether we can really know if we are in a period of global warming and whether we can justify responding to the prevailing fears or not.

So the students will find out if there is global warming or not?  Great!  But I would be as sure as I can without possessing actual knowledge that the evidence against global warming is suppressed!  This writer in Singapore cites his own beliefs in favor of global warming and that the findings of the International Panel on Climate Change as average, middle of the road, findings.

Here is a Earth Day (an evil holiday as far as I can concerned) lesson plan for high schoolers that is basically an indoctrination vehicle for so-called climate change.  Here is part of the conclusion:

As science is fundamentally about evidence rather than proof (blogger’s note here:  This is an admission that evolution is not and cannot be a fact since there may be evidences for evolution [but more for creation] but not proof), we can reformulate this to ask where the “burden of evidence” should rest.  In the case of human-induced change, should the burden rest with those who are concerned about the dangers of change, or with those who are responsible for the alleged change?  If the change is seen as minor, it is normal to expect the former to provide evidence that the change would result in harm, but if the consequences are potentially catastrophic, we may be justified in onto the latter to show that no harm will eventuate.  This is known as the precautionary principle, and it is often involved in issues involving health and the environment.  (emphasis added)

But the precautionary principle is not science but politics!

The precautionary principle is a political principle, not a scientific one. The principle is used to urge the cessation or avoidance of a human activity in situations of uncertainty, just in case that activity might cause harm to human health or the natural environment.

It is principle 15 of the Rio Declaration, an Agenda 21 document!

In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

At the Wingspread Conference on the Precautionary Principle in 1998, various “…scientists, philosophers, lawyers and environmental activists…” (certainly a group subject to peer review!) asked governments, corporations and others to take action based on the “precautionary principle”:

At the conclusion of the three-day conference, the diverse group issued a statement calling for government, corporations, communities and scientists to implement the “precautionary principle” in making decisions.

Furthermore, why can’t I argue that if you are going to take liberty and sovereignty away from nations and peoples, should those advocating the taking due to the horrible potential consequences of not acting have the burden of evidence?  Where is the precaution there?

Of course the EU has adopted the precautionary principle as a policy criteria:

The European Commission has today adopted a Communication on the use of the precautionary principle. The objective of the Communication is to inform all interested parties how the Commission intends to apply the principle and to establish guidelines for its application. The aim is also to provide input to the on-going debate on this issue both at EU and international level. The Communication underlines that the precautionary principle forms part of a structured approach to the analysis of risk, as well as being relevant to risk management. It covers cases where scientific evidence is insufficient, inconclusive or uncertain and preliminary scientific evaluation indicates that that there are reasonable grounds for concern that the potentially dangerous effects on the environment, human, animal or plant health may be inconsistent with the high level of protection chosen by the EU. (emphasis added)

There’s more in the Earth Day lesson plan!  We have a quote from the Brundtland Report:

Perceived needs are socially and culturally determined, and sustainable development requires the promotion of values that encourage consumption standards that are within the bounds of the ecological possible and to which all can reasonably aspire.  (Chapter 2, Section 5 – Our Common Future)

I find these words to be a call for governments to enforce “sustainability” by law/force if necessary.   This potentially is a call to tyranny.

There’s more:  The “fight” against “global poverty” includes a lesson plan that encourages the use of the UN Millennium Development Goals – here are the eight goals:

  • End poverty and hunger
  • Universal Education
  • Gender Equality
  • Child Health
  • Material Health
  • Combat HIV/AIDS
  • Environmental Sustainability (That’s Agenda 21!)
  • Global Partnership

These sound like political goals to me!  The Global Partnership goal, for example, is mainly a demand for “aid” (read taxpayers’ money given by governments!) for developing nations and reduction of tariffs to ensure developing nations’ products can reach nations like the USA.  The Gender Equality one calls for quotas and affirmative action to ensure women are elected to national governments:

Electoral systems, quota arrangements and other affirmative
action measures taken by political parties continue to be key
predictors of progress for women. During 2009, the average
share of women elected to parliament reached 27 per cent
in countries that applied such measures; in contrast, women
gained only a 14 per cent share of seats in countries that did
not. Women are also elected in far greater numbers under
systems of proportional representation, rather than majority/
plurality systems.
In addition to electoral systems and quotas, gender-sensitive
electoral arrangements, well-trained and financed women
candidates and political will at the highest levels of political
parties and governments are key to overcoming gender
imbalances in the world’s parliaments. Given that there are
still four men for every one woman in parliament, efforts will
be needed on all these fronts if the target of 30 per cent is to
be met.

The material health has the usual code for abortions (and another hit for governmental aid from taxpayers):

Ensuring that even the poorest and most
marginalized women can freely decide the
timing and spacing of their pregnancies
requires targeted policies and adequately
funded interventions. Yet financial resources
for family planning services and supplies
have not kept pace with demand. Aid for
family planning as a proportion of total aid to
health declined sharply between 2000 and 2008, from 8.2 per
cent to 3.2 per cent. Aid to reproductive health services has
fl ctuated between 8.1 per cent and 8.5 per cent. External
funding for family planning in constant 2008 US dollars
actually declined during the first few years of this decade and
has not yet returned to its 2000 level.

While there are mentions about micro-financing and aid to religious organizations in passing in the lesson plan, it is certainly not the emphasis of the Millennium Development Goal oriented worksheet.

Here’s some more fire:

A senior leader of the IB, Ian Hill, wrote this in the conclusion of his monograph on international education:

International education has a role to impart an ethic for the future of humanity. Not to impose
but to allow students to discover and reflect for themselves. It should provide students with material
on global issues, responses from some of the world’s most
creative thinkers and the opportunity to discuss. Without
values students may be “clever, knowledgeable, even
wondrously creative, but they will never become citizens of
the world nor give it their gifts as should those who have
known a true international education“.  (emphasis added and footnote omitted)

I object; American children are first and foremost AMERICAN children!  Not citizens of the WORLD! Eagle Forum reports this:

School children in this Chicago suburb not only pledge allegiance to the flag which, in the words of one teacher, “we do because it’s required,” but they pledge allegiance to the planet as well. The pledge goes like this:

“I pledge allegiance to the Earth, this unique blue-water planet, graced by life, our only home. I promise to respect all living things, and to protect to the best of my abilities all parts of our planet’s environment, and to promote peace among the human family, with liberty and justice for all.”

So the lesson plan for liberty and sovereignty activists is not to overreact but to watch the curriculum carefully – both IB and otherwise.  Get involved in your schools.  Volunteer.  Talk to your school board representative.  They always have needs for help – sometimes a squeaky wheel might find him/herself on the curriculum committee!  Do your homework and avoid sounding shrill.  Also, many lesson plans are established by the state.  Get involved!  Of course be respectful of others, especially those in authority.  But insist on liberty, free markets and sovereignty!  (Thanks to Joe at Before It’s News for the idea!)

About Elwood Sanders

Elwood "Sandy" Sanders is a Hanover attorney who is an Appellate Procedure Consultant for Lantagne Legal Printing and has written ten scholarly legal articles. Sandy was also Virginia's first Appellate Defender and also helped bring curling in VA! (None of these titles imply any endorsement of Sanders’ views)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge

Tom White Says:

Nothing is more conservative than a republican wanting to get their majority back. And nothing is more liberal than a republican WITH a majority.

Sign up for Virginia Right Once Daily Email Digest

No Spam - ever! We send a daily email with the posts of the previous day. Unsubscribe at any time.
* = required field

Follow Us Anywhere!