PublicEducation

The curious case of NEA priorities

By Alan Sears

Friday, August 25, 2006

It is, arguably, the most powerful union and lobbying group in the country. And you cannot envy what its members are up against.

Day after day, the National Education Association (NEA) sees the same statistics we do.

Plunging test scores. Floods of incoming college freshman who can’t read at even a sixth-grade level. Principals and school boards groping for incentives that will draw better teachers into lifelong service for high stress and infrequent appreciation.

Instead of embracing the joys of books and learning, America’s children are gorging junk food on the couch, dabbling with R-rated music videos and video games while their synapses run headlong down blind brain alleys.

Teacher morale remains low, as many grapple daily with parents who are disengaged and apathetic, neurotic or demanding, angry or eager to move their child into alternative educational settings.

Add to all that the professional pressures inherent in “No Child Left Behind,” and you can understand how the NEA leaders who gathered this summer in Orlando for their annual convention had their work cut out for them. The toughest question was undoubtedly the first one: where do we start, when it comes to fixing America’s schools?

Well, they figured it out. And, really, faced with so many incredible challenges, their priority makes sense. This is, after all, the NEA. They know the classroom. They know the teachers. They know the real challenges of education.

Which is why their elected leaders decided that, before anything else, the first thing our teachers have to do is win popular support for homosexual “marriage.”

That’s right. The all-knowing members of the NEA decided that what our kids need to know – more than math, geography, grammar, science, or computer skills – is what men and men see in each other, why women and women fall in love, and what our government and society “owes” those who practice homosexual behavior.

You can see why that kind of information is critical to a third grader, can’t you?

Of course not. The NEA didn’t think so. That’s why they’re taking the matter out of your hands. Listen, when the world’s largest teacher’s union elects to endorse same-sex “marriage,” they’re not talking tacit support. They’re talking posters and projects, classroom lectures and guest speakers, testimonials and textbooks – at every grade level, and in every public school, in every school district in America.

Questions, of course, accumulate. Among them:

What if a teacher or principal objects to same-sex unions, for reasons of personal faith or experience? What if said educator doesn’t want his (often mandatory) NEA dues going to support those who promote homosexual behavior? What if parents don’t want their children learning about sex (or sexual politics) at school? What if children are ill-equipped, mentally or emotionally, to handle the information presented by a zealous instructor?

Either the NEA has considered, and dismissed, these questions – in which case the group that wants to exert the most significant impact on America’s teachers, parents, and children turns out to have no real concern or compassion for our teachers, parents, or children... or else the union has not considered these crucial questions, in which case... ditto.

Either way, the academic needs of children are no longer as much a priority for this organization as the political agenda of those who engage in homosexual behavior.

Actually, that’s not anything new for the teachers’ union. The NEA has been working hand-in-glove for years with aggressive promoters of homosexual behavior. Indeed, former NEA president Bob Chase is a member of the board of GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Educational Network), and once defended NEA’s force-feeding of the homosexual agenda to children by warning that:

“Some critics want the public schools to be an agent of moral doctrine, condemning children and adults when they are not in accord with Biblical precepts.”

But if the NEA objects to teaching moral doctrines … how do they justify teaching immoral doctrines? If they’re against teaching creationism, for example, for its spiritual implications, how can they favor sex education classes that indoctrinate even very young children with homosexual advocacy?

How can they bar prayers, ministers and Christian clubs from campus, while organizing school assemblies, demonstrations, and classroom visits featuring homosexual and transgender “role models?”

Clearly, the NEA has rejected its prima facie identity as the representative of America’s teachers, in favor of a new raison d’etre: brainwashing schoolchildren into acceptance of, and even indulgence in, homosexual behavior. For the union’s leaders, there will be no rest until families all over the country not only acknowledge, but embrace and endorse the homosexual agenda.

It’s as simple as A-B-C. What those pressing that agenda cannot win at the ballot box, they will win in the minds of the next generation... one vulnerable child at a time.

Alan Sears, a former federal prosecutor who held various posts in the departments of Justice and Interior during the Reagan Administration, is president and CEO of the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation. He is co-author with Craig Osten of the book The ACLU vs. America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values and The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom.

Systems Thinking

Systems thinking grew out of the writings of Alfred North Whitehead. The science of systems thinking is credited to a man by the name of Ludwig von Bertalanffy and his associates (one of whom is Ervin Laszlo, currently working with the United Nations). The generic term for systems thinking is general systems theory.

A word about Bertalanffy before continuing. Bertalanffy came to the United States from Germany on a Rockefeller grant. He returned to German-occupied Vienna, Austria, in 1938. His biology textbooks were used by Hitler. He returned to the United States following World War II.

General systems theory states, simply, that the world is a system of subsystems (also called systems), all interconnected and interdependent to form a wholistic or holistic system; that within any system is an infrastructure that is analogous (the same) across systems, irrespective of physical appearance.

Stated a bit differently, but to the same effect, is the Gaia hypothesis which states the world is a living, breathing organism, irreducible to its parts; that what affects one part, affects all parts; that in the name of saving spaceship Earth, we must change our society. The Gaia hypothesis adds a spiritual (metaphysical) dimension to systems thinking.

Systems thinking sees everything as wholistic, with all parts interconnected, interdependent. In the words of Senge (1990), systems thinking …

…is the fifth discipline because it is the conceptual cornerstone that underlies all of the five learning disciplines of this book.

This discipline is the foundation upon which the other four disciplines function: personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, team learning. Many who have been through the team building process of consensus will recognize the terms. The systems thinking model, because of its wholistic approach, is cyclical — sometimes shown as a circle, sometimes as a spiral. The beginning is the end. You start at point A and your destination is point A. The journey between point A and point A is the "process". At point A the change agents decide what they want the world to look like in x number of years. This is the goal, destination, or outcome. Example: the exit outcomes for the school, state, federal: what the child should know and be able to do as a result of his or her educational experience; what the child should look like.

The next step is to align everything to achieve point A, the outcome. In this endeavor, the curriculum, instruction and teaching methodologies are aligned to the outcome to ensure that the outcome is reached; the measure of which is the assessment. This process is known by many names, among them backmapping. The technical term is a syllogism: a process used by behavioral scientists to bring about planned change.

Thus it is that mankind can be said to be creating the future.

It is imperative, at this point, to digress to the philosophy behind systems thinking as it is important to understanding the semantics of systems thinking. Systems thinking sees everything as a system, analogous to all other systems irrespective of physical appearance. All things are equal, whether it be the ecosystem or mankind — man is no better than animal or a tree. The underlying philosophy here is humanism that maintains that man is devoid of spirituality or self-determinism. It therefrom follows that man must be conditioned (the process) to his environment (the outcome or goals), whatever it is decided that environment will be (creating the future). As stated in the Humanist Manifesto II,

…we can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species. While there is much that we do not know, humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves.

All the exit outcomes from all the school districts, states, and Goals 2000 are what man must be conditioned to to achieve the created future. That created future is based on future trends which, again, is cyclical, deciding what "we" (the change agents) want the world to look like (in the 21st Century), then backmapping. In this same vein, outcome-based education is education based on outcomes — starting at the end and backmapping to ensure the outcome. In researching future trends, it becomes very obvious that they are not based on fact, but rather on the doomsday prophesies of rabid environmental groups whose religious philosophy is very much humanistic/New Age.

Systems thinking, to repeat, sees everything as wholes. It is in this context that appear whole language; the wholistic education system incorporating all services to deal with the whole child — mentally, physically, emotionally; life-role or real-life (wholistic) education; constructivist (hands on) learning (the child reinventing the wheel); integrated curriculum deleting the lines of structured disciplines; thematic units addressing social or life-related issues (wholistic); conflict resolution in pursuit of the collectivist (wholistic) society; peer tutoring to promote the group (collectivist) mentality; the child centered classroom; individual learning plans (IEP's) … Everything that is done is to achieve the whole, with all systems (everything done to produce the child who will look like the exit outcomes) interconnected and interdependent to achieve the whole.

Humanism is a religion that sees everything as wholistic, the basis of collectivist thought and action; it is the foundation upon which Marx built his philosophy (Marx saw Christianity as a religion of self-alienation, something to be stamped out at all cost). Marx believed the individual mind to be part of the universal mind (the wholistic mind), the collective. He saw the Hegelian Dialectic as a process for achieving wholes, of Oneness of Mind through a process of thesis (an idea or proposition), antithesis (the opposite idea or proposition) and synthesis (the bringing together of thesis and antithesis). Synthesis then becomes the new thesis, and through a continuing process (evolution to higher levels), Oneness of Mind theoretically occurs. If you look consensus up in the dictionary, you will discover that it means solidarity of belief; continual evolution to oneness of mind. To achieve consensus (wholism), one must give up his or her individual beliefs and conform to the group beliefs — again to achieve the whole.

Left to its own devices, however, consensus is uncontrollable. Thus, to control the process, and insure the outcome, facilitators are trained in group dynamics (how individuals brought together in a group interact) to ensure the outcome. Again, we start at point A and return to point A. In the process, the greater number of participants are brought to hold the predetermined outcome instead of just the facilitator. In the words of one participant, the job of the facilitator is to make everyone in the group think it's their idea (Resource Document, Schools for the 21st Century, Final Report, January 1995).

Because of multiple parties being involved in consensus, it cannot be rigid except in outcome. In each instance thesis and antithesis come into play, with synthesis as the outcome, whether achieved incrementally or in one cycle. From the synthesis of thesis and antithesis comes compromise. Thus it is that there is no right or wrong answer, everything is relative, situational. (This is the why and wherefore, also, of no right answer in the classroom.) Everything is thesis and antithesis, ever evolving in a spiral, whether individual thought or collective thought, to the next higher plain. This is, incidentally, the process of attaining higher order thinking. This is the reason for the teacher as facilitator — the guide on the side; not the sage on the stage.

The facilitative process is not one that appeals to the cognitive domain; it appeals to the affective domain — how people feel. In achieving consensus, it is not what one knows about a subject that matters, it is how one feels that is important. As so adequately demonstrated by the final evaluation of the Schools for the 21st Century in Washington state, content is excellence in terms of the change agenda, process is the destination, the product, and what learning is about; and emotionality and affectivity are the means by which content and process will be achieved. If you want to change someone's belief system, you do not appeal to what they know, you appeal to what they believe, how they feel about a subject or issue. In a consensus circle, the facilitator sets the stage by appealing to the affective domain of the participants — emotionality is imperative. If the advocates of education reform have learned nothing else from sex education programs and the resulting rise in teen pregnancies, they have learned that appealing to emotionality sets the stage if the intent is for people to compromise their principles. Once the stage has been set, affective is brought into conflict with cognitive, and the individual is pushed to conform to a group belief system — mine, yours and ours. Once that has occurred, and individual principles have been compromised, it is very hard for the individual to reclaim his individuality. To do so requires breaking away emotionally from the new "family" and again thinking for oneself. The social acceptance within the circle makes this very hard for most people to do — a facet that is very much counted on. What people learn about each other, intimately, within the circle "of trust" also becomes a coercive factor against anyone who might attempt to break away.

In the classroom, systems thinking plays out in the focus of the classroom. No longer is the focus knowledge. Now the focus is real-life or life-role education. Everything is set in the context of children experiencing real-life situations. Thus it is that the focus in the classroom is social or life-related issues taught in the context of unit themes or thematic units, whether it is gender, prejudice, discrimination, the environment, homosexuality, life styles, … The primary focus, however, is upon environmentalism, which is why parents are finding a lot of it in the classroom. This environmentalism is not, in most cases, based on scientifically validated research, but rather, on the doomsday prophesies of rabid environmentalists with a self-serving agenda — an agenda that plays itself out in such events as the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, and similar more recent events such as the more recent earth summit held in Japan. The fear tactics perpetuated in the name of global warming is a good example.

Future trends harken back to a man by the name of Jay W Forrester and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (Forrester was Peter Senge's mentor for 20 years according to Senge, 1990). In 1972, Forrester established a world simulation model known as World 3 for the Club of Rome (this group has a propensity toward world government). This was a computer simulation model that, according to inputs, predicted future scenarios. A book, The Limits to Growth by Donnella Meadows, was written over the twenty scenarios predicted by the simulation model. None of the predictions have come true, but that's beside the point. It is the doomsday prophesies that "we must change our ways if we are to save spaceship Earth" that dominates the scene. This is also what comes across in the classroom where turning children into social and political activists for the cause is paramount. This is what Washington Superintendent of Public Instruction Terry Bergeson meant, in her 1997 state of education address, when she said,

Education beats out fighting crime, holding the line on taxes, creating new jobs, improving access to health care, or protecting the environment. And, by the way, when we achieve our educational goals, all of these problems will be addressed in new and better ways.

In his book, A Strategy for the Future, The Systems Approach to World Order, Laszlo predicted that a more accurate and concise model of World 3 would be in place by the mid-1980's. This, or something similar, is undoubtedly where the predictions of what the world will look like in the 21st century are coming from. The point that needs to be made here, is that in predicting the future, the future can also be created, starting at point A and returning to it. In others words, whatever the "we" want it to look like. What "we" want it to look like is manifesting itself now in the classrooms across American under Goals 2000, STW and the plethora of bills building the system.

In creating the future, one of the first steps, is to analyze "where we are now" against "where we want to be." This is called a gap analysis. Undoubtedly, most have heard this term. The gap analysis becomes the foundation of the change strategy — what "we" need to do to move people from "where they are now" to where "we want them to be" — from "here" to "there." The facilitative process then becomes the bridge between "here" and "there" whether in the classroom or in the community or in the country. This is why facilitators are used in the whole of the process, whether in the classroom or in establishing the mission and vision statements and the exit outcomes.

Once the cyclical process is put in motion, theoretically it will envelope the whole community at some point — except those who refuse to participate, referred to by proponents as critics of change, naysayers, the glass half-empty crowd, and enemies of education. The success of systems thinking, however, is contingent on it encompassing everyone — all. Because not everyone can be so easily controlled, the necessity comes eventually, in the interests of the system, to invoke tyrannical means of achieving and maintaining compliance to the system. This is why, in the USSR, dissidents were labeled "mentally ill" and incarcerated "until they came to their senses." See The Fallacy of Systems Thinking.

Systems thinking is the method of achieving and maintaining the planned economy, in which every facet is carefully monitored and carefully controlled, including the human factor. It is a system that does not tolerate deviance from the accepted norm. It is a system that is very much into producing robots that all act and think alike.

Accountability, under systems thinking, is the gathering and analysis of statistical data to measure evolution to outcomes, to insure compliance with the system. Thus the establishment of huge data banks housing personally identifiable information on every man, woman and child. Available to the proponents of systems thinking is the element that was missing in early models (Planning Programming Budgeting Systems, mastery learning) — computer technology. In the gathering, storage and analysis of statistical data and personally identifiable information on every man, woman and child in this nation, coercion becomes a definite factor in achieving the desired outcome — whether it is determined that the parent, teacher or child is the problem.

The Spiritual Dimension

In his book, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Senge acknowledges that the vision for the writing of this book was born in the fall of 1987 during his morning meditation. As a book outlining the components of the high performance work organization, the road to continuous quality improvement, the total quality environment, and as a book referenced heavily in books written advocating education reform, this revelation in the introduction gives us a sense of the spiritual aspect of systems thinking. Senge defines this aspect further in defining personal mastery — one of the five disciplines of the learning organization, acknowledging that it is rooted in both Eastern and Western spiritual traditions as well as secular traditions — three components of New Age religious practice. He also states that personal mastery is imperative to developing and sustaining shared vision within an organization.

Eastern spiritual traditions incorporate mystic practices involving altered states of consciousness, known to parents as guided fantasy/guided visualization, sometimes as centering or relaxation exercises or techniques. In Senge's words, these practices are key to "working effectively with the subconscious".

Senge also points out, in The Fifth Discipline, that an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruling forbids companies from requiring that employees participate in training seminars that they believe violate their religious beliefs, and Christians do believe that these practices are a form of self-divination that is forbidden by the Bible. But Senge claims that this snafu in the workplace can be circumvented. He claims that anyone committed to the learning organization is also committed to truth. In other words, if the Christian refuses to participate in these religious practices, the Christian denies truth and is a roadblock to achieving the learning organization.

There is another way to circumvent this roadblock, as outlined in The Aquarian Conspiracy by Marilyn Ferguson …

You can only have a new society, the visionaries have said, if you change the education of the younger generation. … Of the Aquarian Conspirators surveyed, more were involved in education than in any other single category of work. (p 280)

Teachers are being taught the techniques of guided fantasy/guided visualization by people such as Jack Canfield of the Chicken Soup for the Soul series. Canfield is a New Age author and promoter of confluent education. In an article published in New Age magazine in 1978, Canfield instructs …

If you're teaching in a public school, don't call it meditation, call it "centering." Every school wants children to be relaxed, attentive, and creative, and that's what they will get.

In a sidebar to this article, it is acknowledged that …

Many of the new methods and approaches we have written about in this article are beginning to be adopted by more and more teachers in pilot programs.

More and more parents are becoming aware of the use of the techniques of guided fantasy/guided visualization in the classroom. Both of these techniques place the child in an altered state of consciousness — a key component of yoga or meditation. In this state, children are VERY open to suggestion which is why this state is used in most accelerated learning programs that can be connected to George Lozanov, the Bulgarian (communist) professor.

Besides the religious aspect of guided fantasy/guided visualization, parents need to know that these practices can have a very adverse affect on a child in a couple different ways. First, children placed in an altered state of consciousness are often taken to meet a spirit guide, guide, or wise old person. In The Beautiful Side of Evil and Like Lambs to the Slaughter, Johanna Michaelsen exposes these spirit guides as demonic spirits. If anyone is the least bit dubious about where this can end, these books are recommended reading. This is also one of the reasons why parents are seeing Native American studies being brought into the schools as the Native American spirituality (religion) incorporates altered states of consciousness in pursuit of spirit guides — the hawk, the eagle, the coyote, the bear, etc. Just as marijuana is an introduction to harder drugs, introducing children to guided fantasy/guided visualization invariably leads to broader experimentation. It is dangerous, as Johanna Michaelsen divulges in her books, and often leads to satanic, occult worship — earth worship (GAIA), spirit guides, mandalas, etc. These practices in schools are, however, being touted as an avenue to the inner wisdom, creativity, and self esteem we hear so much about these days. Anyone who wants to get an eyeful of where it goes, just pick up The Light Shall Set You Free, co-authored by Dr Shirley McCune (currently an employee under the direction of the Washington State Superintendent of Public Instruction and a friend of Terry Bergeson) and read it.

The second problem is that the practice of placing children in altered states of consciousness should ONLY be done by licensed clinicians and then ONLY under certain conditions. This medical procedure should NEVER be used in a group setting such as a classroom where the use of it by teachers is nothing short of medical malpractice. That aside, more and more lawsuits are being filed by parents whose children have been put in these hypnotic states, resulting in problems returning to consciousness, flashbacks at any time (like psychedelic drugs cause), and blackouts. Teachers are being taught how to use these techniques, they are not being told the whole story behind the use of these techniques or what can happen if they do use them.

Guided fantasy/guided visualization is New Age, and their use in the classroom exposes children early to New Age practices in pursuit of the learning organization, the high performance work organization, the total quality environment. It is being done in schools without the knowledge or informed consent of parents which violates their rights as well as the child’s. It also violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, forbidding the establishment of a state religion.

Referenced Resources:

Ferguson, Marilyn; The Aquarian Conspiracy: Personal and Social Transformation in Our Time; New York: G. P. Putnam Sons; 1980.

Lazslo, Ervin; A Strategy for the Future: The Systems Approach to World Order; New York: George Braziller; 1974.

McCune, Shirley and Dr Norma Milanovich; The Light Shall Set You Free; Albuquerque: Athena Publishing; 1996.

Meadows, Donnella et al.; The Limits to Growth; New York: New American Library; 1972.

Michaelsen, Johanna; The Beautiful Side of Evil; Eugene: Harvest House Publishers; 1982.

Michaelsen, Johanna; Like Lambs to the Slaughter: Your Child and the Occult; Eugene: Harvest House Publishers; 1989.

Senge, Peter; The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization; New York: Currency Doubleday; 1990.

©September 1998; Lynn M Stuter

Websites Regarding Systems Theory:

International Federation for Systems Research

International Society of Systems Sciences

International Systems Institute

Systems theory states, simply, that the world is a system of subsystems (also called systems), interdependent and interconnected, to form a wholistic or holistic system; that within any one system is an infrastructure that is analogous across systems, irrespective of physical appearance.

The Gaia Hypothesis, in different words but saying the same thing, adds a spiritual dimension to systems theory, stating that the world is a living, breathing organism, irreducible to its parts; that what affects one part affects all parts; that in the name of saving spaceship earth, we must change our society.

These are the two hypotheses which under gird systems governance and the transformation of American society to the total quality, outcome-based, environment of a managed economy in a communist society in which every aspect of that society is micromanaged by the all powerful government to achieve goals established to attain a humanist "created future" — the sustainable global environment.

This is happening nationwide, in every branch, office and department of government; in industry; in health care; in education at all levels; in property rights, growth management and land use planning; it is evident in the environmental movement in both the public and private sectors ... there is nothing that is not being affected by this. This is a total and complete transformation or paradigm shift of our society.

Systems governance has, of course, been tried before: in the USSR since the Bolshevik Revolution, Germany under Hitler, Italy under Mussolini, Japan under Hito, China, North Korea and Vietnam — every totalitarian regime society has ever spawned. And the results have always been the same — the loss of rights and freedom for the people subjugated to it. This time will be no different even though the philosophical advocates of

total quality management (TQM) — systems governance in business and industry;

planning programming budgeting systems (PPBS) — systems governance in the public sector;

outcome-based education (OBE) — systems governance in education; and

the church growth movement (CGM) — systems governance in matters involving the church and religion;

believe that the evolution of computer technology will provide the “handlers” (such as was the Supreme Soviet in the USSR, the Third Reich in Germany under Hitler …) with the needed information to leverage problem areas and keep the “whole” (the earth) in balance as a sustainable environment without totalitarian tactics.

The links to the left will take the reader into some of the different aspects of this “new” system of governance, revealing to the reader not the rhetoric but the reality.

Note: If you are opening this page from another webpage, please click here to bring up the Systems Governance in Action web page and corresponding links.

The Fallacy of Systems Thinking

Having established the purpose and process of systems thinking — whether one knows it as total quality management, the high performance work organization, outcome-based education, performance-based education, planning programming budgeting systems, or by any of the plethora of other names by which it is known — one need analyze whether the fallacies of the system are greater than the benefit.

In discussing the fallacies of systems thinking, it is necessary to digress, for a moment, to the definition of systems thinking ... theory ... philosophy ... world view: the world is a system of subsystems, all interconnected and interdependent to form a wholistic or holistic system; that within any one system is an infrastructure that is analogous across systems, irrespective of physical appearance.

This means that whether a human system, plant system, animal system, eco system ... the infrastructure is the same.

But are they really? That depends on one's worldview. If one is a humanist, one sees man as no different than animal or plant. But if one believes in a higher authority — ie, God — one is reminded that God commanded man to take dominion over all of earth and its creatures, large and small. Such sets man apart from and superior to other systems. Not only does systems theory not recognize a higher authority but it also denies the superiority of mankind.

Systems theory presupposes that man has no individuality that sets one being apart from all other beings; that individual man is but part of the collective mind of man. People who have been raised under the tenets of Christianity know differently; that each being is created and revered in the eyes of God as an individual.

Systems theory sees everything as wholistic or holistic. The system, by its very construct and nature, must include everyone — all. This is where the mantra's "all children can learn" and "no child left behind" come from. In the same venue, people participating in the process of systems governance (facilitation to a preset outcome) must either agree, agree to disagree (tactic approval), or disagree but agree not to sabotage (tactic approval). To openly oppose or disagree with the system, its goals or objectives, is to violate the "all" mandate of the system.

So what happens when someone, or a group, openly opposes or disagrees with the system. Remember that systems theory is a system of subsystems, all interconnected and interdependent. This means that if the system is to function properly, all systems must be kept in balance. (Remember Al Gore's Earth in Balance?)

What happens if a system gets out of balance? Many will have heard the term leveraging. The out-of-balance system must be leveraged back into balance. Now, if the out-of-balance system can be leveraged back into balance with the other systems, all is well. But what happens if the out-of-balance system cannot be leveraged back into balance with the other systems? The obvious answer is that the other systems then move to compensate. One can readily see how, over time, a radical element could cause the system to continue to compensate until it can no longer compensate, causing the system to fail. This is what happened in the USSR.

The Fallacy of Systems Governance

But systems theorists believe they have found the cure for this problem: the collection and analysis of data by high-performance computers running high-tech systems, under the mantra of "accountability". There is only one problem — computers may be able to calculate with great accuracy, but they cannot think as the human mind thinks.

And just as mankind has not been able to accurately map how the human brain functions, neither has mankind been able to build computers capable of extracting that information which is pertinent from the milieu of information presented, and process that information devoid of bias. And until they do (which will never happen), no computer is intelligent enough to analyze data to the degree necessary to successfully leverage systems into balance and keep them in balance.

Because systems theory runs counter to the nature of most human beings, the failure rate of leveraging systems back into balance is high. And because balance is not only necessary but crucial, systems theory, by its very construct and nature, becomes more and more oppressive as measures are implemented to control "radical elements" that can cause the system to be thrown out of balance.

The greatest threat to systems governance is dissension, either by opening opposing the systems process or by refusing to supply the personally identifiable data — such as is collected via the WASL, or medical records (see SPEEDE/ExPRESS for all the personally identifiable data sought) — needed to analyze and leverage systems. This is why dissension cannot be allowed; why people can disagree but must give their tactic approval via their silence. As a note of interest, those who refuse to supply the needed data are labeled oppositional defiant — a term parents who have refused to allow their children to take the WASL have run into.

The need to include all is also why proponents of systems governance claim they represent the majority, defined as anyone who does not openly oppose the system, whether because they truly agree or because they are ignorant or apathetic.

Systems theory is the very essence of pure democracy, abhorred and avoided by our Founding Fathers. In the words of Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #10 ...

From this view of the subject, it may be concluded, that a pure Democracy, by which I mean a Society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the Government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of Government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths.

Does systems governance work? No, it doesn't. The fallacies of the system far outweigh any benefit (of which none is known) derived therefrom.

Systems government, while proffered as the cure for the ills of mankind, is the product of self-indulgent minds striving for power and position ... governance by the few over the many for the benefit of the few ... the old feudal system. It didn't work in the Dark Ages, it most certainly won't work now even though the trappings have changed.

The Delphi Technique — What Is It?

The Delphi Technique was originally conceived as a way to obtain the opinion of experts without necessarily bringing them together face to face. In recent times, however, it has taken on an all new meaning and purpose. In Educating for the New World Order by B. Eakman, the reader finds reference upon reference for the need to preserve the illusion that there is "…lay, or community, participation (in the decision-making process), while lay citizens were, in fact, being squeezed out." The Delphi Technique is the method being used to squeeze citizens out of the process, effecting a left-wing take over of the schools.

A specialized use of this technique was developed for teachers, the "Alinsky Method" (ibid, p.123). The setting or group is, however, immaterial; the point is that people in groups tend to share a certain knowledge base and display certain identifiable characteristics (known as group dynamics). This allows for a special application of a basic technique.

The change agent or facilitator goes through the motions of acting as an organizer, getting each person in the target group to elicit expression of their concerns about a program, project, or policy in question. The facilitator listens attentively, forms "task forces," "urges everyone to make lists," and so on. While s/he is doing this, the facilitator learns something about each member of the target group. S/He identifies the "leaders," the "loud mouths," as well as those who frequently turn sides during the argument — the "weak or noncommittal".

Suddenly, the amiable facilitator becomes "devil's advocate." S/He dons his professional agitator hat. Using the "divide and conquer" technique, s/he manipulates one group opinion against the other. This is accomplished by manipulating those who are out of step to appear "ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inarticulate, or dogmatic." S/He wants certain members of the group to become angry, thereby forcing tensions to accelerate. The facilitator is well trained in psychological manipulation. S/He is able to predict the reactions of each group member. Individuals in opposition to the policy or program will be shut out of the group.

The method works. It is very effective with parents, teachers, school children, and any community group. The "targets" rarely, if ever, know that they are being manipulated. Or, if they suspect this is happening, do not know how to end the process.

The desired result is for group polarization, and for the facilitator to become accepted as a member of the group and group process. S/He will then throw the desired idea on the table and ask for opinions during discussion. Very soon his/her associates from the divided group begin to adopt the idea as if it were their own, and pressure the entire group to accept the proposition.

This technique is a very unethical method of achieving consensus on a controversial topic in group settings. It requires well-trained professionals who deliberately escalate tension amon