UNESCO’s inhuman new world order philosophy

UNESCO is the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. It’s so wide-ranging that it allows the UN to get its hands on everything everywhere. You may have heard that it’s taken control of some of our national parks.

UN Smoky Mountains Natl Park

What’s with the ankh, an Egyptian religious symbol? The photo is from an article at sodahead.com, which lists 21 sites the US has handed over to the UN.

However, in this post I want to inform you about UNESCO’s “working philosophy”, which was written by its first director, Julian Huxley, elder brother of Aldous Huxley.

According to Wikipedia, Huxley was an evolutionary biologist, an internationalist, and a eugenicist. The UN knew who he was and what he believed when they chose him to develop a philosophy that represents the UN’s goals. His paper, “UNESCO its purpose and its philosophy”, is in the UNESCO archives.

Although it was written in 1946, the paper helped me to better understand what’s happening in the world today. Therefore, I offer these excerpts:

Unesco—the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation—is by its title committed to two sets of aims. In the first place, it is international, and must serve the ends and objects of the United Nations, which in the long perspective are world ends, ends for humanity as a whole. And secondly it must foster and promote all aspects of education, science, and culture, in the widest sense of those words (p.5).

He quotes from UNESCO’s constitution:

‘Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed…peace must…be founded…upon the intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind’ (p.5).

In the forefront is set Unesco’s collaboration in ‘the work of advancing the mutual knowledge and understanding of peoples, through all means of mass communications,’ and in the obtaining of international agreements ‘necessary to promote the free flow of ideas by word and image’ (p.6).

And finally we have the enormous scope of the third head, to ‘maintain, increase and diffuse knowledge.’ The methods here listed are, first ‘the conservation and protection of the world’s inheritance of books, works of art and monuments of history and science’; secondly ‘co-operation among the nations in all branches of intellectual activity,’ which is to include ‘the international exchange of persons active in the fields of education, science and culture,’ and also ‘the exchange of publications, objects of artistic and scientific interest, and other materials of information’; and thirdly the initiation of ‘methods of international co-operation calculated to give the peoples of all countries access to the printed and published materials produced by any of them (p.6).

This brought to mind the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that’s been in the news recently. The official statement from the TPP delegates:

For all TPP countries, an ambitious, comprehensive and high-standard agreement that achieves the goals established in Honolulu in 2011 is critical for creating jobs and promoting growth, providing opportunity for our citizens and contributing to regional integration and the strengthening of the multilateral trading system.

They always make it sound like it’s for our own good, but it always ends up in restricting our freedom.

Back to Huxley:

The general philosophy of Unesco should, it seems, be a scientific world humanism, global in extent and evolutionary in background (p.8).

The philosophy of Unesco must have an evolutionary background, and…the concept of progress cannot but occupy a central position in that philosophy (p.12).

Unesco must constantly be testing its policies against the touchstone of evolutionary progress (p.13).

It always comes down to reducing the population:

The analysis of evolutionary progress gives us certain criteria for judging the rightness or wrongness of our aims and activities, and the desirability or otherwise of the tendencies to be noted in contemporary history—tendencies of which Unesco must take account. The mere increase of our control over nature is not to be valued for itself, yet appears to be a necessary foundation for future progress. Put in a way more closely affecting Unesco’s programme, research may be perverted and its material applications may be over-valued…Thus the application of medical science may increase the number of human beings in a given area but lower their quality or their opportunities for enjoyment of life (p.12).

And one world government:

The more united man’s tradition becomes, the more rapid will be the possibility of progress…And secondly, that the best and only certain way of securing this will be through political unification (p.13).

The moral for Unesco is clear. The task laid upon it of promoting peace and security can never be wholly realized through the means assigned to it—education, science and culture. It must envisage some form of world political unity, whether through a single world government or otherwise, as the only certain means for avoiding war (p.13).

According to Huxley, UNESCO’s role in global unification is education, “to lay the foundations on which world political unity can later be built.” That’s done through eliminating nationalism and controlling media:

[UNESCO] is expressly charged to concern itself also with the spread of information through all media (p.25).

However, as you read through Huxley’s paper, it’s clear that his main concern is eugenics. That’s very important for us to remember. These are the words of the man the UN chose to develop UNESCO’s working philosophy:

There is one other general implication of the fact of evolutionary progress, which Unesco must take into account—the importance of quality as against quantity (p.14).

There is…an optimum range of size for every human organization, as for every type of organism…there is an optimum range of human population density, and of total population in the world (p.15).

The encouragement of variety of genius, of quality in general, however incomprehensible to the multitude, must be one of the major aims of Unesco (p.15).

He further states:

The evolution of man…is quite a different process, operating by the essentially social method of cumulative tradition, and manifesting itself primarily in the development of societies, instead of in the genetic nature of the individuals composing them. And this at once makes it equally obvious that the opposed thesis of unrestricted individualism is equally erroneous (p.16).

The human individual is, quite strictly, meaningless in isolation; he only acquires significance in relation to some form of society (p.16).

Did you catch that? “The human individual is…meaningless in isolation.” He subsequently states:

Accordingly, although political unification in some sort of world government will be required for the definitive attainment of this stage, unification in the things of the mind is not only also necessary but can pave the way for other types of unification (p.17).

This is why Phil Robertson is not allowed to state his beliefs on homosexuality – because in the minds of the elite, human evolution is only possible if we all think the same. It’s also why Oprah said old racists ‘just have to die’ to further racial progress.

Huxley on human evolution:

Social mechanisms must be constructed in the right way if they are to provide the basis for realizing the right values (p.18).

Special attention should consequently be given by Unesco to the problem of constructing a unified pool of tradition for the human species as a whole. This…must include the unity-in-variety of the world’s art and culture as well as the promotion of a single pool of scientific knowledge. But it must also eventually include a unified common outlook and a common set of purposes. This will be the latest part of the task of unifying the world mind (p.17).

It will be impossible for humanity to acquire a common outlook if large sections of it are the illiterate inhabitants of a mental world entirely different from that in which a fully educated man can have his being, a world of superstition and petty tribalism in place of one of scientific advance and possible unity (p.17).

Above all else, Huxley is a eugenicist:

Concretely, genetic human inequality is of two types. First, there is the inequality of mere differences. Some people are fair, others dark…Secondly, there is difference in quality or level. Human beings are not equal in respect of various desirable qualities. Some are strong, others weak…It is therefore of the greatest importance to preserve human variety (p.19).

Every encouragement should be given to the study of distinct psycho-physical types…they will be of great value in job selection…we shall then be enabled to lay down that certain types of men should be debarred from holding certain types of positions (p.20).

Already considerable progress has been made…in fitting the right man to the right job—notably by the Selection Boards for officers which were set up during the late war (p.20).

Whereas variety is in itself desirable, the existence of weaklings, fools, and moral deficients cannot but be bad. It is also much harder to reconcile politically with the current democratic doctrine of equality. In fact of it, indeed, the principle of equality of opportunity must be amended to read ‘equality of opportunity within the limits of aptitude’ (p.20).

According to the philosophy UNESCO chose to adopt, there is inequality in difference of skin color and their goal is to have their people choose jobs for others. However, to what jobs will “weaklings, fools, and moral deficients” be assigned? Would it not be easier to eliminate them and therefore not have to deal with inequality?

Here’s Huxley:

It seems likely that the dead weight of genetic stupidity, physical weakness, mental instability, and disease-proneness, which already exist in the human species, will prove too great a burden for real progress to be achieved (p.21).

Thus even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for Unesco to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable (p.21).

Was it easier to for them to just go ahead and eliminate us without our consent, or even our knowledge? Is that what chemtrails, vaccinations, and GMO foods are all about?

As I stated at the beginning of this post, UNESCO’s reach is over everything:

Science not in the sense of mathematical and natural sciences, ‘but as broadly as possible, to cover all the primarily intellectual activities of man, the whole range of knowledge and learning’ (pp.25-6).

[Culture] can be employed in the broadest sense of all, the anthropological or sociological one, as denoting the entire material and mental apparatus characteristic of a particular society (p.26).

No other United Nations agency deals with the important question of seeing that the arts are properly and fully applied, or that provision is made for satisfying man’s need for aesthetic enjoyment, whether of scenery and natural beauty, of the everyday furniture of life, of buildings and cities, or of great works of art and music and literature. Nor is any other agency concerning itself with such important applications of the sciences as the disciplining of the mind to produce so-called mystical experience and other high degrees of spiritual satisfaction; or with the application of psychology to the technique of government, or to preventing the abuse or the exploitation of democracy (p.28).

They even want control of our spiritual experiences!

Have you wondered why Common Core has been pushed on us?

Since the world to-day is in process of becoming one, and since a major aim of Unesco must be to help in the speedy and satisfactory realization of this process, that Unesco must pay special attention to international education—to education as a function of world society, in addition to its functions in relation to national societies, to regional or religious or intellectual groups, or to local communities (p.29-30).

Again, if you want equality, is it easier to raise standards or lower them?

More of Huxley on education:

Those who can profit by working for a university degree of the present type constitute only a proportion of the population…for the remainder to attempt it is waste of their own youth, of the time and talents of university teachers, and of public money (p.32).

In addition, he states, “It will obviously be for Unesco to help in working out the requirements, both in content and methods, of this new type of higher education” – in which higher education will be different for those with higher and lower IQs. He also envisions using “deep psychology” in education, which would mean “an extension of education backwards from the nursery school to the nursery itself” (p.33).

Does God and/or religion have a role in UNESCO’s plans?

The scientific method has firmly established itself as the only reliable means by which we can increase both our knowledge of and our control over objective natural phenomena (p.34).

Science in Unesco’s programme…must be taken to include all aspects of the pursuit and application of organized knowledge of phenomena…this implies the rejection of purely dogmatic authority, whether of tradition or revelation, and the cessation of reliance primarily on erudition or pure reason, let alone hearsay or anecdote (p.34).

Science…is by its nature opposed to dogmatic orthodoxies and to the claims of authority (p.35).

[Science] produces an ever-increasing body of tested knowledge which is permanent and irrefutable (p.36).

Unesco…cannot and must not tolerate the blocking of research or the hampering of its application by superstition or theological prejudice. It must disregard or, if necessary, oppose unscientific or anti-scientific movements, such as anti-vivisectionism, fundamentalism, belief in miracles, crude spiritualism, etc (p.37).

On the other hand:

[UNESCO] should pay special attention to seeing that borderline fields, especially those neglected by orthodox or organized science, are properly explored. As one example, we may take what is not generally called parapsychology—the study of unusual and at the moment, scientifically inexplicable properties of the mind, such as extra-sensory perception of various kinds. The painstaking researches of one or two recent workers in this unpopular field seem to have established the reality of some degree not only of extra-sensory knowledge, but of pre-cognition. It is urgent that these phenomena should be thoroughly investigated so that a new and more comprehensive framework of knowledge may be erected (p.37).

Is a “conspiracy theory” to believe that governments are studying these sorts of things when the UN suggests that they should?

Huxley then focuses on his favorite subject, eugenics:

It is, however, essential that eugenics should be brought entirely within the borders of science, for, as already indicated, in the not very remote future the problem of improving the average quality of human beings is likely to become urgent; and this can only be accomplished by applying the findings of a truly scientific eugenics (pp.37-8).

The application of genetics in eugenics immediately raises the question of values—what qualities should we desire to encourage in the human beings of the future? (p.38).

With this in mind, he turns to ethics:

Unesco cannot be neutral in the face of competing values [but] will be guided by the philosophy of evolutionary humanism (p.39).

It will accordingly relate its ethical values to the discernible direction of evolution, using the fact of biological progress as their foundation, and shaping the superstructure to fit the principles of social advance (p.40).

There is nothing immutable and eternal about ethics, yet there are still ethical values which are general and lasting—namely those which promote a social organization which will allow individuals the fullest opportunity for development and self-expression consonant with the persistence and the progress of society (p. 40).

Our ethical systems to-day are still largely predicated on a pre-scientific and nationally fragmented world (p.40).

Their values and ethics are good, general and lasting. Ours, especially if we are Christians, are outdated and bad.

Remember the take-over of our national parks?

The recognition of the fact that the wild life of the world is irreplaceable, but that it is being rapidly destroyed, is necessary if we are to realize in time that areas must be set aside where, in the ultimate interest of mankind as a whole, the spread of man must take second place to the conservation of other species (p.45).

They accomplished that. Have you been to a traveling museum exhibit? That was their idea, as are the more naturalistic settings of modern zoos (p.56). Do you think they’ll accomplish the following?

The recognition of the idea of an optimum population-size (of course relative to technological and social conditions) is an indispensable first step towards that planned control of populations which is necessary if man’s blind reproductive urges are not to wreck his ideals and his plans for material and spiritual betterment (p.45).

Huxley then compares government to a body’s central nervous system and calls for a study of the “machinery of government” to…what? We can only infer that Huxley believes that government should control every aspect of society, down to the equivalent of the smallest cell.

He then made this statement:

Art has important social functions. It can serve to express, as no other medium can do, the spirit of a society, its ideas and purposes, its traditions and its hopes (p.49).

What does that tell us about the Denver airport?

Denver Airport

He further stated:

We must also study the problem of the young artist—first how he is to be made to feel not only a vital part of his community, but in some degree its mouthpiece (p.54).

Every country has not woken up to the need, in our complex modern world, of public relations, which is but a new name for propaganda (p.54).

Art is necessary as part of the technique, since for most people art alone can effectively express the intangibles, and add the driving force of emotion to the cold facts of information (p.54).

He continues:

Taking the techniques of persuasion and information and true propaganda that we have learnt to apply nationally in war, and deliberately bending them to the international tasks of peace, if necessary utilising them, as Lenin envisaged, to ‘overcome the resistance of millions’ to desirable change. Using drama to reveal reality and art as the method by which, in Sir Stephen Tallent’s words, ‘truth becomes impressive and a living principle of action,’ and aiming to produce that concerted effort which, to quote Grierson once more, needs a background of faith and a sense of destiny. This must be a mass philosophy, a mass creed, and it can never be achieved without the use of the media of mass communication (p.60).

Just think of our popular media. What are they indoctrinating us with? Violence, sex, vulgarity – it’s pure evil.

Finally, here is his summation of UNESCO’s goals:

The task before Unesco is necessary, is opportune, and, in spite of all multiplicity of detail, is single.

That task is to help the emergence of a single world culture, with its own philosophy and background of ideas, and with its own broad purpose. This is opportune, since this is the first time in history that the scaffolding and the mechanisms for world unification have become available, and also the first time that man has had the means (in the shape of scientific discovery and its applications) of laying a world-wide foundation for the minimum physical welfare of the entire human species (p.61).

Huxley warns of the dangers of “uncompromising and intolerant” dogmas and suggests that differences

can be reconciled along the lines of some such evolutionary humanism…in which, though the full development of the individual is recognized as the central aim and criterion of further evolutionary progress, the proper organization of society is recognized as the indispensable mechanism of that progress (p.62).

Put another way, society as such embodies no values comparable to those embodied in individuals; but individuals are meaningless except in relation to the community (though that community transcends the nation in space and in time) and can only achieve fullest self-development by self-transcendence, by interpenetration of the self with other reality, including other selves (p.62).

There you have it. This is the philosophy of the new world order, just as “conspiracy theorists” have said, but here it is in their own words.

2 thoughts on “UNESCO’s inhuman new world order philosophy”

  1. He’s a new,age humanist. Worshiping the earth and using it,as an idol. Totally out of control and taking his instructions from Satan?
    Satan is using humans to carry out his destination to be greater than God.
    Judgement comes swiftly.
    Philip. Smith


    1. With all the strange and evil things happening (CERN allegedly opening portals, celebrities enacting satanic rituals, etc, etc, etc), even a long-suffering God will reach His limit (not the limit of His patience, but of creation’s suffering), just as in the days of Noah. Maranatha.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s